Question 1

Situation–Reaction Test — Missed an Important Official Meeting: You were asked to explain why you missed an important official meeting. Your immediate boss actually failed to inform you about the meeting, but is now pressuring you not to mention tha…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This scenario tests your integrity, accountability, and ability to document reality under political pressure. In professional environments, attendance at key meetings often affects evaluation, access to information, and trust. If you were not informed, and your supervisor is attempting to conceal that failure, the question becomes: Do you protect a person or protect the record? The ethical and career-safe answer is to create an accurate, dated, written account for auditability. Given Data / Assumptions: You genuinely did not receive the meeting intimation. Your boss is asking you to hide this omission. You have been formally asked to explain your absence. Future reviews, HR assessments, or disciplinary actions may refer back to whatever you submit now. Concept / Approach: The safest long-term position is honesty backed by documentation. Written communication creates an objective trail. It shows that (1) you respond to escalation promptly, (2) you are not negligent, and (3) any gap in communication was procedural, not willful absence. Silent loyalty to a boss at the cost of your credibility is risky, because later you alone may be blamed. Ethical reporting is not “blaming,” it is transparency. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) Prepare a concise written explanation addressed to the authority that requested clarification.2) State the timeline: when the meeting happened, when you first learned of it, and that you had not been informed in advance.3) Express willingness to review outcomes and complete any pending action items from that meeting.4) Keep tone factual, not emotional or accusatory. Avoid personal attacks on your boss. Verification / Alternative check: A written factual reply protects you if this becomes an HR or disciplinary file later. It also reassures leadership that you are responsible and solution-focused, not evasive. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Option b (private verbal escalation) may help politically, but it lacks recorded evidence and can later be denied. Option c (accepting blame) damages your reliability record and encourages misuse of authority. Option d (blaming the coordinator) shifts liability without proof and can be seen as finger-pointing. Option e (refusing to reply) looks insubordinate and unprofessional. Common Pitfalls: Writing a long emotional complaint; accusing people by name in hostile language; sending informal messages (like chats) instead of an official written reply to the authority that asked. Final Answer: Submit a clear, written factual explanation stating you were not informed, and offer to make up any missed action items.

Question 2

Situation–Reaction Test — Villager Seeks Urgent Protection from a Powerful Landlord: You are the District Magistrate. A villager has traveled for hours to submit an application asking for protection from a powerful landlord who is trying to grab his…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This scenario evaluates public service ethics, prioritization, and field-level protection of vulnerable citizens. A District Magistrate (DM) holds significant executive authority. When someone alleges illegal land grabbing by an influential local figure, delay can lead to intimidation, violence, or irreversible loss of property. The test is: Can you act quickly, responsibly, and accountably under time pressure? Given Data / Assumptions: The villager is vulnerable, has traveled far, and has exhausted local remedies. The alleged encroacher is powerful, implying risk of retaliation. You are genuinely time-constrained but you do have administrative machinery. Urgent intervention (police protection / land records verification / stop-work order) may be needed. Concept / Approach: Good administration means two things: (1) acknowledge the grievance, and (2) assign accountable action, not just sympathy. The DM does not personally have to investigate on the spot, but must ensure the machinery is activated. Delegation to a reliable senior subordinate (e.g., SDM/Tehsildar/Police Circle Officer) creates immediate follow-up, sends a signal that intimidation will not be tolerated, and protects the complainant. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) Pause long enough to receive and briefly read/understand the written complaint.2) Call in a senior subordinate officer (land revenue / police) in front of the villager.3) Verbally assign responsibility and timeline: e.g., “Look into this today, ensure no coercion, report back.”4) Ensure the villager’s contact details are recorded and that he is told what will happen next. Verification / Alternative check: This course of action balances urgency, dignity, rule of law, and practical constraints on your time. It also creates a documented accountability trail inside your office, which is critical if the case escalates legally or politically. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Option a (make him wait more hours) is insensitive and risky. Option b (push down to “junior officer” without guidance) looks like brushing him off. Option d (take application and walk away) creates no accountability. Option e (ask him to return later) is effectively denial of access to justice for someone already desperate. Common Pitfalls: Overpromising personal intervention you cannot schedule; sending the villager away with vague assurances; failing to document that an officer was directed to act. Final Answer: Immediately assign a responsible senior officer in front of the villager and direct urgent follow-up for his protection.

Question 3

Situation–Reaction Test — Tampered Medicine Crisis in One Region: You own a pharmaceutical company. You learn that someone (not your employee) has tampered with a particular batch of tablets in a specific area, and those tampered tablets are linked …

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This scenario tests ethical crisis management, product safety responsibility, and reputational risk handling in a regulated industry. When human lives are involved, the priority must shift from brand optics to consumer protection and transparent containment. In pharmaceuticals, delayed communication can literally cost lives, and concealment can trigger criminal liability, regulatory bans, and permanent reputational collapse far worse than controlled disclosure. Given Data / Assumptions: The tampering was malicious and external, not a normal manufacturing defect. The tampering is currently geographically localized. Deaths have already occurred, so this is not a hypothetical risk but an active threat. Your company knows which product line/batch is implicated. Concept / Approach: In crisis communications for drug safety, the correct principle is “protect lives first, then investigate.” That means immediate public alert plus batch isolation and recall in the affected distribution zone. The goal is to stop further harm fast, while preserving factual clarity that the cause is tampering, not baseline product quality everywhere. A targeted recall aligned with transparent warning signals responsibility and control; it also supports regulators and law enforcement in tracing the sabotage source. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) Issue an urgent safety advisory in that region: identify the specific tablet name, batch/lot numbers, packaging identifiers, and symptoms to watch.2) Coordinate with local authorities, hospitals, chemists, and distributors to immediately pull suspect stock.3) Set up a toll-free hotline and publish guidance for anyone who has already taken the drug (e.g., seek medical evaluation if symptoms occur).4) Launch an internal and police-supported investigation into the tampering chain, including storage, transit, and retail points. Verification / Alternative check: This response both protects current users and demonstrates due diligence to regulators. It limits spread, calms speculation, and helps you frame the narrative as an act of sabotage rather than incompetence, without downplaying danger. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Option a (silence) is unethical and legally dangerous. Option c (quiet recall only) under-communicates risk, so some consumers may keep taking contaminated tablets. Option d (full national recall) sounds decisive but may create panic, destroy supply of safe medication elsewhere, and signal that you have lost total control. Option e (attacking the media) ignores the urgent safety issue and looks like a cover-up. Common Pitfalls: Minimizing or delaying disclosure; making vague statements without batch details; shifting blame before addressing patient safety. Final Answer: Immediately warn the public and recall the implicated product from the affected area, prioritizing lives and regulatory cooperation.

Question 4

Situation–Reaction Test — Accusations of Misusing Relief Funds After an Earthquake: You are responsible for delivering basic medical relief to earthquake survivors. Despite genuine effort, people accuse you of making personal profit from relief fund…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This scenario is about credibility in disaster management. Relief operations after earthquakes, floods, cyclones, etc. often run in chaotic conditions. Accusations of corruption can quickly erode public trust and cooperation, even if the accusations are false. The test here is whether you respond defensively, abandon duty, or invite accountability while continuing to serve survivors who urgently need medical support. Given Data / Assumptions: You are officially in charge of basic medical relief. Beneficiaries are in distress and sensitive to fairness. Allegations have appeared that you are profiting from relief funds. The relief work must continue, because lives and health are at stake. Concept / Approach: The correct approach is radical transparency plus uninterrupted service delivery. Calling for an impartial investigation demonstrates confidence in your integrity and reassures the public that you welcome scrutiny. At the same time, stopping relief would punish innocent survivors and could be seen as guilt or retaliation. Ethical leadership means: audit me, but let treatment continue. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) Publicly and formally request an independent inquiry or audit by a competent authority.2) Provide documentation: stock registers, supplier invoices, disbursement logs, medicine distribution records.3) Keep medical operations running so that injured and displaced people are not abandoned.4) Communicate respectfully with survivors: “We take the allegation seriously; an audit will confirm proper use of funds.” Verification / Alternative check: Transparency builds legitimacy. Relief efforts with visible audits usually regain community cooperation faster, which improves health outcomes and security for staff. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Option b (asking to be replaced) looks like escape and disrupts continuity. Option c (ignoring) fuels rumors. Option d (stopping initiatives) harms victims and appears vindictive. Option e (threatening legal action) escalates hostility and makes you look defensive instead of accountable. Common Pitfalls: Arguing emotionally with victims; hiding paperwork; suspending services to “teach them a lesson.” These reactions worsen mistrust. Final Answer: Encourage an impartial inquiry while continuing relief operations so survivors keep getting care and trust is restored.

Question 5

Situation–Reaction Test — Stopped by Traffic Police Without Licence or Helmet During an Emergency: You hear that your close friend has just had an accident. You rush out urgently on a two-wheeler with another friend, but in the hurry you forgot your…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This scenario evaluates civic responsibility under stress. Road safety rules like wearing a helmet and carrying a driving licence are not “formality,” they are legal requirements designed to prevent severe injury and ensure accountability on public roads. Even emergencies do not justify reckless disregard for safety and law, because reckless riding can create a second accident while you are hurrying to the first. Given Data / Assumptions: You are emotionally charged because a friend is hurt. You are riding without a helmet and without a licence on you. A lawful authority (traffic constable) has stopped you. You still intend to reach the accident spot afterward. Concept / Approach: The correct civic action is cooperation and compliance. Pay the legal penalty, acknowledge the violation, and then proceed safely. This protects you legally, avoids escalation, and models responsible citizenship. Attempting to run, argue, or misuse “influence” can convert a minor traffic challan into a serious offense like evasion, obstruction, or dangerous driving. Also, after paying the fine, you can still continue to assist your injured friend — but now with clarity and without creating a chase situation. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) Pull over safely and cooperate with the officer.2) Explain briefly that you are heading to an emergency, but accept that you broke the rule.3) Pay the fine or accept the ticket/challan as required by local law.4) Resume travel in a legal and careful manner (e.g., arrange a helmet immediately if possible). Verification / Alternative check: After paying, you remain free to continue to the accident site. Importantly, you avoid creating a second emergency involving yourself, pedestrians, or other vehicles. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Option a (dodging) converts a minor violation into a dangerous, possibly criminal act. Option c (arguing that rules should not apply) invites escalation and wastes more time. Option d (using references) is unethical and undermines rule-of-law norms. Option e (shouting at the constable) is counterproductive and disrespectful. Common Pitfalls: Believing “emergency” means “no law.” Trying to guilt-trip the officer. Treating the fine as personal insult instead of lawful consequence. Final Answer: Cooperate with the constable, accept/pay the fine, and then proceed safely to help your injured friend.

Question 6

Situation–Reaction: You have launched a winter project to create night shelters for homeless people. Within a week of opening the shelters, nearby residents complain that theft incidents have increased and demand that the shelters be removed. As the…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Situation–reaction questions test practical judgment under social pressure. Here, a public welfare project faces community pushback after alleged thefts. The goal is to protect vulnerable beneficiaries while maintaining public trust and safety. Given Data / Assumptions: Night shelters for homeless people have started recently. Residents report increased thefts and demand closure. No formal verification of the allegations has yet been completed. As project lead, you have responsibility for both welfare outcomes and community confidence. Concept / Approach: Balance compassion with accountability. Good administration requires acknowledging concerns, initiating fact finding, engaging law enforcement, and implementing risk controls. Premature closure harms beneficiaries and concedes to unverified claims; inaction erodes trust. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) Acknowledge residents' concerns and communicate that safety matters to the project.2) Announce an immediate enquiry with a clear timeline, point of contact, and escalation path.3) Coordinate with local police for heightened patrolling, complaint registration, and case linkage analysis.4) Tighten shelter SOPs: entry logs, ID or referral checks where feasible, quiet hours, staff supervision, grievance registers, and CCTV if permitted.5) Convene a joint meeting with resident representatives to share actions and invite cooperation without stigmatizing shelter users.6) Review findings and adjust measures; keep shelters open unless evidence proves unmanageable risk. Verification / Alternative check: Responsible leaders both protect beneficiaries and reduce externalities. Independent verification plus targeted safeguards achieves both aims better than closure or neglect. Why Other Options Are Wrong: (a) Offloads responsibility; too passive. (c) Moralizes without remedy. (d) Ignores risk and erodes trust. (e) Punishes beneficiaries before facts are known. Common Pitfalls: Assuming correlation equals causation; stereotyping homeless people; overreacting by shutting services without due process. Final Answer: Assure enquiry and coordinate immediate safeguards with police and staff (Option B).

Question 7

Situation–Reaction: While riding a scooter, you witness two youths on a motorcycle snatch a woman's gold chain and speed away. What is the most responsible immediate action?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This scenario tests public safety judgment. The observer witnesses a violent property crime in progress. The key decision is whether to pursue, ignore, or escalate safely to authorities. Given Data / Assumptions: A chain snatching has just occurred. You are on a scooter; offenders are on a motorcycle and fleeing. There may be risk to you, the victim, and bystanders if you engage in pursuit. Concept / Approach: Priority is life and safety, then evidence preservation and rapid notification. Civilians should avoid risky pursuit that can lead to road accidents or escalation. Timely, accurate reporting greatly improves police response and case solvability. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) Move to a safe position and reassure the victim.2) Call the police helpline immediately; provide location, direction of travel, vehicle type, color, partial plate if seen, clothing descriptors, and any accomplices.3) Help the victim secure medical attention if injured and file a formal complaint.4) Preserve evidence: note time, CCTV in vicinity, potential witnesses, and do not circulate unverified details on social media. Verification / Alternative check: Police interception relies on prompt, specific information. Pursuit by untrained civilians increases risk without guaranteeing success. Why Other Options Are Wrong: (a) Empathy is good but insufficient. (b) Pursuit is unsafe and can obstruct police. (d) Passivity undermines justice. (e) Mob pursuit increases risk and liability. Common Pitfalls: Heroic overconfidence; giving vague descriptions; contaminating evidence. Final Answer: Call police immediately and facilitate a formal report with precise details (Option C).

Question 8

Situation–Reaction: In the examination hall you find the paper far tougher than expected. What is the best response for maximizing your score and maintaining integrity?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Exams sometimes feel unexpectedly difficult. The objective is to optimize performance ethically under time pressure, not to change the paper or disrupt the process. Given Data / Assumptions: The paper appears tough, not necessarily out of syllabus. Standard exam rules and invigilation apply. Partial credit may be available for correct steps and reasoning. Concept / Approach: Focus on controllables: calm breathing, triage questions, time boxing, and clear presentation. Integrity avoids penalties that negate any gain from misconduct. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) Take one minute to scan the paper, tagging easy, medium, and hard questions.2) Start with sure-shot questions to secure base marks and confidence.3) Allocate time slices; leave space to return later; write legibly and show key steps for partial credit.4) If stuck, move on, then revisit with fresh perspective; avoid sunk-cost traps.5) Reserve the last minutes for a quick review to correct arithmetic and add missing steps. Verification / Alternative check: Examiners often award step marks. Calm triage outperforms panic or protest in expected value. Why Other Options Are Wrong: (a) Complaints mid exam waste time and rarely change the paper. (b) Disruption risks disqualification. (c) Cheating risks severe penalties. (e) Leaving forfeits possible partial credit. Common Pitfalls: Spending too long on one hard item; messy answers; ethical lapses. Final Answer: Attempt what you can calmly and methodically (Option D).

Question 9

Situation–Reaction: Your bathroom tap is leaking and the dripping noise is constant and irritating. What is the most appropriate action?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: A leaking tap wastes water, raises utility costs, and creates persistent noise. The question probes practical problem solving and responsible resource use. Given Data / Assumptions: The tap is leaking and causing irritation. The user presumably lacks specialist plumbing tools and training. Water conservation and safety are priorities. Concept / Approach: Address the root cause, not symptoms. A professional repair or proper washer/cartridge replacement resolves the leak safely and reduces wastage. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) If safe, close the angle valve or main supply temporarily to reduce dripping until service.2) Contact a licensed plumber to diagnose the cause (worn washer, cartridge, seat damage, thread issues).3) Replace defective parts and test for leaks; consider aerators and flow limiters to reduce future consumption.4) Monitor for recurrence; maintain fixtures periodically. Verification / Alternative check: Proper repair ends both noise and wastage. Improvised fixes often fail and can cause damage. Why Other Options Are Wrong: (a) Avoids the problem and damages sleep hygiene. (b) Collects water but wastes it and does not stop leakage. (c) Risks pressure build-up and breakage. (e) Increasing pressure often worsens leaks. Common Pitfalls: Delaying repair; over-tightening taps; ignoring hidden leaks. Final Answer: Call a plumber for a proper repair (Option D).

Question 10

Situation–Reaction: While playing football in a park, your kick accidentally breaks the window pane of a nearby house. What is the most ethical and constructive response?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Accidental property damage requires accountability. The scenario evaluates integrity, conflict de-escalation, and community responsibility when play affects neighbors. Given Data / Assumptions: The damage was accidental but clearly caused by your action. The homeowner suffers material loss and possible safety risk from broken glass. There is an opportunity to resolve the matter amicably. Concept / Approach: Ethical response combines admission, apology, and restitution. This maintains goodwill and sets a positive example for peers, reducing escalation. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) Approach the homeowner calmly, acknowledge the incident, and apologize sincerely.2) Offer contact details and propose to cover the cost of repair or coordinate with guardians if you are a minor.3) Ensure the area is safe from shards; help clear the play area and relocate the game to a safer spot.4) Learn and implement preventive measures, such as changing direction of play or using a different ground. Verification / Alternative check: Timely, honest restitution typically resolves minor civil issues without legal involvement and builds community trust. Why Other Options Are Wrong: (a) Entitlement worsens conflict. (b) Denial contradicts facts. (c) Fleeing is dishonest and can lead to consequences. (e) Blaming others is unethical and may create disputes. Common Pitfalls: Panic and flight; hostile arguments; leaving hazards unattended. Final Answer: Apologize and offer to compensate for the damage (Option D).

Question 11

Situation–Reaction: While driving, your car collides with a fruit vendor's pushcart and causes damage. What should you do immediately and appropriately?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Traffic mishaps can harm livelihoods. Ethical driving involves accountability, first aid consideration, and fair compensation when at fault. Given Data / Assumptions: Your vehicle impacted the vendor's cart. Damage was caused; injury status is unknown. There is no immediate evidence of third-party fault. Concept / Approach: First ensure safety, then accept responsibility proportionate to fault. Resolve minor damage on the spot if lawful and safe, and involve authorities if disputes or injuries arise. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) Park safely, switch on hazard lights, and assess for injuries. Call emergency services if needed.2) Apologize and document the damage. Offer fair compensation or exchange contact and insurance details.3) If disagreement persists or injury is involved, inform local authorities and follow legal procedure.4) Reflect on defensive driving practices and route choices to avoid congested vendor zones. Verification / Alternative check: Prompt, fair settlement minimizes escalation and protects vulnerable road users. Why Other Options Are Wrong: (a) Hit-and-run is illegal and unethical. (b) Blame-shifting escalates conflict. (d) Refusal without assessment is irresponsible. (e) Intimidation by numbers is unacceptable. Common Pitfalls: Leaving the scene; heated arguments; failing to check for injury. Final Answer: Stop, check for injuries, and compensate appropriately (Option C).

Question 12

Situation–Reaction: On a train, you see some college students attempting to pull the emergency chain simply to get down at an undesignated point. What should you do?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Misuse of the alarm chain delays trains and endangers safety. Passengers have a civic role, but interventions must remain lawful and safe. Given Data / Assumptions: Students intend to pull the chain for convenience, not an emergency. You are an ordinary passenger, not security staff. Train staff have authority to act and document violations. Concept / Approach: Report through proper channels. Avoid physical confrontation that could escalate or cause injury. Ensure evidence and accountability by promptly notifying authorized personnel. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) Observe safely; note coach number, appearance, and time.2) At the next stop, inform the guard or TTE with specifics so they can intervene and record the offence.3) Cooperate as a witness if asked; avoid vigilantism.4) If the pull occurs, ensure doors and tracks remain safe for all passengers. Verification / Alternative check: Railway protocols require staff action; passenger reports enable enforcement without risking a brawl. Why Other Options Are Wrong: (a) Physical restraint can be unsafe and unlawful. (b) You lack authority to detain. (d) Silence condones misuse. (e) Social media posting does not ensure timely safety action and may violate privacy. Common Pitfalls: Confronting groups alone; focusing on recording rather than reporting. Final Answer: Inform the guard or train staff promptly (Option C).

Question 13

Situation–Reaction: A friend does not invite you to his marriage ceremony. What is the most balanced and mature response?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Social situations often include constraints such as venue limits, family choices, or miscommunication. A mature response preserves relationships without creating drama. Given Data / Assumptions: You were not invited; reasons are unknown. You value the relationship and your own dignity. Public escalation would be counterproductive. Concept / Approach: Choose empathy and grace. Offer goodwill without presuming intent. This keeps doors open for future clarification while avoiding hurtful reactions. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) Send a brief, sincere message congratulating the couple and wishing them well.2) If appropriate, later have a private, calm conversation to understand any oversight.3) Focus on the long-term value of the friendship rather than the single event. Verification / Alternative check: Cordial messages maintain social capital and reduce misunderstandings that often arise from logistics or family dynamics. Why Other Options Are Wrong: (a) and (d) harm the relationship unnecessarily. (b) Creates a scene. (e) Public sarcasm damages reputation and friendship. Common Pitfalls: Taking offence personally without facts; airing grievances publicly. Final Answer: Send best wishes graciously (Option C).

Question 14

Situation–Reaction (First Aid): While bursting crackers, a child sustains severe burns on the hand. What is the correct immediate first aid action?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Burns are common during fireworks. Immediate first aid can limit tissue damage, reduce pain, and improve healing. The priority is rapid cooling and protection of the wound while avoiding harmful practices. Given Data / Assumptions: The burn is on the hand and is recent. Severity is described as severe by lay observation, but exact degree is unknown. Medical care may be a few minutes away. Concept / Approach: The gold standard first step for thermal burns is cooling the area with cool (not icy) running water for at least 10–20 minutes as tolerated. This dissipates heat, limits depth of injury, and provides analgesia. After cooling, cover with a clean, non-adhesive dressing and seek medical evaluation for significant burns. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) Remove the child from the heat source; gently remove rings or tight items before swelling begins.2) Place the burned hand under cool running water for 10–20 minutes; avoid ice and very cold water which can cause vasoconstriction and further injury.3) After cooling, cover with a sterile or clean non-fluffy dressing; keep the child warm and comfortable.4) Do not break blisters or apply creams, ointments, toothpaste, butter, or antiseptics initially.5) Arrange prompt medical assessment, especially for large, deep, or hand burns. Verification / Alternative check: Cooling reduces ongoing thermal damage; inappropriate substances can trap heat or introduce infection. Why Other Options Are Wrong: (b) Antiseptics at this stage can irritate and are not the priority over cooling. (c) Delaying cooling worsens injury. (d) Ointments may seal in heat and are not first line. (e) Ice directly on burns risks tissue damage. Common Pitfalls: Applying home remedies; popping blisters; using ice directly; neglecting ring removal before swelling. Final Answer: Cool the burn under running water first, then cover and seek care (Option A).

Question 15

On reaching the railway station, you find that the train you wanted to catch is just to start and there is hardly any time for purchasing the ticket. The best thing for you is to :

Accepted Answer

rush to the train rather than miss it and inform the T.T.I. at the next stoppage about your inability to purchase the ticket.

Question 16

While travelling in a train, you observe some college students pulling the alarm chain simply to get down at their desired point. You would :

Accepted Answer

Question 17

You are in a bus. The bus reaches your stop but still you have not purchased the ticket because of heavy rush. What will you do ?

Accepted Answer

call the conductor, give him the money and get the ticket.

Question 18

You are a guest at a dinner. The host asks you to take one more chapati after your stomach is full. You would :

Accepted Answer

politely say that the food was too good and you have already eaten much

Question 19

You are passing by a river and you know swimming. Suddenly, you hear the cry o f a drowning child. You would :

Accepted Answer

dive into the river to save him.

Question 20

If in the examination hall, you find that the question paper is too tough to be answered satisfactorily by you, the best thing to do for you is to :

Accepted Answer

try to solve the questions as much as you know with a cool head.

Situation Reaction Test Questions