iQuanta has launched a Mini Mock Series covering all the sections of the IPMAT exam, these questions have been handpicked by our faculty based on the latest IPMAT exam pattern.
Instructions:-
1. Attempt all the questions.
2. Once you have completed all the questions of a particular section click on the submit button for scores and the correct answers then move to the next sections.
3. For each correct answer, you receive 1 mark. For this mock, there is no negative marking.
Join our WhatsApp group for more Mini Mocks, Daily Question series, and other IPMAT and BBA-related updates.
Logical Reasoning and Data Interpretation
Directions: The following graph gives Sales, expenses and Capital of a company for a period of five years 1994-98. Read the graph and answer the following questions.
Verbal Ability and Reading Comprehension (VARC)
As formal organizations, business corporations are distinguished by their particular goals, which include maximization of profits, growth, and survival. Providing goods and services is a means to this end. The following statement from the board of directors of the 3M Company is exemplary in this regard: “The objective of the 3M Company is to produce quality goods and services that are useful and needed by the public, acceptable to the public, and in the best interests of the global economy—and thereby to earn a profit which is essential to the perpetuation of the useful role of the company. “
These goals provide the raison d’etre and ultimate ethical values of the 3M Company. If, for example, a number of individuals (outsiders or even insiders) believe that a company’s aggressive marketing of infant formula in third world countries is morally wrong, the company is unlikely to be moved by arguments based on ethos alone as long as what it is doing remains profitable. But if those opposed to the company’s practice organize a highly effective boycott of the company’s products, their moral views will soon enter into the company’s deliberations indirectly as limiting operating conditions. They can, at this point, no more be ignored than a prohibitive increase in the costs of certain raw materials.
Although the concepts and categories of ethics may be applied to the conduct of corporations, there are important differences between the values and principles underlying corporate behavior and those underlying the actions of most individuals. As individuals, we are often concerned with integrity, autonomy, and responsibility even when they cannot be shown to further a basic goal such as overall happiness; we regard them as important and valuable in themselves and not simply as a means to some other more basic end.
If corporations are by their nature end— or goal—directed how can they acknowledge acts as wrong in and of themselves? Is it possible to hold one criminally responsible for acts that if performed by a human person would result in criminal liability?
The first case of this type to achieve widespread public attention was the attempt to prosecute the Ford Motor Company for manslaughter as the result of alleged negligent or reckless decision making concerning the safety engineering of the Pinto vehicle. Although the defendant corporation and its officers were found innocent after trial, the case can serve as an exemplar for our purposes.
In essence, the prosecution in this case attempted to show that the corporation had produced and distributed a vehicle that was known to be defective at the time of production and sale, and that even after a great deal of additional information accumulated regarding the nature of the problems, the corporation took no action to correct them. The obvious noncorporate analogy would be the prosecution of a person who was driving a car with brakes known to be faulty, who does not have them repaired because it would cost too much, and who kills someone when the brakes eventually fail and the car does not stop in time. Such cases involving individuals are prosecuted and won regularly.
If corporations have no concept of right or wrong because they are exclusively goal—directed, can they be convicted in cases of this type, and what purpose would be served by such a conviction? Perhaps we can make a utilitarian argument for convicting corporations of such crimes. The argument would be that of deterrence; conviction and punishment would deter other corporations from taking similar actions under similar circumstances. However, there appears to be considerable evidence that deterrence does not work on corporations, even if, arguably, it works on individuals. The possibility of being discovered and the potential magnitude of the fine merely become more data to be included in the analysis of limiting conditions.
