"Decision Making & Problem Solving" — Practice

Question 1

Approximately how many questions does Decision Making contribute to CSAT Paper II?
(a) ~5–8 (b) ~25–30 (c) ~40–45 (d) ~10–12

Accepted Answer

(a) ~5–8.

It is CSAT's smallest section, but distinctive for having officially no negative marking in UPSC's established pattern — one more reason not to leave any of these unattempted.

Question 2

You are a junior officer. A senior colleague you respect and who has always mentored you well asks you to approve an expense claim that is missing two supporting bills, assuring you the bills exist and will follow within the week. Refusing risks visibly straining a relationship you value; approving risks a process the audit team could later flag. You should:
(a) Approve it, since your colleague's track record gives you no real reason to doubt them
(b) Hold the approval and ask them to route it once the bills arrive, explaining that this protects both of you if it's ever queried
(c) Approve it, but write yourself a dated note recording the promise, so you have a record if questioned later
(d) Decline to approve it and mention the incident to your own reporting officer, so there's no appearance of impropriety on your part

Accepted Answer

(b). The pull toward (a) and (c) both come from the same place — the colleague is trustworthy, so the missing bills feel like a formality. But a claim's validity for audit purposes was never supposed to rest on personal trust, and a note you wrote yourself protects your own recollection, not the actual audit trail, so (c) solves the wrong problem. (d) overcorrects: escalating a routine, first-time documentation gap to your own superior treats an ordinary process delay as if it were a suspected integrity issue, which is likely to damage the working relationship far more than a plain 'let's wait for the bills' would. (b) is the option that neither strains the relationship unnecessarily nor creates a genuine process gap — it simply routes the approval to when the paperwork is actually complete, which is what the requirement was for in the first place.

Question 3

A team member who has never been late in three years has now arrived late on four occasions over two weeks, offering no explanation and seeming visibly withdrawn. Two colleagues have started grumbling that 'rules should apply to everyone.' As their supervisor, you should:
(a) Speak with the team member privately, focused on checking whether something is wrong rather than on the lateness itself
(b) Address it in the next team meeting in general terms, so no one feels singled out
(c) Wait a little longer before intervening, since a sudden change usually resolves itself and you don't want to seem intrusive
(d) Quietly reassign their most time-sensitive tasks to someone else until the pattern stops

Accepted Answer

(a). Option (b) is tempting because it avoids the discomfort of a direct conversation, but a 'general' comment aimed at one specific, unusual change in one person's behaviour rarely reads as general to anyone in the room, including the person it's actually about — it manages your discomfort, not the situation. (c) has some real logic behind it, since not every change needs immediate intervention, but a four-occurrence pattern from someone with a three-year clean record, combined with visible withdrawal, is already past the threshold where 'wait and see' stops being prudence and starts being avoidance. (d) quietly punishes a possible personal crisis with reduced responsibility and trust, without ever finding out if that's warranted — it treats a symptom as if it were the whole problem. A private, low-pressure conversation is the only option that can actually tell you what's going on before you decide anything else.

Question 4

An elderly applicant at your counter has lost the original certificate a scheme requires, in a flood that damaged their home three weeks ago. They have a certified photocopy and a police loss report. You are a frontline clerk; your office's supervisor with discretionary authority over such exceptions is on leave for two more days, and the applicant says they've already made two long, difficult trips to reach this office. You should:
(a) Accept the photocopy and police report yourself, given the clearly genuine hardship
(b) Ask the applicant to wait until the supervisor returns in two days, since only they can authorise an exception
(c) Record the application as received pending verification, forward it with a clear note of the circumstances to the supervisor for a same-day decision on their return, and tell the applicant they do not need to make a third trip
(d) Direct the applicant to obtain a formal legal affidavit before you will accept anything short of the original

Accepted Answer

(c). This one is genuinely close, because (a) and (b) both have real force behind them: (a) is compassionate and the evidence is credible, but a frontline clerk granting themselves authority they don't hold sets a precedent no institution can actually run on, however sympathetic this one case is. (b) respects the authority structure but is needlessly harsh given what it costs this specific applicant — a third difficult trip that a slightly better process could avoid entirely. (d) adds a new, invented burden — a lawyer, a cost, a delay — that the applicant's evidence never required in the first place. (c) is the option that resolves the actual constraint, since decision authority genuinely sits elsewhere for two days, without passing that inconvenience on to the one person who least deserves to carry it.

Question 5

During a routine walk-through, you notice a frayed safety cable on a rarely-used section of scaffolding. It hasn't failed and isn't due for use again for about a week, but replacing it now would pull two workers off a task that's already behind a hard external deadline. You should:
(a) Note it for correction before the scaffolding is next used, and leave the current task uninterrupted
(b) Pull the two workers off the deadline task immediately to replace the cable right now
(c) Flag it in the log for the next scheduled maintenance cycle, which is three weeks away
(d) Rope off that section of scaffolding as unsafe immediately, and separately schedule the repair before it is due to be used again

Accepted Answer

(d). (a) sounds reasonable, and might even turn out fine, but a known safety defect that is simply 'noted' without any physical barrier relies entirely on everyone remembering not to use that section for a week — a single lapse turns a known, preventable risk into an incident. (b) treats every safety flag as equally urgent regardless of the actual timeline, which is its own kind of miscalibration: pulling workers off a genuinely deadline-critical task to fix something with a week of slack is a disproportionate response to the specific facts here. (c) is simply too slow relative to when the scaffolding will next be used, and quietly assumes the maintenance cycle exists to catch this kind of thing when nothing indicates it does. (d) removes the actual risk immediately, since no one can use a section that's physically roped off, while still respecting that the repair itself doesn't need to happen in the next hour.

Question 6

Your section head verbally instructs you to release a set of files to a visiting official today, 'as a courtesy, no need to log it formally.' Your department's written protocol requires all file releases to external visitors to be logged and counter-signed, with no stated exceptions. You have no reason to suspect wrongdoing — this may simply be an oversight on your section head's part. You should:
(a) Release the files as instructed, since your section head is accountable for the decision, not you
(b) Release the files, but log them yourself anyway without telling your section head, to stay safe
(c) Tell your section head you'll process it right away, and log it through the normal procedure while doing so, mentioning the protocol as you go
(d) Decline to release anything until your section head puts the instruction in writing

Accepted Answer

(c). (a) misunderstands where responsibility actually sits — 'I was told to' is rarely a real defence for skipping a documented control, and being accountable doesn't mean being solely accountable. (b) fixes the paperwork but creates a worse problem: quietly logging something your senior explicitly said not to log, without telling them, treats them as an obstacle to route around rather than a colleague to inform, and could look far more evasive later than a straightforward conversation would have. (d) is needlessly adversarial for what is most plausibly an oversight rather than a deliberate instruction to break protocol — demanding written confirmation on the spot reads as an accusation. (c) does the one thing that actually resolves the situation: complete the task the section head wants, through the process that was always supposed to govern it, surfacing the protocol naturally rather than treating it as a confrontation.

Question 7

A visibly exhausted visitor tells you they've been sent between three departments today for what should be a routine document request, and that no one has actually looked at what they need — each desk simply redirected them based on the form's title. You realise their actual request does belong at a fourth desk you know well. You should:
(a) Direct them to the correct desk, giving them a clear, specific reason this one is right, unlike the earlier redirects
(b) Call ahead to the correct desk yourself, briefly explain the visitor's request and the run-around they've already had, and then send them over
(c) Process the request yourself at your own desk as a one-off, even though it isn't normally handled here
(d) Apologise on behalf of the office and suggest they file a written complaint about the earlier redirects

Accepted Answer

(b). (a) is a real improvement over what's already happened to them, and on a normal day might be enough, but a clear reason doesn't undo three prior wrong turns, and there's no guarantee the fourth desk won't repeat the same pattern with a stranger who has no context. (c) feels like it finally just solves the problem, but taking on work your desk doesn't normally handle, without the fourth desk's specific knowledge, risks getting it wrong in a request you may not actually be equipped to process correctly. (d) is a reasonable process suggestion in general, but offered right now it reads as deflecting from the visitor's actual, unresolved need in this moment. (b) ends the run-around for certain — a warm handoff, not another pointer — while keeping the request with the desk actually equipped to handle it correctly.

Question 8

You find that a colleague has been marking routine equipment inspections as 'completed' on days you know they were on leave. Nothing so far indicates any equipment has actually failed or that anyone was endangered. Your colleague is well-liked, and this may be a shortcut born of a heavy workload rather than anything more serious. You should:
(a) Speak to the colleague privately first, giving them a chance to explain or correct it, before deciding whether anything further is needed
(b) Report it through the proper internal channel straightaway, without raising it with the colleague first
(c) Let it go, since nothing has actually gone wrong and raising it could unfairly damage a well-regarded colleague's standing
(d) Mention it informally to a few trusted colleagues to get a sense of whether this is a wider pattern before deciding what to do

Accepted Answer

This one genuinely divides opinion, and both (a) and (b) have a real case behind them. The strongest argument for (b) is that safety-record falsification is a serious integrity matter regardless of intent, and letting one employee's personal judgment decide who deserves a private word first is exactly the kind of informal, inconsistent handling proper reporting channels exist to avoid. The case for (a) is that going straight to a formal report, with everything that then follows from it, for what might turn out to be a workload-driven shortcut, without ever asking the person directly, risks treating a conversation-sized problem as a disciplinary one from the outset. On balance, (a) is the better first step specifically because nothing here yet indicates deception for personal gain or any actual harm, and a direct, respectful conversation preserves the option to escalate immediately if the explanation doesn't hold up — it doesn't foreclose (b), it simply orders the steps sensibly. (c) is wrong regardless of which view you take, because 'nothing has gone wrong yet' is not evidence that the records are reliable, only that no one has been unlucky. (d) is the clearest error of the four: informal soundings among colleagues risk turning a records issue into office rumour before either the colleague or the proper channel has had any say in it.

Question 9

You hold a small discretionary repair fund. Two requests arrive on the same day: one team's ageing equipment has started causing minor delays and could fail within a month; another team lost equipment to accidental damage yesterday and is fully stalled right now. The fund covers only one repair this quarter. You should:
(a) Fund the stalled team first, since a team that is fully stopped right now has the more urgent, immediate need
(b) Fund the ageing-equipment team first, since preventing an outright failure is better management than reacting to one that's already happened
(c) Split the fund between both, even though neither repair would then be fully completed
(d) Ask both teams to submit a brief written case, then decide based on which failure would cost the organisation more if left unaddressed this quarter

Accepted Answer

(d). Option (a) has an intuitive pull, since 'stopped now' feels more urgent than 'might fail later,' and is a defensible answer on its own. But (d) is stronger because both (a) and (b) are essentially guessing which problem matters more using only one dimension each — immediacy, or preventability — when the fund decision genuinely deserves a comparison across both. A short written case from each team costs almost no time and replaces a coin-flip between two legitimate claims with an actual, comparable basis for the call, and it's fair to both teams in a way that a snap judgment based on which request happened to arrive with more urgency-sounding language is not. (c) avoids picking between them but guarantees neither problem is actually solved this quarter, which serves no one.

Question 10

You are the senior-most official on site when a sudden landslide blocks the only access road to a village during heavy rain, with more rain forecast. Hiring emergency earthmoving equipment right now would cost more than your own sanction limit allows, and your reporting officer is unreachable by phone for the next several hours because of the same weather. Waiting for approval risks the road staying blocked through the worst of the storm. You should:
(a) Wait until you can reach your reporting officer, since spending beyond your sanction limit without approval is not something you're authorised to do
(b) Hire the equipment now to clear the road, and formally report the decision and full reasoning to your reporting officer the moment they're reachable
(c) Hire the equipment now, but avoid mentioning the cost overrun in your report unless specifically asked
(d) Ask the village to arrange and pay for the equipment themselves, with reimbursement to follow through the normal process later

Accepted Answer

(b). (a) treats the sanction limit as if it were absolute in every circumstance, but a limit set for ordinary operating conditions was never meant to immobilise the senior-most official on site during a genuine emergency with a real safety consequence to delay — rigid adherence here isn't caution, it's a failure to use the judgment the post actually requires. (c) reaches the same immediate action as (b) but then tries to quietly manage the paper trail afterward, which converts a defensible emergency call into something that looks like it's being hidden — the two are not equivalent, even though the first decision is identical. (d) shifts both the financial burden and the arrangement risk onto the very people the delay would harm most, who have neither the standing nor the capacity to guarantee the equipment arrives in time. (b) takes the action the emergency genuinely requires, and immediately restores the normal chain of accountability the moment it's possible to — which is what turns an overreach into a legitimate emergency exception.

Question 11

A scholarship's application deadline is fixed by policy. An otherwise-fully-eligible student submits one day late, with a hospital discharge summary showing they were admitted for an emergency on the deadline date itself. The scheme's guidelines give the reviewing officer discretion to admit 'exceptional, documented' late submissions, but the officer has never actually used this discretion before and is unsure how it will look in an audit. The officer should:
(a) Admit the application, since this is precisely the kind of case the discretion clause exists for
(b) Reject it, since the officer's own uncertainty about audit scrutiny is itself a legitimate reason for caution
(c) Admit the application, and proactively note the reasoning and evidence in the file so the decision is defensible if ever reviewed
(d) Ask a superior to make the call instead, so the officer's own judgment isn't the one on record

Accepted Answer

(c). (a) reaches the right outcome but stops one step short: the clause does exist for exactly this, but leaving the reasoning undocumented is exactly what would make the decision hard to defend later, and 'hard to defend later' is the officer's actual, stated worry. (b) lets a fear of scrutiny override a power the policy explicitly grants for this situation — an officer who never uses a discretion clause because using it feels risky has, in effect, deleted the clause from the policy through disuse. (d) is a quieter version of the same avoidance: passing a decision the officer is authorised and equipped to make up the chain, purely to avoid personal exposure, doesn't actually make the decision better, it just delays the student's already-late application further while adding no real value. (c) does what (a) gets right, while directly addressing the officer's real concern — a documented, reasoned exercise of discretion is far more defensible in any review than an identical decision left unexplained.

Question 12

Your section head asks you, as a personal favour, to move their nephew's routine application to the top of a first-come-first-served processing queue, framing it as 'nothing that affects anyone badly, everyone's request gets handled eventually anyway.' You should:
(a) Do it quietly this one time, since it's a small request and refusing risks souring a relationship you depend on daily
(b) Decline directly, explaining that processing order is exactly the kind of thing that has to stay first-come-first-served regardless of who's asking
(c) Do it, but also move up a few other pending applications at the same time so it doesn't look like special treatment for one person
(d) Avoid answering directly and hope the section head forgets about it

Accepted Answer

(b). The pull toward (a) is real — it is a small request, and the relationship cost of refusing a senior feels concrete while the harm to everyone else in the queue feels abstract and diffuse. But that's exactly the reasoning that lets queue-jumping happen everywhere: no single instance looks big enough to matter, and the people actually disadvantaged, whoever gets pushed one place back, never even know it happened to them. (c) is a worse version of the same mistake, not a fix — it converts one unfair jump into several, and still leaves everyone else in the queue worse off than the rule promised them. (d) doesn't decline anything, it just delays an uncomfortable conversation the section head will likely follow up on, at which point the officer is in the same position with less goodwill spent on nothing. (b) is the only option that keeps the process honest for everyone who trusted it — a direct, respectful refusal, not a workaround.

Question 13

A journalist calls asking you to confirm or deny a rumour about an internal irregularity currently under review in your department, which you have partial, incomplete knowledge of. You are not the department's designated spokesperson. You should:
(a) Confirm what you personally know, since withholding information from the press looks evasive
(b) Deny the rumour outright to protect the department's reputation while the review is ongoing
(c) Decline to comment on the specifics, and direct the journalist to the designated spokesperson or public relations channel
(d) Ask the journalist to wait until you can check with your section head before saying anything at all

Accepted Answer

(c). (a) is dangerous precisely because partial, incomplete knowledge is being offered to a journalist as if it were the full picture — confirming pieces of an unfinished review can mislead the public more than saying nothing would, even though it feels more transparent in the moment. (b) is worse: denying something that is, by the officer's own account, still under review risks being flatly contradicted by whatever the review actually finds, which damages credibility far more than 'we can't comment yet' ever would. (d) sounds cautious but leaves the journalist with an open question and no path to an answer, and quietly implies there's something specific worth checking with a senior about before commenting, which itself can read as a kind of confirmation. (c) is the response that doesn't speculate, doesn't deny prematurely, and correctly routes the enquiry to whoever is actually authorised and equipped to answer it.

Question 14

A team member privately tells you a colleague has been making comments that make them uncomfortable, but asks you not to take any formal action yet — they want to first see if simply raising it informally with the colleague resolves it, and are worried a formal complaint will change how the team treats them. As their supervisor, you should:
(a) Respect their request fully and take no action yourself, leaving it entirely to the two of them to sort out
(b) File a formal complaint yourself regardless of their wishes, since workplace conduct issues cannot be left to informal resolution
(c) Support their preferred informal approach as a first step, while clearly explaining what formal options remain open to them at any point, and checking back with them afterward
(d) Speak to the colleague yourself immediately, without telling the person who raised the concern that you're doing so

Accepted Answer

(c). (a) hands the entire matter to two people with very unequal footing in the situation and simply hopes it resolves — respecting their wishes shouldn't mean disappearing from the picture entirely once a concern has actually been raised with you. (b) overrides an adult colleague's clearly stated preference and could itself feel like a second loss of control over their own situation, right after the first — good intentions don't erase that cost, and nothing here indicates the situation is severe enough to require overriding it. (d) acts behind the reporting colleague's back, which breaks the trust that led them to come to you in the first place, however well-meant the intervention. (c) takes their preference seriously without abandoning your own responsibility: support the approach they've chosen, make sure they actually know their other options, and stay engaged enough to know if it isn't working.

Question 15

Given that Decision Making carries no negative marking and is officially qualifying rather than merit-ranked, but the underlying scenarios are often genuinely close calls with no textbook-fast answer, the sensible exam-day approach is to:
(a) Attempt every question, applying quick, deliberate judgment, without letting any single hard scenario eat disproportionate time given the section's small share of the paper
(b) Spend as long as needed on each question until fully certain, since accuracy matters more than pacing here
(c) Answer instinctively without reading the full scenario, since there's no formula to apply anyway
(d) Deprioritise this section entirely in favour of re-checking Numeracy and Reasoning answers

Accepted Answer

(a). (b) misreads what 'no negative marking' is actually telling you — it removes the cost of a wrong guess, it doesn't make unlimited time on eight questions a good trade against the rest of a qualifying paper you also need to clear. (c) confuses 'no formula' with 'no reasoning required' — these scenarios reward exactly the deliberate, four-filter-style judgment this chapter builds, just applied quickly rather than exhaustively. (d) throws away free, low-risk marks in the one section where a wrong answer costs nothing, which is a worse trade than spending the section's fair share of time on it. (a) treats the section for what it actually is: worth doing carefully, but not worth doing at the expense of everything else on the paper.

Practice — "Decision Making & Problem Solving"

Sign in to save attempts to your dashboard and track your accuracy over time

Find a verified tutor

Join a live course

Browse coaching centres

About

Categories

Support

Documentation

Get Study Tips & Updates

Download Our App

Download for iOS

Download for Android

Popular Cities