Analyse the following caselet and answer the questions that follow:Indian Institute of Research is a Government-established body to promote research. In addition to helping in policy making, it also provides free online access to all the articles to the public. It has a mission of publishing high quality research articles. Till 2010, the publication of articles was very slow because there was no incentive for researchers to publish. Researchers stuck to the mandatory one article a year. Most of the researchers engaged in offering consultancy and earned extra income. Since its inception, the institute was considered the best place for cutting edge research. The new director of the institute was not happy with the work done by researchers in silo and came out with a new research policy in 2013 to increase research output and improve collaboration among researchers. It was decided that extra benefits would be offered to researchers with new publications. As a result, the number of research articles increased fourfold in 2014. At the 2015 annual audit, an objection was raised against the new benefits scheme. Auditors were not happy with increased expenses towards remuneration for researchers. Further, the Government opined that the publication was itself a reward and hence researchers need be paid nothing extra. The director tried to defend his policy but the response from the government was not encouraging.The following facts were observed by an analytics team hired by the government to study the extant situation.1. There was a four-fold increase in the number of researchers leaving the organization in 2014.2. A researcher died while on duty.3. The quality of articles published declined substantially.4. The average number of people accessing an article decreased by 2%.Q. Which of the following options would justify the governments intention to DISCONTINUE the scheme?a)1 and 2b)2 and 3c)3 onlyd)4 onlye)3 and 4Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?

EduRev

All Courses

Explore Courses UPSC Exam UPSC Test Series Free Notes EduRev Infinity

Open App

CAT Exam > CAT Questions > Analyse the following caselet and answer the ...

Join the Discussion on the App

Analyse the following caselet and answer the questions that follow:

Indian Institute of Research is a Government-established body to promote research. In addition to helping in policy making, it also provides free online access to all the articles to the public. It has a mission of publishing high quality research articles. Till 2010, the publication of articles was very slow because there was no incentive for researchers to publish. Researchers stuck to the mandatory one article a year. Most of the researchers engaged in offering consultancy and earned extra income. Since its inception, the institute was considered the best place for cutting edge research. The new director of the institute was not happy with the work done by researchers in silo and came out with a new research policy in 2013 to increase research output and improve collaboration among researchers. It was decided that extra benefits would be offered to researchers with new publications. As a result, the number of research articles increased fourfold in 2014. At the 2015 annual audit, an objection was raised against the new benefits scheme. Auditors' were not happy with increased expenses towards remuneration for researchers. Further, the Government opined that the publication was itself a reward and hence researchers need be paid nothing extra. The director tried to defend his policy but the response from the government was not encouraging.

The following facts were observed by an analytics team hired by the government to study the extant situation.

1. There was a four-fold increase in the number of researchers leaving the organization in 2014.

2. A researcher died while on duty.

3. The quality of articles published declined substantially.

4. The average number of people accessing an article decreased by 2%.

Q. Which of the following options would justify the government's intention to DISCONTINUE the scheme?

a)
1 and 2
b)
2 and 3
c)
3 only
d)
4 only
e)
3 and 4

Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?

FREE This question is part of

XAT 2016: LR DI

Attempt Test

Attempt this Test

Verified Answer

Analyse the following caselet and answer the questions that follow:Ind...

Fact 1 cannot be the reason as a substantial increase in attrition is irrelevant for the government to take a decision regarding the quality of the scheme. Fact 2 cannot be the reason as one researcher could have died because of other reasons. Fact 3 corroborates the government’s reason for not equating publications with rewards (the quality of articles published has decreased). Fact 4 cannot be the reason as 2% decrease is not substantial enough. Hence the only possible answer is fact 3 making C as right choice.

View all questions of this test

View all answers Start learning for free

< Previous Question Next Question >

Explore Courses for CAT exam

Similar CAT Doubts

Analyse the following caselet and answer the questions that follow:Indian Institute of Research is a Government-established body to promote research. In addition to helping in policy making, it also provides free online access to all the articles to the public. It has a mission of publishing high quality research articles. Till 2010, the publication of articles was very slow because there was no incentive for researchers to publish. Researchers stuck to the mandatory one article a year. Most of the researchers engaged in offering consultancy and earned extra income. Since its inception, the institute was considered the best place for cutting edge research. The new director of the institute was not happy with the work done by researchers in silo and came out with a new research policy in 2013 to increase research output and improve collaboration among researchers. It was decided that extra benefits would be offered to researchers with new publications. As a result, the number of research articles increased fourfold in 2014. At the 2015 annual audit, an objection was raised against the new benefits scheme. Auditors were not happy with increased expenses towards remuneration for researchers. Further, the Government opined that the publication was itself a reward and hence researchers need be paid nothing extra. The director tried to defend his policy but the response from the government was not encouraging.The director still wanted to persuade the government to review its stand. He had framed the following arguments:1. Most famous researchers in the world are also the highest paid.2. American institute of research gives extra benefits to its scientists.3. This years highest paid researcher had won the Nobel Prize last year.Q. Considering the Government to be reasonable which of the following options is UNLIKELY to convince the Government?

View answer

Analyse the following caselet and answer the questions that follow:Indian Institute of Research is a Government-established body to promote research. In addition to helping in policy making, it also provides free online access to all the articles to the public. It has a mission of publishing high quality research articles. Till 2010, the publication of articles was very slow because there was no incentive for researchers to publish. Researchers stuck to the mandatory one article a year. Most of the researchers engaged in offering consultancy and earned extra income. Since its inception, the institute was considered the best place for cutting edge research. The new director of the institute was not happy with the work done by researchers in silo and came out with a new research policy in 2013 to increase research output and improve collaboration among researchers. It was decided that extra benefits would be offered to researchers with new publications. As a result, the number of research articles increased fourfold in 2014. At the 2015 annual audit, an objection was raised against the new benefits scheme. Auditors were not happy with increased expenses towards remuneration for researchers. Further, the Government opined that the publication was itself a reward and hence researchers need be paid nothing extra. The director tried to defend his policy but the response from the government was not encouraging.The director wanted to promote good decision making at Indian Institute of Research. A few trusted colleagues offered the following suggestions:1. Auditors need not be allowed to object to extra benefits schemes.2. Auditors need not pin-point sudden increase in expenditure.3. Auditors need not be consulted before taking any policy level decision.Q. Which of the following combination of options should the director agree THE MOST with?

View answer

Answer the questions based on the passage given below.Collaboration is taking over the workplace. As business becomes increasingly global and cross-functional, silos are breaking down, connectivity is increasing, and teamwork is seen as a key to organizational success. Certainly, we find much to applaud in these developments.However, when consumption of a valuable resource spikes that dramatically, it should also give us pause. Consider a typical week in your own organization. How much time do people spend in meetings, on the phone, and responding to e-mails? At many companies the proportion hovers around 80%, leaving employees little time for all the critical work they must complete on their own. Performance suffers as they are buried under an avalanche of requests for input or advice, access to resources, or attendance at a meeting. They take assignments home, and soon, according to a large body of evidence on stress, burnout and turnover become real risks. As a recent study led by Ning Li, of the University of Iowa, shows, a single “extra miler”-an employee who frequently contributes beyond the scope of his or her role-can drive team performance more than all the other members combined.But this “escalating citizenship,” as the University of Oklahoma professor Mark Bolino calls it, only further fuels the demands placed on top collaborators. We find that what starts as a virtuous cycle soon turns vicious. Soon helpful employees become institutional bottlenecks: Work doesn’t progress until they’ve weighed in. Worse, they are so overtaxed that they’re no longer personally effective. And more often than not, the volume and diversity of work they do to benefit others goes unnoticed, because the requests are coming from other units, varied offices, or even multiple companies. In fact, when we use network analysis to identify the strongest collaborators in organizations, leaders are typically surprised by at least half the names on their lists. In our quest to reap the rewards of collaboration, we have inadvertently created open markets for it without recognizing the costs. First, it’s important to distinguish among the three types of “collaborative resources” that individual employees invest in others to create value: informational, social, and personal. Informational resources are knowledge and skills—expertise that can be recorded and passed on. Social resources involve one’s awareness, access, and position in a network, which can be used to help colleagues better collaborate with one another. Personal resources include one’s own time and energy.These three resource types are not equally efficient. Informational and social resources can be shared—often in a single exchange—without depleting the collaborator’s supply. That is, when I offer you knowledge or network awareness, I also retain it for my own use. But an individual employee’s time and energy are finite, so each request to participate in or approve decisions for a project leaves less available for that person’s own work.Unfortunately, personal resources are often the default demand when people want to collaborate. Instead of asking for specific informational or social resources—or better yet, searching in existing repositories such as reports or knowledge libraries—people ask for hands-on assistance they may not even need. An exchange that might have taken five minutes or less turns into a 30-minute calendar invite that strains personal resources on both sides of the request.Collaboration is indeed the answer to many of today’s most pressing business challenges. But more isn’t always better. Leaders must learn to recognize, promote, and efficiently distribute the right kinds of collaborative work, or their teams and top talent will bear the costs of too much demand for too little supply. In fact, we believe that the time may have come for organizations to hire chief collaboration officers. By creating a senior executive position dedicated to collaboration, leaders can send a clear signal about the importance of managing teamwork thoughtfully and provide the resources necessary to do it effectively. That might reduce the odds that the whole becomes far less than the sum of its parts.Q. Which of the following is the most appropriate title for the passage?

View answer

Group QuestionAnswer the questions based on the passage given below.Collaboration is taking over the workplace. As business becomes increasingly global and cross-functional, silos are breaking down, connectivity is increasing, and teamwork is seen as a key to organizational success. Certainly, we find much to applaud in these developments.However, when consumption of a valuable resource spikes that dramatically, it should also give us pause. Consider a typical week in your own organization. How much time do people spend in meetings, on the phone, and responding to e-mails? At many companies the proportion hovers around 80%, leaving employees little time for all the critical work they must complete on their own. Performance suffers as they are buried under an avalanche of requests for input or advice, access to resources, or attendance at a meeting. They take assignments home, and soon, according to a large body of evidence on stress, burnout and turnover become real risks. As a recent study led by Ning Li, of the University of Iowa, shows, a single extra miler-an employee who frequently contributes beyond the scope of his or her role-can drive team performance more than all the other members combined.But this escalating citizenship, as the University of Oklahoma professor Mark Bolino calls it, only further fuels the demands placed on top collaborators. We find that what starts as a virtuous cycle soon turns vicious. Soon helpful employees become institutional bottlenecks: Work doesnt progress until theyve weighed in. Worse, they are so overtaxed that theyre no longer personally effective. And more often than not, the volume and diversity of work they do to benefit others goes unnoticed, because the requests are coming from other units, varied offices, or even multiple companies. In fact, when we use network analysis to identify the strongest collaborators in organizations, leaders are typically surprised by at least half the names on their lists. In our quest to reap the rewards of collaboration, we have inadvertently created open markets for it without recognizing the costs. First, its important to distinguish among the three types of collaborative resources that individual employees invest in others to create value: informational, social, and personal. Informational resources are knowledge and skillsexpertise that can be recorded and passed on. Social resources involve ones awareness, access, and position in a network, which can be used to help colleagues better collaborate with one another. Personal resources include ones own time and energy.These three resource types are not equally efficient. Informational and social resources can be sharedoften in a single exchangewithout depleting the collaborators supply. That is, when I offer you knowledge or network awareness, I also retain it for my own use. But an individual employees time and energy are finite, so each request to participate in or approve decisions for a project leaves less available for that persons own work.Unfortunately, personal resources are often the default demand when people want to collaborate. Instead of asking for specific informational or social resourcesor better yet, searching in existing repositories such as reports or knowledge librariespeople ask for hands-on assistance they may not even need. An exchange that might have taken five minutes or less turns into a 30-minute calendar invite that strains personal resources on both sides of the request.Collaboration is indeed the answer to many of todays most pressing business challenges. But more isnt always better. Leaders must learn to recognize, promote, and efficiently distribute the right kinds of collaborative work, or their teams and top talent will bear the costs of too much demand for too little supply. In fact, we believe that the time may have come for organizations to hire chief collaboration officers. By creating a senior executive position dedicated to collaboration, leaders can send a clear signal about the importance of managing teamwork thoughtfully and provide the resources necessary to do it effectively. That might reduce the odds that the whole becomes far less than the sum of its parts.Q. Which of the following is the most appropriate title for the passage?

View answer

Answer the questions based on the passage given below.Collaboration is taking over the workplace. As business becomes increasingly global and cross-functional, silos are breaking down, connectivity is increasing, and teamwork is seen as a key to organizational success. Certainly, we find much to applaud in these developments.However, when consumption of a valuable resource spikes that dramatically, it should also give us pause. Consider a typical week in your own organization. How much time do people spend in meetings, on the phone, and responding to e-mails? At many companies the proportion hovers around 80%, leaving employees little time for all the critical work they must complete on their own. Performance suffers as they are buried under an avalanche of requests for input or advice, access to resources, or attendance at a meeting. They take assignments home, and soon, according to a large body of evidence on stress, burnout and turnover become real risks. As a recent study led by Ning Li, of the University of Iowa, shows, a single “extra miler”-an employee who frequently contributes beyond the scope of his or her role-can drive team performance more than all the other members combined.But this “escalating citizenship,” as the University of Oklahoma professor Mark Bolino calls it, only further fuels the demands placed on top collaborators. We find that what starts as a virtuous cycle soon turns vicious. Soon helpful employees become institutional bottlenecks: Work doesn’t progress until they’ve weighed in. Worse, they are so overtaxed that they’re no longer personally effective. And more often than not, the volume and diversity of work they do to benefit others goes unnoticed, because the requests are coming from other units, varied offices, or even multiple companies. In fact, when we use network analysis to identify the strongest collaborators in organizations, leaders are typically surprised by at least half the names on their lists. In our quest to reap the rewards of collaboration, we have inadvertently created open markets for it without recognizing the costs. First, it’s important to distinguish among the three types of “collaborative resources” that individual employees invest in others to create value: informational, social, and personal. Informational resources are knowledge and skills—expertise that can be recorded and passed on. Social resources involve one’s awareness, access, and position in a network, which can be used to help colleagues better collaborate with one another. Personal resources include one’s own time and energy.These three resource types are not equally efficient. Informational and social resources can be shared—often in a single exchange—without depleting the collaborator’s supply. That is, when I offer you knowledge or network awareness, I also retain it for my own use. But an individual employee’s time and energy are finite, so each request to participate in or approve decisions for a project leaves less available for that person’s own work.Unfortunately, personal resources are often the default demand when people want to collaborate. Instead of asking for specific informational or social resources—or better yet, searching in existing repositories such as reports or knowledge libraries—people ask for hands-on assistance they may not even need. An exchange that might have taken five minutes or less turns into a 30-minute calendar invite that strains personal resources on both sides of the request.Collaboration is indeed the answer to many of today’s most pressing business challenges. But more isn’t always better. Leaders must learn to recognize, promote, and efficiently distribute the right kinds of collaborative work, or their teams and top talent will bear the costs of too much demand for too little supply. In fact, we believe that the time may have come for organizations to hire chief collaboration officers. By creating a senior executive position dedicated to collaboration, leaders can send a clear signal about the importance of managing teamwork thoughtfully and provide the resources necessary to do it effectively. That might reduce the odds that the whole becomes far less than the sum of its parts.Q. According to the author, which of the following “collaborative resources” can be shared often in a single exchange?

View answer

Top Courses for CATView all

Quantitative Aptitude (Quant)

Crash Course for CAT

CAT Mock Test Series 2024

Mock Test Series for SNAP

Mock Test Series for XAT

Top Courses for CAT

View all

Analyse the following caselet and answer the questions that follow:Indian Institute of Research is a Government-established body to promote research. In addition to helping in policy making, it also provides free online access to all the articles to the public. It has a mission of publishing high quality research articles. Till 2010, the publication of articles was very slow because there was no incentive for researchers to publish. Researchers stuck to the mandatory one article a year. Most of the researchers engaged in offering consultancy and earned extra income. Since its inception, the institute was considered the best place for cutting edge research. The new director of the institute was not happy with the work done by researchers in silo and came out with a new research policy in 2013 to increase research output and improve collaboration among researchers. It was decided that extra benefits would be offered to researchers with new publications. As a result, the number of research articles increased fourfold in 2014. At the 2015 annual audit, an objection was raised against the new benefits scheme. Auditors were not happy with increased expenses towards remuneration for researchers. Further, the Government opined that the publication was itself a reward and hence researchers need be paid nothing extra. The director tried to defend his policy but the response from the government was not encouraging.The following facts were observed by an analytics team hired by the government to study the extant situation.1. There was a four-fold increase in the number of researchers leaving the organization in 2014.2. A researcher died while on duty.3. The quality of articles published declined substantially.4. The average number of people accessing an article decreased by 2%.Q. Which of the following options would justify the governments intention to DISCONTINUE the scheme?a)1 and 2b)2 and 3c)3 onlyd)4 onlye)3 and 4Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?

Share with a Friend

Answer this doubt

Question Description
Analyse the following caselet and answer the questions that follow:Indian Institute of Research is a Government-established body to promote research. In addition to helping in policy making, it also provides free online access to all the articles to the public. It has a mission of publishing high quality research articles. Till 2010, the publication of articles was very slow because there was no incentive for researchers to publish. Researchers stuck to the mandatory one article a year. Most of the researchers engaged in offering consultancy and earned extra income. Since its inception, the institute was considered the best place for cutting edge research. The new director of the institute was not happy with the work done by researchers in silo and came out with a new research policy in 2013 to increase research output and improve collaboration among researchers. It was decided that extra benefits would be offered to researchers with new publications. As a result, the number of research articles increased fourfold in 2014. At the 2015 annual audit, an objection was raised against the new benefits scheme. Auditors were not happy with increased expenses towards remuneration for researchers. Further, the Government opined that the publication was itself a reward and hence researchers need be paid nothing extra. The director tried to defend his policy but the response from the government was not encouraging.The following facts were observed by an analytics team hired by the government to study the extant situation.1. There was a four-fold increase in the number of researchers leaving the organization in 2014.2. A researcher died while on duty.3. The quality of articles published declined substantially.4. The average number of people accessing an article decreased by 2%.Q. Which of the following options would justify the governments intention to DISCONTINUE the scheme?a)1 and 2b)2 and 3c)3 onlyd)4 onlye)3 and 4Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? for CAT 2024 is part of CAT preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the CAT exam syllabus. Information about Analyse the following caselet and answer the questions that follow:Indian Institute of Research is a Government-established body to promote research. In addition to helping in policy making, it also provides free online access to all the articles to the public. It has a mission of publishing high quality research articles. Till 2010, the publication of articles was very slow because there was no incentive for researchers to publish. Researchers stuck to the mandatory one article a year. Most of the researchers engaged in offering consultancy and earned extra income. Since its inception, the institute was considered the best place for cutting edge research. The new director of the institute was not happy with the work done by researchers in silo and came out with a new research policy in 2013 to increase research output and improve collaboration among researchers. It was decided that extra benefits would be offered to researchers with new publications. As a result, the number of research articles increased fourfold in 2014. At the 2015 annual audit, an objection was raised against the new benefits scheme. Auditors were not happy with increased expenses towards remuneration for researchers. Further, the Government opined that the publication was itself a reward and hence researchers need be paid nothing extra. The director tried to defend his policy but the response from the government was not encouraging.The following facts were observed by an analytics team hired by the government to study the extant situation.1. There was a four-fold increase in the number of researchers leaving the organization in 2014.2. A researcher died while on duty.3. The quality of articles published declined substantially.4. The average number of people accessing an article decreased by 2%.Q. Which of the following options would justify the governments intention to DISCONTINUE the scheme?a)1 and 2b)2 and 3c)3 onlyd)4 onlye)3 and 4Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for CAT 2024 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for Analyse the following caselet and answer the questions that follow:Indian Institute of Research is a Government-established body to promote research. In addition to helping in policy making, it also provides free online access to all the articles to the public. It has a mission of publishing high quality research articles. Till 2010, the publication of articles was very slow because there was no incentive for researchers to publish. Researchers stuck to the mandatory one article a year. Most of the researchers engaged in offering consultancy and earned extra income. Since its inception, the institute was considered the best place for cutting edge research. The new director of the institute was not happy with the work done by researchers in silo and came out with a new research policy in 2013 to increase research output and improve collaboration among researchers. It was decided that extra benefits would be offered to researchers with new publications. As a result, the number of research articles increased fourfold in 2014. At the 2015 annual audit, an objection was raised against the new benefits scheme. Auditors were not happy with increased expenses towards remuneration for researchers. Further, the Government opined that the publication was itself a reward and hence researchers need be paid nothing extra. The director tried to defend his policy but the response from the government was not encouraging.The following facts were observed by an analytics team hired by the government to study the extant situation.1. There was a four-fold increase in the number of researchers leaving the organization in 2014.2. A researcher died while on duty.3. The quality of articles published declined substantially.4. The average number of people accessing an article decreased by 2%.Q. Which of the following options would justify the governments intention to DISCONTINUE the scheme?a)1 and 2b)2 and 3c)3 onlyd)4 onlye)3 and 4Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?.

Solutions for Analyse the following caselet and answer the questions that follow:Indian Institute of Research is a Government-established body to promote research. In addition to helping in policy making, it also provides free online access to all the articles to the public. It has a mission of publishing high quality research articles. Till 2010, the publication of articles was very slow because there was no incentive for researchers to publish. Researchers stuck to the mandatory one article a year. Most of the researchers engaged in offering consultancy and earned extra income. Since its inception, the institute was considered the best place for cutting edge research. The new director of the institute was not happy with the work done by researchers in silo and came out with a new research policy in 2013 to increase research output and improve collaboration among researchers. It was decided that extra benefits would be offered to researchers with new publications. As a result, the number of research articles increased fourfold in 2014. At the 2015 annual audit, an objection was raised against the new benefits scheme. Auditors were not happy with increased expenses towards remuneration for researchers. Further, the Government opined that the publication was itself a reward and hence researchers need be paid nothing extra. The director tried to defend his policy but the response from the government was not encouraging.The following facts were observed by an analytics team hired by the government to study the extant situation.1. There was a four-fold increase in the number of researchers leaving the organization in 2014.2. A researcher died while on duty.3. The quality of articles published declined substantially.4. The average number of people accessing an article decreased by 2%.Q. Which of the following options would justify the governments intention to DISCONTINUE the scheme?a)1 and 2b)2 and 3c)3 onlyd)4 onlye)3 and 4Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? in English & in Hindi are available as part of our courses for CAT. Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for CAT Exam by signing up for free.

Here you can find the meaning of Analyse the following caselet and answer the questions that follow:Indian Institute of Research is a Government-established body to promote research. In addition to helping in policy making, it also provides free online access to all the articles to the public. It has a mission of publishing high quality research articles. Till 2010, the publication of articles was very slow because there was no incentive for researchers to publish. Researchers stuck to the mandatory one article a year. Most of the researchers engaged in offering consultancy and earned extra income. Since its inception, the institute was considered the best place for cutting edge research. The new director of the institute was not happy with the work done by researchers in silo and came out with a new research policy in 2013 to increase research output and improve collaboration among researchers. It was decided that extra benefits would be offered to researchers with new publications. As a result, the number of research articles increased fourfold in 2014. At the 2015 annual audit, an objection was raised against the new benefits scheme. Auditors were not happy with increased expenses towards remuneration for researchers. Further, the Government opined that the publication was itself a reward and hence researchers need be paid nothing extra. The director tried to defend his policy but the response from the government was not encouraging.The following facts were observed by an analytics team hired by the government to study the extant situation.1. There was a four-fold increase in the number of researchers leaving the organization in 2014.2. A researcher died while on duty.3. The quality of articles published declined substantially.4. The average number of people accessing an article decreased by 2%.Q. Which of the following options would justify the governments intention to DISCONTINUE the scheme?a)1 and 2b)2 and 3c)3 onlyd)4 onlye)3 and 4Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of Analyse the following caselet and answer the questions that follow:Indian Institute of Research is a Government-established body to promote research. In addition to helping in policy making, it also provides free online access to all the articles to the public. It has a mission of publishing high quality research articles. Till 2010, the publication of articles was very slow because there was no incentive for researchers to publish. Researchers stuck to the mandatory one article a year. Most of the researchers engaged in offering consultancy and earned extra income. Since its inception, the institute was considered the best place for cutting edge research. The new director of the institute was not happy with the work done by researchers in silo and came out with a new research policy in 2013 to increase research output and improve collaboration among researchers. It was decided that extra benefits would be offered to researchers with new publications. As a result, the number of research articles increased fourfold in 2014. At the 2015 annual audit, an objection was raised against the new benefits scheme. Auditors were not happy with increased expenses towards remuneration for researchers. Further, the Government opined that the publication was itself a reward and hence researchers need be paid nothing extra. The director tried to defend his policy but the response from the government was not encouraging.The following facts were observed by an analytics team hired by the government to study the extant situation.1. There was a four-fold increase in the number of researchers leaving the organization in 2014.2. A researcher died while on duty.3. The quality of articles published declined substantially.4. The average number of people accessing an article decreased by 2%.Q. Which of the following options would justify the governments intention to DISCONTINUE the scheme?a)1 and 2b)2 and 3c)3 onlyd)4 onlye)3 and 4Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for Analyse the following caselet and answer the questions that follow:Indian Institute of Research is a Government-established body to promote research. In addition to helping in policy making, it also provides free online access to all the articles to the public. It has a mission of publishing high quality research articles. Till 2010, the publication of articles was very slow because there was no incentive for researchers to publish. Researchers stuck to the mandatory one article a year. Most of the researchers engaged in offering consultancy and earned extra income. Since its inception, the institute was considered the best place for cutting edge research. The new director of the institute was not happy with the work done by researchers in silo and came out with a new research policy in 2013 to increase research output and improve collaboration among researchers. It was decided that extra benefits would be offered to researchers with new publications. As a result, the number of research articles increased fourfold in 2014. At the 2015 annual audit, an objection was raised against the new benefits scheme. Auditors were not happy with increased expenses towards remuneration for researchers. Further, the Government opined that the publication was itself a reward and hence researchers need be paid nothing extra. The director tried to defend his policy but the response from the government was not encouraging.The following facts were observed by an analytics team hired by the government to study the extant situation.1. There was a four-fold increase in the number of researchers leaving the organization in 2014.2. A researcher died while on duty.3. The quality of articles published declined substantially.4. The average number of people accessing an article decreased by 2%.Q. Which of the following options would justify the governments intention to DISCONTINUE the scheme?a)1 and 2b)2 and 3c)3 onlyd)4 onlye)3 and 4Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of Analyse the following caselet and answer the questions that follow:Indian Institute of Research is a Government-established body to promote research. In addition to helping in policy making, it also provides free online access to all the articles to the public. It has a mission of publishing high quality research articles. Till 2010, the publication of articles was very slow because there was no incentive for researchers to publish. Researchers stuck to the mandatory one article a year. Most of the researchers engaged in offering consultancy and earned extra income. Since its inception, the institute was considered the best place for cutting edge research. The new director of the institute was not happy with the work done by researchers in silo and came out with a new research policy in 2013 to increase research output and improve collaboration among researchers. It was decided that extra benefits would be offered to researchers with new publications. As a result, the number of research articles increased fourfold in 2014. At the 2015 annual audit, an objection was raised against the new benefits scheme. Auditors were not happy with increased expenses towards remuneration for researchers. Further, the Government opined that the publication was itself a reward and hence researchers need be paid nothing extra. The director tried to defend his policy but the response from the government was not encouraging.The following facts were observed by an analytics team hired by the government to study the extant situation.1. There was a four-fold increase in the number of researchers leaving the organization in 2014.2. A researcher died while on duty.3. The quality of articles published declined substantially.4. The average number of people accessing an article decreased by 2%.Q. Which of the following options would justify the governments intention to DISCONTINUE the scheme?a)1 and 2b)2 and 3c)3 onlyd)4 onlye)3 and 4Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice Analyse the following caselet and answer the questions that follow:Indian Institute of Research is a Government-established body to promote research. In addition to helping in policy making, it also provides free online access to all the articles to the public. It has a mission of publishing high quality research articles. Till 2010, the publication of articles was very slow because there was no incentive for researchers to publish. Researchers stuck to the mandatory one article a year. Most of the researchers engaged in offering consultancy and earned extra income. Since its inception, the institute was considered the best place for cutting edge research. The new director of the institute was not happy with the work done by researchers in silo and came out with a new research policy in 2013 to increase research output and improve collaboration among researchers. It was decided that extra benefits would be offered to researchers with new publications. As a result, the number of research articles increased fourfold in 2014. At the 2015 annual audit, an objection was raised against the new benefits scheme. Auditors were not happy with increased expenses towards remuneration for researchers. Further, the Government opined that the publication was itself a reward and hence researchers need be paid nothing extra. The director tried to defend his policy but the response from the government was not encouraging.The following facts were observed by an analytics team hired by the government to study the extant situation.1. There was a four-fold increase in the number of researchers leaving the organization in 2014.2. A researcher died while on duty.3. The quality of articles published declined substantially.4. The average number of people accessing an article decreased by 2%.Q. Which of the following options would justify the governments intention to DISCONTINUE the scheme?a)1 and 2b)2 and 3c)3 onlyd)4 onlye)3 and 4Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CAT tests.

Explore Courses for CAT exam