A company selects candidates for a management trainee position based on the…
2025
A company selects candidates for a management trainee position based on the following conditions:
Have a post-graduate degree in commerce with 65% marks, or must be a Chartered Accountant (C.A.).
As on 31.12.2018, must not be more than 28 years and not less than 22 years old.
Must be able to speak English.
Must deposit Rs. 15,000 with the company before the training.
Must sign a contract to work for at least 2 years with the company.
Must have secured 60% marks in the trainee entrance exam.
However, if the candidate satisfies all the above conditions except condition 1, he/she should be referred to the General Manager of the company. If the candidate satisfies all the above conditions except condition 4, he/she should be referred to the Director of the company.
Read the information given above carefully and decide the course of action to be taken in the following case.
Varun has completed his post-graduation in commerce and scored 62% marks. He can fluently speak English. He can pay the full deposit amount and is ready to sign the 2-year agreement with the company. He also has the recommendation of the senior manager of the company.
- A.
Not to be selected for management trainee
- B.
To be selected for management trainee
- C.
Data insufficient
- D.
To be referred to the General Manager
Show answer & explanation
Correct answer: C
In a selection decision-table question, a candidate qualifies for direct selection only when every stated condition is satisfied. When the passage carves out an exception for exactly one named condition, failing only that one condition (with every other condition confirmed true) does not mean rejection - it means referral to the authority named for that exception. If the facts needed to confirm the exception's remaining conditions are never given, the case cannot be resolved with certainty, and the only sound conclusion is that the data is insufficient.
Condition 1 (65% marks or C.A.): Varun scored 62%, and he is not stated to be a C.A. - this condition fails.
Condition 2 (age 22-28 as on 31.12.2018): the passage never states Varun's date of birth or age - this condition is not verifiable from the facts given.
Condition 3 (speaks English): confirmed true - he can fluently speak English.
Condition 4 (deposits Rs. 15,000): confirmed true - he can pay the full deposit.
Condition 5 (signs a 2-year contract): confirmed true - he is ready to sign the agreement.
Condition 6 (60% in the entrance exam): the passage never mentions his entrance-exam score - this condition is not verifiable either.
Except-condition-4 rule (refer to Director): this rule requires condition 4 to be the one that fails while everything else holds. Condition 4 is actually satisfied here, so this rule's own trigger never fires - it is ruled out.
Except-condition-1 rule (refer to General Manager): this rule requires condition 1 to be the one that fails while conditions 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 all hold. Condition 1 does fail, and conditions 3, 4 and 5 are confirmed - but conditions 2 and 6 are never stated, so whether this rule's remaining requirement is met cannot be confirmed.
Testing both possibilities for the two unstated facts settles which outcomes are actually in play: if conditions 2 and 6 both turn out to hold, condition 1 is the only one that fails, and the General-Manager exception applies in full - a GM referral. If either condition 2 or condition 6 turns out to fail, more than just condition 1 is unmet, and neither exception rule (each designed for exactly one named condition failing) can apply - the case then reduces to a plain rejection, exactly as condition 1 failing alone (with no exception in play) would. So the outcome flips between a GM referral and a plain rejection purely depending on facts the passage never supplies.
The facts given are not enough to determine Varun's outcome with certainty - the correct response is that the data is insufficient.