Question 1

Situation–Reaction (Home Safety – Repeated Scenario) You are alone at home, there is risk of thieves around, and you hear a knock at the door. What should you do first?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This repeats a home security scenario. The principle remains: verify identity without compromising safety. Given Data / Assumptions: You are alone. Threat environment is elevated. Concept / Approach: Visual verification before opening; do not disclose you are alone; contact help if suspicious. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) Use peephole/window/intercom.2) Confirm identity and purpose.3) Refuse entry and call help if unsure. Verification / Alternative check: Balances courtesy and safety. Why Other Options Are Wrong: (A) Unsafe.(C) Impractical for legitimate visitors.(D) No servant; also unsafe delegation. Common Pitfalls: Unlatching chains early, oversharing. Final Answer: Peep from a secure window or peephole and open only if you recognise the person.

Question 2

Situation–Reaction (Electrical Safety) While playing at a friend’s home, your friend is stuck to a live, bare electric wire. What is the safest immediate action?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Electric shocks can be fatal. Rescuer safety comes first. Given Data / Assumptions: Victim is in contact with a live wire. Power supply is not yet shut off. Non-conductive tools are available. Concept / Approach: Never touch the victim or live wire directly. Break the circuit with an insulator, then provide first aid and call emergency services. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) Cut power if accessible.2) Use a dry wooden stick or other insulator to separate contact.3) Check breathing/pulse; begin CPR if trained; call emergency help. Verification / Alternative check: Prevents rescuer electrocution while aiding victim quickly. Why Other Options Are Wrong: (A) Touching the victim can electrocute you.(B) Touching the live wire is dangerous.(D) Delays lifesaving action. Common Pitfalls: Wet tools, metal objects, panic. Final Answer: Use a dry wooden stick or non-conductive object to separate the wire.

Question 3

Situation–Reaction (Social Etiquette) You are a guest at a dinner. The host urges you to take another chapati, but you are already full. What is the most courteous response?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Hospitality norms value gratitude and clarity. Given Data / Assumptions: You are full. Host insists out of warmth. Concept / Approach: Express appreciation and decline without hurting feelings. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) Thank the host and praise the food.2) Decline gently and propose tea/water instead.3) Maintain a pleasant tone. Verification / Alternative check: Balances honesty and courtesy. Why Other Options Are Wrong: (A) Sounds rude.(B) Discomfort and waste.(D) Disrespectful. Common Pitfalls: Over-explaining, appearing offended. Final Answer: Politely appreciate the meal and decline as you have eaten enough.

Question 4

Situation–Reaction (Fire Safety) At a party you notice your friend’s muffler has caught fire from a candle behind him. What should you do immediately?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Clothing fires require rapid action to prevent burns. Given Data / Assumptions: Fire is small and localised to a muffler. Water or a blanket is accessible. Concept / Approach: Remove the burning item carefully and extinguish by water or smothering to cut oxygen. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) Pull off the muffler swiftly to separate flame from skin.2) Drop on the ground and douse with water or smother with a thick cloth.3) Check for burns and treat. Verification / Alternative check: Immediate extinguishing minimises injury. Why Other Options Are Wrong: (A) Wastes time.(B) Delays action.(D) Throwing away may spread fire. Common Pitfalls: Panic, beating flames with bare hands. Final Answer: Quickly remove the muffler, drop it, and douse the fire with water or smother it.

Question 5

Situation–Reaction (Suspicious Baggage) When you board a train you find a suitcase under your seat with no owner in sight. What should you do?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Unattended baggage can be lost property or a security risk. Given Data / Assumptions: Owner is not present. Railway staff/police are available. Concept / Approach: Do not touch or open suspicious baggage. Inform authorities trained to handle it. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) Avoid handling the suitcase.2) Inform TTE/TTI or RPF/GRP immediately.3) Follow their instructions, move away if asked. Verification / Alternative check: Standard security protocol prioritises safety and proper chain of custody. Why Other Options Are Wrong: (B) Opening may be dangerous and unlawful.(C) Tampering breaks chain of custody.(D) Taking possession is theft. Common Pitfalls: Curiosity, posting on social media instead of informing authorities. Final Answer: Report the matter to the railway police or staff immediately.

Question 6

Situation–Reaction (Civic Help) You see a blind man attempting to cross a busy road. What should you do?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Assisting visually impaired pedestrians enhances safety and dignity. Given Data / Assumptions: Busy road with risk. Person is blind and needs assistance. Concept / Approach: Offer help politely, let them hold your arm, and cross at a safe point following traffic rules. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) Ask consent: “May I help you cross?”2) Guide by offering your elbow; walk slightly ahead.3) Cross at zebra crossing when vehicles stop. Verification / Alternative check: Direct assistance is the most reliable and timely support. Why Other Options Are Wrong: (A) Waiting does not reduce risk.(B) Delegating wastes time.(D) Ignoring is negligent. Common Pitfalls: Pulling without consent, crossing at unsafe points. Final Answer: Go and help him cross safely.

Question 7

Situation–Reaction (Found money on street): While walking down the street, you spot two ₹100 rupee notes lying on the pavement with no obvious owner nearby. What should you do to handle the situation responsibly and lawfully?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Situational judgement questions test practical ethics, civic sense, legality, and risk awareness. Finding money on a public pavement puts you at a decision point that balances moral responsibility with local laws about lost-and-found property. Given Data / Assumptions: The money (two ₹100 notes) is unattended on a public pavement. No owner is immediately identifiable. You have enough time and access to basic civic resources (e.g., a nearby police outpost). Concept / Approach: Best practice for lost-and-found items is to secure the property and report it to lawful authorities so it can be claimed by the rightful owner. Keeping the money creates legal and ethical exposure. Leaving it invites misuse. Donating it still bypasses due process and may be construed as misappropriation. Handing it to the police creates a record and maximizes the chance of rightful recovery. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) Ensure your safety and that the location is secure.2) Pick up the notes to prevent further loss or tampering.3) Walk to the nearest police station or beat booth and file a brief lost-and-found report with time/place details.4) If applicable, obtain an acknowledgment/diary number. Verification / Alternative check: Some jurisdictions allow turning items over to facility security (mall, campus). On a public street, the police remains the appropriate authority. CCTV in the vicinity can later help identify the owner. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Pocket it yourself ignores legality and ethics. Leave it where it is abdicates responsibility. Give the money to a beggar is charitable but still not lawful custody transfer. Common Pitfalls: Believing small amounts “do not matter,” or assuming donation legitimizes possession. Final Answer: Deposit it in the nearest police station.

Question 8

Situation–Reaction (Leaking bathroom tap): Your bathroom tap is leaking and making a constant, irritating noise. What is the most effective and responsible action to take?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: A leaking tap wastes water, raises utility costs, and signals minor maintenance that, if ignored, may worsen. The question probes problem-solving that is sustainable, safe, and practical. Given Data / Assumptions: Tap is leaking continuously. Noise is bothersome (quality-of-life issue). You have routine access to maintenance help. Concept / Approach: The best response addresses root cause rather than masking symptoms. Professional repair (or competent DIY with proper tools) restores functionality, stops wastage, and reduces long-term damage (e.g., mineral stains, dampness, slip hazards). Palliative steps neither solve the leak nor the underlying wear of washers/cartridges. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) Shut the stop valve if possible to limit waste.2) Contact a licensed plumber (or perform a correct fix if skilled), replacing washers/O-rings/cartridge as needed.3) Test for drips; ensure proper sealing and flow. Verification / Alternative check: Temporary measures (bucket/cork) are short-lived and may cause overflows or further damage. Professional repair is predictable and durable. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Sleeping with pillows ignores the problem. Bucket underneath wastes water and is messy. Cork on mouth risks pressure splashbacks and is unsafe. Common Pitfalls: Delaying repairs; underestimating water loss over time. Final Answer: Call a plumber to repair the tap.

Question 9

Situation–Reaction (Tough exam paper): In an examination hall, you find the paper unusually tough. What is the best course of action?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Exams sometimes contain unexpectedly difficult items. This scenario gauges composure, integrity, and tactical test-taking to maximize your score under stress. Given Data / Assumptions: You are already seated in a supervised exam. Paper difficulty is uniformly high; time is limited. Rules against unfair means apply. Concept / Approach: The optimal strategy is to stabilize, triage questions, and secure all marks you can. Complaints or agitation consume time and rarely change outcomes mid-exam. Cheating risks disqualification. Leadership in provoking walkouts is unethical and self-defeating. Calm prioritization (easy-to-hard) boosts accuracy and partial credit. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) Breathe; scan entire paper to identify approachable questions.2) Attempt high-confidence items first; allocate time blocks.3) Show working/steps for partial credit where applicable.4) Revisit harder items if time permits; avoid fixation. Verification / Alternative check: Post-exam, formal feedback channels exist. During the exam, performance optimization is paramount. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Complaining wastes time; provoking a walkout is irresponsible; copying is unethical and risky. Common Pitfalls: Panic loops; spending too long on one question; neglecting easy marks. Final Answer: Solve as much as you can with a cool head.

Question 10

Situation–Reaction (Tea spilled on clothes at office): While having tea in the office, some tea spills on your clothes. What should you do?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Office etiquette and self-reliance are assessed here. Spills are common; the question tests promptness, personal responsibility, and minimal disruption. Given Data / Assumptions: Minor spill on your own clothing. Basic cleaning supplies or tissues are available. No medical harm; only a cleanliness issue. Concept / Approach: Immediate self-cleaning prevents stains, smell, and stickiness. It signals accountability and respect for shared spaces. Delegating trivial personal cleanup or summoning home clothes is disproportionate. Hiding stains neglects hygiene and professionalism. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) Blot (do not rub) with tissue/wet wipes promptly.2) Use a little water/soap at a washbasin if needed; let it air-dry.3) If stain persists and you have a spare garment in the office, change discreetly later. Verification / Alternative check: For strong stains (coffee/oil), a quick dab with mild soap helps; still, the first response is self-managed cleanup. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Calling a peon for a simple personal task is avoidable; hiding stains is unhygienic; fetching clothes is excessive unless there is a meeting/photoshoot imminently. Common Pitfalls: Rubbing vigorously (spreads the stain), delaying cleanup. Final Answer: Wipe off the tea yourself.

Question 11

Situation–Reaction (Visiting an aunt you dislike): Your family plans to visit your aunt, whom you do not particularly like. What is the most balanced and mature response?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This tests emotional maturity, family harmony, and social grace. Dislike does not excuse discourtesy; measured civility preserves relationships and avoids conflict. Given Data / Assumptions: Family expects your participation. No severe safety/abuse concerns—only personal dislike. Short social visit is anticipated. Concept / Approach: Choosing to attend and remain courteous respects family bonds and avoids unnecessary friction. Opting out or sulking outside communicates disrespect and burdens others. Pulling siblings into avoidance spreads negativity. Mature conduct involves boundaries with politeness. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) Accompany family as planned.2) Keep interactions cordial; avoid triggers.3) Limit duration if needed; debrief feelings later with family respectfully. Verification / Alternative check: Where serious conflict exists, a prior discussion with parents/guardians may adjust plans. In ordinary dislike cases, civility is sufficient. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Staying at home may be seen as disrespect. Standing outside is rude and awkward. Convincing siblings to skip escalates tension. Common Pitfalls: Letting temporary emotions dictate public behavior; oversharing grievances in family gatherings. Final Answer: Go and maintain a comfortable, civil rapport.

Question 12

Situation–Reaction (Leadership challenge – hotel branch turnaround): You are a sincere, dedicated manager in a five-star hotel and appointed Chief Manager of the Guwahati branch that needs development; your salary has been hiked. What should you do?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Turnaround roles test leadership, ownership, and resilience. The scenario frames a clear mandate with appropriate recognition (salary hike). The response should signal accountability and proactive planning. Given Data / Assumptions: Branch needs development/turnaround. You have authority and improved compensation. Organizational support is presumed. Concept / Approach: Effective leaders accept mission-critical assignments, align stakeholders, and create plans with milestones and resource mapping. A time-limited “trial” attitude undermines ownership. Exiting for another offer forfeits a high-impact opportunity. Complaining before assessing ground realities signals low leadership maturity. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) Accept the mandate; clarify KPIs (occupancy, RevPAR, guest satisfaction).2) Conduct a 30–60–90 day plan: diagnose operations, people, product, promotion, pricing, partnerships.3) Build a cross-functional team; secure resources and quick wins while planning structural fixes. Verification / Alternative check: Regular reviews with HQ ensure alignment and support. Early wins build credibility. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Two-month trial lacks commitment. Leaving job ignores improved mandate. Cribbing without data erodes trust. Common Pitfalls: Trying to fix everything at once; ignoring frontline insights. Final Answer: Accept the challenge and go ahead with the project.

Question 13

Situation–Reaction (Toxic team culture in new department): Transferred to a new department, you find most staff criticize one another. How should you respond as a responsible professional?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Workplace culture is a performance multiplier. Persistent mutual criticism erodes trust, collaboration, and delivery. The question assesses constructive leadership and change management. Given Data / Assumptions: Criticism is widespread; root causes unknown. You have some influence (even if not formal leadership). No immediate safety/legal violations reported. Concept / Approach: Proactive culture-building beats passivity or gossip. Convening a meeting to agree on norms (respect, feedback channels, conflict resolution) starts repair. Skipping straight to escalation can backfire if you lack evidence or allies. Hunting colleagues’ weaknesses entrenches toxicity. Ignoring issues allows rot to deepen. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) Invite the team to a short retrospective on “how we work.”2) Co-create norms: speak to the person, not about the person; feedback is specific, timely, private; celebrate wins.3) Establish channels for concerns and recognize positive behaviors publicly. Verification / Alternative check: If norms fail or misconduct persists, escalate with documentation. Starting with collaboration preserves goodwill. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Knowing weaknesses fuels gossip. Overlooking signals tolerance for toxicity. Immediate complaint without groundwork may be seen as disruptive. Common Pitfalls: Lecturing instead of facilitating; ignoring power dynamics. Final Answer: Hold a meeting to build a healthier culture.

Question 14

Situation–Reaction (Drowning child; you can swim): You are passing by a river, you know swimming, and you hear a child drowning. What should you do first?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Emergency response hinges on time. In drowning, seconds count. If you are competent at swimming, immediate action can be lifesaving. The problem tests courage, prioritization, and practical rescue awareness. Given Data / Assumptions: You can swim competently. A child is actively drowning nearby. No lifeguard is immediately present. Concept / Approach: First priority is to prevent loss of life. With swimming ability, the fastest safe response is to initiate rescue while calling for help. Ideal practice is “reach/throw—don’t go” if aids (rope, stick, flotation) are available; however, in the absence of aids and with imminent danger, a controlled entry and rescue carry is warranted. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) Shout for help; alert bystanders to call emergency services.2) If flotation/rope is immediately at hand, throw it; otherwise enter the water safely (no head-first dive in unknown depth).3) Approach from behind to avoid being grabbed; use a safe tow hold.4) Bring the child to shore and commence basic life support if needed. Verification / Alternative check: Professional rescuers are ideal but delay is dangerous. Your competence bridges the critical gap until help arrives. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Waiting wastes precious seconds. Looking for divers delays action. Consoling parents addresses emotion but not the emergency. Common Pitfalls: Unsafe entries; letting the victim cling to you frontally; ignoring your limits. Final Answer: Dive into the river to save the child (with due care and calling for help).

Question 15

Situation–Reaction (Employee absence; child was ill): As a manager, an employee missed work because his son was ill. What is the most appropriate response?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: People leadership balances empathy with consistent process. Health emergencies are legitimate; managers should respond humanely while maintaining communication standards. Given Data / Assumptions: Employee’s absence was due to a child’s illness. Notification may not have been timely. Company likely has call-in/leave protocols. Concept / Approach: The best response is compassionate inquiry paired with a clear expectation to inform the team promptly next time. Overly rigid or punitive reactions damage trust. Automatic day off without process reminder may encourage repeat lapses. A measured reminder supports reliability and care simultaneously. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) Ask about the child’s health; acknowledge the difficulty.2) Clarify absence-reporting expectations (call/text/email before shift).3) Offer flexibility within policy (sick leave/comp time) and plan coverage. Verification / Alternative check: Document the conversation briefly for fairness and future reference. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Rigid insistence (option A) ignores genuine emergencies. Strict warning (option C) is disproportionate for a first incident. Automatic day off without expectation setting risks recurrence. Common Pitfalls: Inconsistent enforcement; appearing indifferent to family health. Final Answer: Ask how his son is and advise calling the office in future if he cannot come.

Question 16

Situation–Reaction (Chain snatching witnessed while on scooter): You see two boys on a bike snatch a woman’s gold chain and speed away. What should you do?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Street crimes happen fast. Your response should maximize safety, evidence preservation, and chances of apprehension without endangering yourself or others. Given Data / Assumptions: Offenders on a motorcycle; you are on a scooter. They are fleeing; risk of high-speed chase exists. Police can be alerted quickly (dial emergency number). Concept / Approach: Direct pursuit is dangerous and may escalate harm. The highest-value action is to alert police immediately with specific details: bike type/color, plate number (if any), direction of travel, suspects’ clothing/helmets, time and location. Comforting the victim is humane but secondary to triggering pursuit by authorities. Passive observation is unacceptable. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) Pull over safely; call police immediately.2) Provide precise descriptors and your contact.3) If safe, assist the victim and any witnesses to compile details. Verification / Alternative check: Nearby CCTV, traffic junction cameras, and rapid broadcast can aid interception; timely reporting is crucial. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Chasing risks collision/retaliation. Consoling only delays law enforcement alert. Standing and watching is inaction. Common Pitfalls: Vigilantism; sharing incident on social media before informing police. Final Answer: Inform the police immediately with accurate details.

Question 17

Situation–Reaction (Suspicious scooter left; rider departs on another bike): In a park, a young man arrives on a scooter, leaves it there, and rides off with someone else on a motorbike. What is your best action?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Unattended vehicles may be stolen, used for crime, or simply abandoned. Citizens should avoid confrontation while ensuring authorities are notified for verification. Given Data / Assumptions: You witnessed unusual behavior. There is a nearby police booth. Safety and legality are priorities. Concept / Approach: Reporting suspicious circumstances enables lawful checks (vehicle registration, theft reports, CCTV review). Confronting or chasing strangers is unsafe. Ignoring may let a problem persist. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) Note scooter details: number plate, color, model, time.2) Inform the police booth briefly and accurately.3) Be available for a short statement if requested. Verification / Alternative check: Police can contact the owner or monitor the location; many such cases resolve benignly, but reporting is prudent. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Calling back or chasing risks confrontation. Ignoring neglects civic duty in a potentially sensitive situation. Common Pitfalls: Sharing identifiable information online; confronting groups alone. Final Answer: Inform the police at the nearby booth.

Question 18

Situation–Reaction (Time-bound project; team non-cooperation): During a review, you find a time-bound project is slipping due to lack of team cooperation. What should you do first?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Delivery risk often stems from impediments (process, capacity, alignment). Knee-jerk escalation or threats rarely fix root causes. Effective leaders diagnose before prescribing. Given Data / Assumptions: Deadline pressure exists. Team cooperation is low; causes unspecified. Project success remains possible with corrective action. Concept / Approach: First uncover blockers: unclear roles, overcommitment, resource gaps, interpersonal conflicts, or misaligned incentives. Targeted interventions (clarifying scope, rebalancing workload, removing blockers, stakeholder alignment) increase cooperation more than blanket warnings. Replacement or extension may be necessary later, but only after an informed attempt to fix causes. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) Hold a short, blameless retrospective to surface impediments.2) Convert issues into actions: decide, escalate, or defer with owners/dates.3) Track commitments; communicate progress to sponsors. Verification / Alternative check: Data from burn-down charts, WIP limits, and throughput metrics can validate whether interventions work. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Warnings may silence but not solve. Replacement disrupts continuity. Extension treats symptoms, not causes. Common Pitfalls: Attributing issues to “attitude” without systems view; neglecting stakeholder dependencies. Final Answer: Look into reasons for non-cooperation (diagnose root causes) first.

Question 19

Situation–Reaction (Diabetes and temptation to eat chocolates): You have diabetes and feel tempted by a heap of chocolates, but you know they are harmful in the long run. What should you do?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Self-regulation in health conditions like diabetes is crucial. Short-term cravings must be weighed against long-term metabolic control, complications, and overall well-being. Given Data / Assumptions: You are aware of your diagnosis. Chocolates are typically high in sugar and may spike glucose. No immediate medical supervision is implied. Concept / Approach: Disciplined avoidance is the safest choice. Cognitive strategies (distraction, substitution with sugar-free options, portion control under guidance) can support adherence. Guilt-driven eating is counterproductive; ruminating without action stresses the mind. Responsible refusal aligns with medical advice and self-care. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) Acknowledge the craving without judgment.2) Choose not to eat; opt for a safe alternative (diet-friendly snack) if allowed by your plan.3) Leave the trigger environment; re-engage in a task. Verification / Alternative check: Discuss treat strategies with your clinician/dietitian; some plans allow controlled portions or sugar-free substitutes. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Ruminating sustains craving. Eating with guilt harms both health and mood. Careless indulgence risks acute spikes and long-term harm. Common Pitfalls: All-or-nothing thinking; keeping tempting foods within easy reach. Final Answer: Do not eat them; prioritize your health.

Question 20

Situation–Reaction (Marriage choice vs family disagreement): You want to marry a person of your choice; your family opposes with reasons you do not find convincing. What should you do?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: High-stakes personal decisions require balancing autonomy with familial bonds. Constructive dialogue can bridge values, reduce conflict, and lead to informed consent. Given Data / Assumptions: Your family’s objections are not compelling to you. No immediate safety risk is stated. You value family relationships. Concept / Approach: The mature route is transparent communication: share reasons, future plans, values alignment, and support systems. Rushing into marriage against family can deepen rifts; capitulating without conviction breeds resentment. Persuasion with facts and empathy may secure buy-in or at least respectful acceptance. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) Hear their concerns fully; reflect them back accurately.2) Present your reasons and the partner’s strengths (compatibility, stability, shared goals).3) Propose a meeting/counselling to address fears; agree on timelines. Verification / Alternative check: Neutral mediation (elder/ counsellor) can help. If concerns are discriminatory or unfounded, reaffirm your values while remaining respectful. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Blind obedience sacrifices autonomy. Confusion stalls progress. Immediate marriage without dialogue may damage relationships. Common Pitfalls: Heated arguments; framing it as “win–lose.” Final Answer: Try to convince your family with calm, reasoned dialogue.

Situation Reaction Test Questions