XAT 2015 — LRDI Question 21
Answer the questions on the basis of information given in the following case.
The Disciplinary Committee of Nation Political Party (NPP) is meeting today to decide on the future of two of their party members, Mr. Loyal and his son Mr. Prodigal. Mr. Prodigal is the prime accused in the brutal murder of Mr. Victim, an opposition party leader. Mr. Prodigal is in police custody and his appeal for bail has got rejected. Mr. Loyal claims that his son is innocent and Mr. Victim’s death was the result of internal rivalry in the opposition party. Though Mr. Loyal is not accused in this case, his weakness for his son is well known. The media is blaming him for influencing key witnesses to protect his son. Severe criticism of his father-son duo, both by the media and some social activists, is damaging the image of the party. However, Mr. Loyal has significant followers within the party and is considered an asset to the party. Any harsh decision against Mr. Loyal would adversely affect the future of NPP and could even lead to a split in the party. This would benefit the opposition.
Mr. Opportunist, a veteran member of NPP, stakes his claims to be nominated as an NPP candidate in the upcoming election. Mr. Opportunist presented the following arguments in favour of his candidature to the NPP Executive Committee.
- Mr. Loyal’s candidature in the upcoming election will adversely impact NPP’s chances. Hence, the party should not nominate him.
- The party should call a press conference to disown Mr. Loyal. This would enhance the party’s image.
- The party would not be able to take any strong disciplinary action against Mr. Loyal, if he gets re-elected.
- I have a lot of goodwill and significant followers in the constituency,
- None of my close relatives are into active politics.
Which of the following combinations would best strengthen the claim of Mr. Opportunist?
Answer & solution
- A
I & III
I &IV
- C
II & III
- D
III & V
- E
IV & V
Argument I rules out the party's intention of nominating Mr. Loyal in the upcoming election making way for Mr. Opportunist. Hence, it makes for a strong argument supporting the claim of Mr. Opportunist. Hence, eliminate options 3, 4 and 5.
Argument III simply rephrases the argument stated in option II; it is a weak line of reasoning. So, eliminate option 1.
Argument IV is a strong reason as to why it would be a good idea to nominate Mr. Opportunist.
Hence, the correct answer is option 2.