You are a young, aspiring and sincere employee in a Government office working as an assistant to the director of your department. Since you have joined recently, you need to learn and progress. Luckily your superior is very kind and ready to train you for your job. He is a very intelligent and well-informed person having knowledge of various departments. In short, you respect your boss and are looking forward to learn a lot from him. Since you have a good tuning with the boss, he started depending on you. One day due to ill health he invited you at his place for finishing some urgent work. You reached his house and before you could ring the bell you heard shouting noises. You waited for a while. After entering the house the boss greeted you and explained the work. But you were constantly disturbed by the crying of a woman. At last, you inquired with the boss but his answer did not satisfy you. Next day, you were compelled to inquire further in the office and found out that his behaviour is very bad at home with his wife. He also beats up his wife. His wife is not well educated and is a simple woman in comparison to her husband. You see that though your boss is a nice person in the office, he is engaged in domestic violence at home. In such a situation, you are left with the following options. Analyse each option with its consequences. (a) Just ignore thinking about it because it is their personal matter. (b) Report the case to the appropriate authority. (c) Your own innovative approach towards the situation.

Key learnings from their answer

• ›On Q4 ('character is revealed in private not public life') she argues both sides with paired real cases, an MP IPS officer beating his wife at home (no external checks in private life) and India's low divorce rates (lower private-life risk) against Gandhi's life as consistent ethics across all spaces -> for 'critically examine' prompts, marshal contrasting concrete cases on each side before resolving, instead of asserting one position.
• ›She compresses genuine visual frameworks into 150-word answers instead of decorative sketches: a Thought-Speech-Action 'Integrity' triangle (Q1i), a Logos-Pathos-Ethos persuasion triangle (Q3), a family-vs-education comparison TABLE with fixed rows (Stage, Effect, Values, Process, eg) (Q2), and a public-vs-private-ethics convergence line graph meeting at a 'Balance' point (Q4) -> pick the diagram that does analytical work for that specific question (a table to contrast two agents, a convergence graph to argue a balance), not a one-size-fits-all pyramid.