All Courses
Explore Courses UPSC Exam UPSC Test Series Free Notes EduRev Infinity Get the App Login Join for Free
Sign in Open App
CAT Exam  >  CAT Questions  >   Given below is given statement followed by t... Start Learning for Free
SaveJoin the Discussion on the App
Given below is given statement followed by two courses of action numbered I ,II and III. A course of action is a step or administrative decision to be taken for improvement, follow-up or further action in regard to the problems, policy, etc.. on the basis of the information given in the statement. You have to assume everything in the statement to be true, then decide which of the given suggested courses of action logically follows pursuing.
Q. Statement: Government has spoiled many top ranking financial institutes by appointing bureaucrats as Directors of these institutions.
Conclusions: I. Government should appoint Directors of the financial institutes taking into consideration the expertise of the person in the area of finance.
II. The Director of the financial institute should have expertise commensurate with the financial work carried out by the institute.
  • a)
    only I follows ;
  • b)
    only II follows ;
  • c)
    both I and II follows ;
  • d)
    neither I nor II follows ;
Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?
FREE This question is part of
Download PDF Attempt Test
Download PDF Attempt this Test
Most Upvoted Answer
Given below is given statement followed by two courses of action numb...
According to the given statement, the government has spoiled many top ranking financial institutes by appointing bureaucrats as Directors of these institutions as they won't be having expertise commensurate with the financial work carried out by the institute. Hence, they should appoint those people who have the required eligibility for the designation. Hence, answer will be C.
Attention CAT Students!
To make sure you are not studying endlessly, EduRev has designed CAT study material, with Structured Courses, Videos, & Test Series. Plus get personalized analysis, doubt solving and improvement plans to achieve a great score in CAT.
< Previous Question Next Question >
Explore Courses for CAT exam

Similar CAT Doubts

Group QuestionAnswer the following question based on the information given below.Indias GDP per capita (in terms of purchasing power parity) almost doubled between 2007 and 2016, from $3,587 to $6,599. Growth slowed after the 2008 crisis, hitting a decade low in 2012-2013. But if anything, this provided the country with the opportunity to rethink its policies and engage more firmly in the reforms necessary to improve its competitiveness. Growth rebounded in 2014, and in 2015 surpassed that of China.Indias overall competitiveness score was rather stagnant between 2007 and 2014, and the country slipped down the rankings in the Global Competitiveness Report as others made improvements.However, improvements since 2014 have seen it climb to 39th in this years edition of the report - up from 48th in 2007-2008. Its overall score improved by 0.19 points in that time.Improvements in health, primary education and infrastructurecontributed most to this improvement - although this is partly explained by the relatively large weight these basic requirements components have until now been given in factor-driven economies, each accounting for 15% of the final score.Improvements in infrastructure were small and faltering until 2014, when the government increased public investment and accelerated approval procedures to attract private resources. Macroeconomic conditions - the third-biggest positive contributor - followed a similar path: the recent slump in commodity prices has helped India to keep inflation below its target of 5%, while rebalancing its current account and decreasing its public deficit. Another improvement over the past decade has been increased market size (the adoption of new PPP estimates by the IMF in 2014 also contributed to the upward increase in the measure of market size used in the GCI).In other areas, India has not yet recovered to 2007 levels, with the biggest shortfall coming in financial market development - this pillar taking 0.03 points off Indias 2016 score in comparison to 2007 (a reduced pillar score of 0.52 points, multiplied by a pillar weight of 6%). The Reserve Bank of India has helped increase financial market transparency, shedding light on the large amounts of non-performing loans previously not reported on the balance sheets of Indian banks. However, the banks have not yet found a way to sell these assets, and in some cases need large recapitalizations.The efficiency of the goods market has also deteriorated, as India failed to address long-running problems such as different local sales and value added taxes (this is set to finally change as of 2017 if the Central GST and Integrated GST bills currently in parliament are fully implemente d). Another area of concern is Indias stagnating performance in technological readiness, a pillar on which it scores one full point lower than any other. These three pillars will be key for India to prosper in its next stage of development, when it will no longer be possible to base its competitiveness on low-cost, abundant labour. Higher education and training has also shown no improvement.Q. Indias overall competitiveness score was rather stagnant 3 bet ween 2007 and 2014, and the country slipped down the rankings in the Global Competitiveness Report as others made improvements. We can be inferred from the above statement that

When people react to their experiences with particular authorities, those authorities and the organizations or institutions that they represent often benefit if the people involved begin with high levels of commitment to the organization or institution represented by the authorities. First, in his studies of people's attitudes toward political and legal institutions, Tyler found that attitudes after an experience with the institution were strongly affected by prior attitudes. Single experiences influence post experience loyalty but certainly do not overwhelm the relationship between pre-experience and post experience loyalty. Thus, the best predictor of loyalty after an experience is usually loyalty before that experience. Second, people with prior loyalty to the organization or institution judge their dealings with the organization's or institution's authorities to be fairer than do those with less prior loyalty, either because they are more fairly treated or because they interpret equivalent treatment as fairer.Although high levels of prior organizational or institutional commitment are generally beneficial to the organization or institution, under certain conditions high levels of prior commitment may actually sow the seeds of reduced commitment. When previously committed individuals feel that they were treated unfavourably or unfairly during some experience with the organization or institution, they may show an especially sharp decline in commitment. Two studies were designed to test this hypothesis, which, if confirmed, would suggest that organizational or institutional commitment has risks, as well as benefits. At least three psychological models offer predictions of how individuals' reactions may vary as a function of (1) their prior level of commitment and (2) the favorability of the encounter with the organization or institution. Favorability of the encounter is determined by the outcome of the encounter and the fairness or appropriateness of the procedures used to allocate outcomes during the encounter. First, the instrumental prediction is that because people are mainly concerned with receiving desired outcomes from their encounters with organizations, changes in their level of commitment will depend primarily on the favorability of the encounter. Second, the assimilation prediction is that individuals' prior attitudes predispose them to react in a way that is consistent with their prior attitudes.The third prediction, derived from the group-value model of justice, pertains to how people with high prior commitment will react when they feel that they have been treated unfavorably or unfairly during some encounter with the organization or institution. Fair treatment by the other party symbolizes to people that they are being dealt with in a dignified and respectful way, thereby bolstering their sense of self-identity and self-worth. However, people will become quite distressed and react quite negatively if they feel that they have been treated unfairly by the other party to the relationship. The group-value model suggests that people value the information they receive that helps them to define themselves and to view themselves favorably. According to the instrumental viewpoint, people are primarily concerned with the more material or tangible resources received from the relationship. Empirical support for the group-value model has implications for a variety of important issues, including the determinants of commitment, satisfaction, organizational citizenship, and rule following. Determinants of procedural fairness include structural or interpersonal factors. For example, structural determinants refer to such things as whether decisions were made by neutral, fact-finding authorities who used legitimate decision-making criteria. The primary purpose of the study was to examine the interactive effect of individuals (1) commitment to an organization or institution prior to some encounter and (2) perceptions of how fairly they were treated during the encounter, on the change in their level of commitment. A basic assumption of the group-value model is that people generally value their relationships with people, groups, organizations, and institutions and therefore value fair treatment from the other party to the relationship. Specifically, highly committed members should have especially negative reactions to feeling that they were treated unfairly, more so than (1) less-committed group members or (2) highly committed members who felt that they were fairly treated.The prediction that people will react especially negatively when they previously felt highly committed but felt that they were treated unfairly also is consistent with the literature on psychological contracts. Rousseau suggested that, over time, the members of work organizations develop feelings of entitlement, i.e., perceived obligations that their employers have toward them. Those who are highly committed to the organization believe that they are fulfilling their contract obligations. However, if the organization acted unfairly, then highly committed individuals are likely to believe that the organization did not live up to its end of the bargain.For summarizing the passage, which of the following is most appropriate

When people react to their experiences with particular authorities, those authorities and the organizations or institutions that they represent often benefit if the people involved begin with high levels of commitment to the organization or institution represented by the authorities. First, in his studies of people's attitudes toward political and legal institutions, Tyler found that attitudes after an experience with the institution were strongly affected by prior attitudes. Single experiences influence post experience loyalty but certainly do not overwhelm the relationship between pre-experience and post experience loyalty. Thus, the best predictor of loyalty after an experience is usually loyalty before that experience.Second, people with prior loyalty to the organization or institution judge their dealings with the organization's or institution's authorities to be fairer than do those with less prior loyalty, either because they are more fairly treated or because they interpret equivalent treatment as fairer.Although high levels of prior organizational or institutional commitment are generally beneficial to the organization or institution, under certain conditions high levels of prior commitment may actually sow the seeds of reduced commitment. When previously committed individuals feel that they were treated unfavourably or unfairly during some experience with the organization or institution, they may show an especially sharp decline in commitment. Two studies were designed to test this hypothesis, which, if confirmed, would suggest that organizational or institutional commitment has risks, as well as benefits. At least three psychological models offer predictions of how individuals' reactions may vary as a function of (1) their prior level of commitment and (2) the favorability of the encounter with the organization or institution. Favorability of the encounter is determined by the outcome of the encounter and the fairness or appropriateness of the procedures used to allocate outcomes during the encounter. First, the instrumental prediction is that because people are mainly concerned with receiving desired outcomes from their encounters with organizations, changes in their level of commitment will depend primarily on the favorability of the encounter. Second, the assimilation prediction is that individuals' prior attitudes predispose them to react in a way that is consistent with their prior attitudes.The third prediction, derived from the group-value model of justice, pertains to how people with high prior commitment will react when they feel that they have been treated unfavorably or unfairly during some encounter with the organization or institution. Fair treatment by the other party symbolizes to people that they are being dealt with in a dignified and respectful way, thereby bolstering their sense of self-identity and self worth. However, people will become quite distressed and react quite negatively if they feel that they have been treated unfairly by the other party to the relationship. The group-value model suggests that people value the information they receive that helps them to define themselves and to view themselves favorably. According to the instrumental viewpoint, people are primarily concerned with the more material or tangible resources received from the relationship. Empirical support for the group-value model has implications for a variety of important issues, including the determinants of commitment, satisfaction, organizational citizenship, and rule following. Determinants of procedural fairness include structural or interpersonal factors. For example, structural determinants refer to such things as whether decisions were made by neutral, fact finding authorities who used legitimate decision making criteria. The primary purpose of the study was to examine the interactive effect of individuals (1) commitment to an organization or institution prior to some encounter and (2) perceptions of how fairly they were treated during the encounter, on the change in their level of commitment. A basic assumption of the group-value model is that people generally value their relationships with people, groups, organizations, and institutions and therefore value fair treatment from the other party to the relationship. Specifically, highly committed members should have especially negative reactions to feeling that they were treated unfairly, more so than (1) less-committed group members or (2) highly committed members who felt that they were fairly treated.The prediction that people will react especially negatively when they previously felt highly committed but felt that they were treated unfairly also is consistent with the literature on psychological contracts. Rousseau suggested that, over time, the members of work organizations develop feelings of entitlement, i.e., perceived obligations that their employers have toward them. Those who are highly committed to the organization believe that they are fulfilling their contract obligations. However, if the organization acted unfairly, then highly committed individuals are likely to believe that the organization did not live up to its end of the bargain.For summarizing the passage, which of the following is most appropriate

When people react to their experiences with particular authorities, those authorities and the organizations or institutions that they represent often benefit if the people involved begin with high levels of commitment to the organization or institution represented by the authorities. First, in his studies of people's attitudes toward political and legal institutions, Tyler found that attitudes after an experience with the institution were strongly affected by prior attitudes. Single experiences influence post experience loyalty but certainly do not overwhelm the relationship between pre-experience and post experience loyalty. Thus, the best predictor of loyalty after an experience is usually loyalty before that experience. Second, people with prior loyalty to the organization or institution judge their dealings with the organization's or institution's authorities to be fairer than do those with less prior loyalty, either because they are more fairly treated or because they interpret equivalent treatment as fairer.Although high levels of prior organizational or institutional commitment are generally beneficial to the organization or institution, under certain conditions high levels of prior commitment may actually sow the seeds of reduced commitment. When previously committed individuals feel that they were treated unfavourably or unfairly during some experience with the organization or institution, they may show an especially sharp decline in commitment. Two studies were designed to test this hypothesis, which, if confirmed, would suggest that organizational or institutional commitment has risks, as well as benefits. At least three psychological models offer predictions of how individuals' reactions may vary as a function of (1) their prior level of commitment and (2) the favorability of the encounter with the organization or institution. Favorability of the encounter is determined by the outcome of the encounter and the fairness or appropriateness of the procedures used to allocate outcomes during the encounter. First, the instrumental prediction is that because people are mainly concerned with receiving desired outcomes from their encounters with organizations, changes in their level of commitment will depend primarily on the favorability of the encounter. Second, the assimilation prediction is that individuals' prior attitudes predispose them to react in a way that is consistent with their prior attitudes.The third prediction, derived from the group-value model of justice, pertains to how people with high prior commitment will react when they feel that they have been treated unfavorably or unfairly during some encounter with the organization or institution. Fair treatment by the other party symbolizes to people that they are being dealt with in a dignified and respectful way, thereby bolstering their sense of self-identity and self-worth. However, people will become quite distressed and react quite negatively if they feel that they have been treated unfairly by the other party to the relationship. The group-value model suggests that people value the information they receive that helps them to define themselves and to view themselves favorably. According to the instrumental viewpoint, people are primarily concerned with the more material or tangible resources received from the relationship. Empirical support for the group-value model has implications for a variety of important issues, including the determinants of commitment, satisfaction, organizational citizenship, and rule following. Determinants of procedural fairness include structural or interpersonal factors. For example, structural determinants refer to such things as whether decisions were made by neutral, fact-finding authorities who used legitimate decision-making criteria. The primary purpose of the study was to examine the interactive effect of individuals (1) commitment to an organization or institution prior to some encounter and (2) perceptions of how fairly they were treated during the encounter, on the change in their level of commitment. A basic assumption of the group-value model is that people generally value their relationships with people, groups, organizations, and institutions and therefore value fair treatment from the other party to the relationship. Specifically, highly committed members should have especially negative reactions to feeling that they were treated unfairly, more so than (1) less-committed group members or (2) highly committed members who felt that they were fairly treated.The prediction that people will react especially negatively when they previously felt highly committed but felt that they were treated unfairly also is consistent with the literature on psychological contracts. Rousseau suggested that, over time, the members of work organizations develop feelings of entitlement, i.e., perceived obligations that their employers have toward them. Those who are highly committed to the organization believe that they are fulfilling their contract obligations. However, if the organization acted unfairly, then highly committed individuals are likely to believe that the organization did not live up to its end of the bargain.There is only one term in the left column which matches with the options given in the second column. Identify the correct pair from the following table

When people react to their experiences with particular authorities, those authorities and the organizations or institutions that they represent often benefit if the people involved begin with high levels of commitment to the organization or institution represented by the authorities. First, in his studies of people's attitudes toward political and legal institutions, Tyler found that attitudes after an experience with the institution were strongly affected by prior attitudes. Single experiences influence post experience loyalty but certainly do not overwhelm the relationship between pre-experience and post experience loyalty. Thus, the best predictor of loyalty after an experience is usually loyalty before that experience. Second, people with prior loyalty to the organization or institution judge their dealings with the organization's or institution's authorities to be fairer than do those with less prior loyalty, either because they are more fairly treated or because they interpret equivalent treatment as fairer.Although high levels of prior organizational or institutional commitment are generally beneficial to the organization or institution, under certain conditions high levels of prior commitment may actually sow the seeds of reduced commitment. When previously committed individuals feel that they were treated unfavorably or unfairly during some experience with the organization or institution, they may show an especially sharp decline in commitment. Two studies were designed to test this hypothesis, which, if confirmed, would suggest that organizational or institutional commitment has risks, as well as benefits. At least three psychological models offer predictions of how individuals' reactions may vary as a function of (1) their prior level of commitment and (2) the favorability of the encounter with the organization or institution. Favorability of the encounter is determined by the outcome of the encounter and the fairness or appropriateness of the procedures used to allocate outcomes during the encounter. First, the instrumental prediction is that because people are mainly concerned with receiving desired outcomes from their encounters with organizations, changes in their level of commitmentwill depend primarily on the favorability of the encounter. Second, the assimilation prediction is that individuals' prior attitudes predispose them to react in a way that is consistent with their prior attitudes.The third prediction, derived from the group-value model of justice, pertains to how people with high prior commitment will react when they feel that they have been treated unfavorably or unfairly during some encounter with the organization or institution. Fair treatment by the other party symbolizes to people that they are being dealt with in a dignified and respectful way, thereby bolstering their sense of self-identity and self-worth. However, people will become quite distressed and react quite negatively if they feel that they have been treated unfairly by the other party to the relationship. The group-value model suggests that people value the information they receive that helps them to define themselves and to view themselves favorably. According to the instrumental viewpoint, people are primarily concerned with the more material or tangible resources received from the relationship. Empirical support for the group-value model has implications for a variety of important issues, including the determinants of commitment, satisfaction, organizational citizenship, and rule following. Determinants of procedural fairness include structural or interpersonal factors. For example, structural determinants refer to such things as whether decisions were made by neutral, fact-finding authorities who used legitimate decision-making criteria. The primary purpose of the study was to examine the interactive effect of individuals (1) commitment to an organization or institution prior to some encounter and (2) perceptions of how fairly they were treated during the encounter, on the change in their level of commitment. A basic assumption of the group-value model is that people generally value their relationships with people, groups, organizations, and institutions and therefore value fair treatment from the other party to the relationship. Specifically, highly committed members should have especially negative reactions to feeling that they were treated unfairly, more so than (1) less-committed group members or (2) highly committed members who felt that they were fairly treated.The prediction that people will react especially negatively when they previously felt highly committed but felt that they were treated unfairly also is consistent with the literature on psychological contracts. Rousseau suggested that, over time, the members of work organizations develop feelings of entitlement, i.e., perceived obligations that their employers have toward them. Those who are highly committed to the organization believe that they are fulfilling their contract obligations. However, if the organization acted unfairly, then highly committed individuals are likely to believe that the organization did not live up to its end of the bargain.The hypothesis mentioned in the passage tests at least one of the following ideas.

Top Courses for CATView all

Top Courses for CAT

Given below is given statement followed by two courses of action numbered I ,II and III. A course of action is a step or administrative decision to be taken for improvement, follow-up or further action in regard to the problems, policy, etc.. on the basis of the information given in the statement. You have to assume everything in the statement to be true, then decide which of the given suggested courses of action logically follows pursuing.Q. Statement: Government has spoiled many top ranking financial institutes by appointing bureaucrats as Directors of these institutions.Conclusions: I. Government should appoint Directors of the financial institutes taking into consideration the expertise of the person in the area of finance.II. The Director of the financial institute should have expertise commensurate with the financial work carried out by the institute.a)only I follows ;b)only II follows ;c)both I and II follows ;d)neither I nor II follows ;Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?
Question Description
Given below is given statement followed by two courses of action numbered I ,II and III. A course of action is a step or administrative decision to be taken for improvement, follow-up or further action in regard to the problems, policy, etc.. on the basis of the information given in the statement. You have to assume everything in the statement to be true, then decide which of the given suggested courses of action logically follows pursuing.Q. Statement: Government has spoiled many top ranking financial institutes by appointing bureaucrats as Directors of these institutions.Conclusions: I. Government should appoint Directors of the financial institutes taking into consideration the expertise of the person in the area of finance.II. The Director of the financial institute should have expertise commensurate with the financial work carried out by the institute.a)only I follows ;b)only II follows ;c)both I and II follows ;d)neither I nor II follows ;Correct 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 Given below is given statement followed by two courses of action numbered I ,II and III. A course of action is a step or administrative decision to be taken for improvement, follow-up or further action in regard to the problems, policy, etc.. on the basis of the information given in the statement. You have to assume everything in the statement to be true, then decide which of the given suggested courses of action logically follows pursuing.Q. Statement: Government has spoiled many top ranking financial institutes by appointing bureaucrats as Directors of these institutions.Conclusions: I. Government should appoint Directors of the financial institutes taking into consideration the expertise of the person in the area of finance.II. The Director of the financial institute should have expertise commensurate with the financial work carried out by the institute.a)only I follows ;b)only II follows ;c)both I and II follows ;d)neither I nor II follows ;Correct 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 Given below is given statement followed by two courses of action numbered I ,II and III. A course of action is a step or administrative decision to be taken for improvement, follow-up or further action in regard to the problems, policy, etc.. on the basis of the information given in the statement. You have to assume everything in the statement to be true, then decide which of the given suggested courses of action logically follows pursuing.Q. Statement: Government has spoiled many top ranking financial institutes by appointing bureaucrats as Directors of these institutions.Conclusions: I. Government should appoint Directors of the financial institutes taking into consideration the expertise of the person in the area of finance.II. The Director of the financial institute should have expertise commensurate with the financial work carried out by the institute.a)only I follows ;b)only II follows ;c)both I and II follows ;d)neither I nor II follows ;Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?.
Solutions for Given below is given statement followed by two courses of action numbered I ,II and III. A course of action is a step or administrative decision to be taken for improvement, follow-up or further action in regard to the problems, policy, etc.. on the basis of the information given in the statement. You have to assume everything in the statement to be true, then decide which of the given suggested courses of action logically follows pursuing.Q. Statement: Government has spoiled many top ranking financial institutes by appointing bureaucrats as Directors of these institutions.Conclusions: I. Government should appoint Directors of the financial institutes taking into consideration the expertise of the person in the area of finance.II. The Director of the financial institute should have expertise commensurate with the financial work carried out by the institute.a)only I follows ;b)only II follows ;c)both I and II follows ;d)neither I nor II follows ;Correct 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 Given below is given statement followed by two courses of action numbered I ,II and III. A course of action is a step or administrative decision to be taken for improvement, follow-up or further action in regard to the problems, policy, etc.. on the basis of the information given in the statement. You have to assume everything in the statement to be true, then decide which of the given suggested courses of action logically follows pursuing.Q. Statement: Government has spoiled many top ranking financial institutes by appointing bureaucrats as Directors of these institutions.Conclusions: I. Government should appoint Directors of the financial institutes taking into consideration the expertise of the person in the area of finance.II. The Director of the financial institute should have expertise commensurate with the financial work carried out by the institute.a)only I follows ;b)only II follows ;c)both I and II follows ;d)neither I nor II follows ;Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of Given below is given statement followed by two courses of action numbered I ,II and III. A course of action is a step or administrative decision to be taken for improvement, follow-up or further action in regard to the problems, policy, etc.. on the basis of the information given in the statement. You have to assume everything in the statement to be true, then decide which of the given suggested courses of action logically follows pursuing.Q. Statement: Government has spoiled many top ranking financial institutes by appointing bureaucrats as Directors of these institutions.Conclusions: I. Government should appoint Directors of the financial institutes taking into consideration the expertise of the person in the area of finance.II. The Director of the financial institute should have expertise commensurate with the financial work carried out by the institute.a)only I follows ;b)only II follows ;c)both I and II follows ;d)neither I nor II follows ;Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for Given below is given statement followed by two courses of action numbered I ,II and III. A course of action is a step or administrative decision to be taken for improvement, follow-up or further action in regard to the problems, policy, etc.. on the basis of the information given in the statement. You have to assume everything in the statement to be true, then decide which of the given suggested courses of action logically follows pursuing.Q. Statement: Government has spoiled many top ranking financial institutes by appointing bureaucrats as Directors of these institutions.Conclusions: I. Government should appoint Directors of the financial institutes taking into consideration the expertise of the person in the area of finance.II. The Director of the financial institute should have expertise commensurate with the financial work carried out by the institute.a)only I follows ;b)only II follows ;c)both I and II follows ;d)neither I nor II follows ;Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of Given below is given statement followed by two courses of action numbered I ,II and III. A course of action is a step or administrative decision to be taken for improvement, follow-up or further action in regard to the problems, policy, etc.. on the basis of the information given in the statement. You have to assume everything in the statement to be true, then decide which of the given suggested courses of action logically follows pursuing.Q. Statement: Government has spoiled many top ranking financial institutes by appointing bureaucrats as Directors of these institutions.Conclusions: I. Government should appoint Directors of the financial institutes taking into consideration the expertise of the person in the area of finance.II. The Director of the financial institute should have expertise commensurate with the financial work carried out by the institute.a)only I follows ;b)only II follows ;c)both I and II follows ;d)neither I nor II follows ;Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice Given below is given statement followed by two courses of action numbered I ,II and III. A course of action is a step or administrative decision to be taken for improvement, follow-up or further action in regard to the problems, policy, etc.. on the basis of the information given in the statement. You have to assume everything in the statement to be true, then decide which of the given suggested courses of action logically follows pursuing.Q. Statement: Government has spoiled many top ranking financial institutes by appointing bureaucrats as Directors of these institutions.Conclusions: I. Government should appoint Directors of the financial institutes taking into consideration the expertise of the person in the area of finance.II. The Director of the financial institute should have expertise commensurate with the financial work carried out by the institute.a)only I follows ;b)only II follows ;c)both I and II follows ;d)neither I nor II follows ;Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CAT tests.
Explore Courses for CAT exam

Top Courses for CAT

Explore Courses

Suggested Free Tests

Signup for Free!
Signup to see your scores go up within 7 days! Learn & Practice with 1000+ FREE Notes, Videos & Tests.
10M+ students study on EduRev
Get App
© EduRev
Education Revolution
Follow Us
Signup to see your scores go up within 7 days!
Access 1000+ FREE Docs, Videos and Tests
Takes less than 10 seconds to signup