AN ANALYSIS OF COOPERATION UDAI PAREEK AND AND COMPETITION AMONGST ...
AN ANALYSIS OF COOPERATION
UDAI PAREEK
AND
AND COMPETITION AMONGST
NARENDRA DIXIT
PREADOLESCENTS
Cooperative behaviour has been defined usually refers to a style of behaviour
in terms of sharing of a goal and working characterized by fairness, equality and
for it with the other individual(s), and sharing (Kahn, Hottes and Davis, 1971).
competitive behaviour as working for the
The initiation of cooperative behaviour
goal individually, and blocking the other(s) requires trust, whenever the individual by
from attaining the goal.
his choice to cooperate, places his fate
partly in the hands of others. In the co-
COOPERATION
operative situation the goals of the in-
dividuals are predominantly interdepen-
Attention to the concept of cooperation dent in which individuals are so linked
was first given by sociologists who defined together that there is a positive correlation
it in social context. Fairchild (1944) defined between their goal attainments (Deutsch,
cooperation as "the process by which 1949).
individuals or groups combine their efforts
COMPETITION
in a more or less organised way, for the
attainment of a common objective". Green
Competition is the form of social inter-
(1956) defined cooperation as "continuous action in which members strive or struggle
and common endeavour of two or more against each other for the possession or
persons to perform a task or to reach a use of some limited material or non-
goal that is to be commonly cherished."
material goods (Fairchild, 1944).
Later psychologists became interested in
English and English (1958) define it as
this area. English and English (1958) "a striving on the part of two or more
define cooperation as "the working persons for the same object especially for
together of two or more units to produce the goal of being superior".
some common or joint effect." A similar
According to Green (1956) "in competi-
definition is given by Anderson and Parker tion, two or more parties strive for the
(1964). According to them cooperation is a same goal, which none is prepared or
form of social action in which two or expected to share with the others."
more individuals or groups work together
It is a force which compels people to act
jointly to produce a common goal. against one another, it may be said, as a
Cooperation (rather cooperative response) natural outcome of the universal struggle
seems to Zajonc (1966) as one's choice for existence. Sociologists believe that it
which enhance the likelihood that others occurs when there is an insufficient supply
as well as oneself will be rewarded.
of anything that human beings desire —
Cooperation is thus the form of interaction insufficient in the sense that all cannot have
which makes unified social attainment as much of it as they want.
possible because it is a form of a social
A competitive choice implies an attempt
action in which ail participants are benefited to block the other person from achieving a
(almost equally) by attaining their goals. It positive outcome (Zajonc, 1966) or it may
* Dr. Udai Pareek is Professor of Organizational Behaviour and Mr. Narendra Dixit is a
Research Assistant in the Indian Institute of Management, Ahmedabad.

74
UDAI PAREEK AND NARENDRA DIXIT
be described as an effort to outdo the other
METHODOLOGY
person in achieving some mutually desired
goal. Its aim is not to vanquish or destroy
Several variables were measured in this
the opponent; roughly speaking, competition study. These variables are defined as
implies a reward that can be obtained only below:
by one social unit (a person, a segment of
group, or an entire group).
Cooperation (Coop): Responding to share
Competition gets its strength from the
the reward with the other person (game
ego and social needs of the individual who
behaviour)
comes to value his place in a particular Competition (Comp): Responding defection,
group or groups and who strives to main-
to deprive the other of the reward
tain that place or better it (Blair, Jones
(game behaviour)
and Simpson, 1962).
Cooperative disposition (D Coop): A
In this situation, the goals for the in-
tendency to share the attainment of a
dividuals are interdependent — in which
goal and its rewards (self descriptive
individuals are so linked together that there
statement)
is a negative correlation between their goal Competitive disposition (D Comp): A
attainments. (Deutsch, 1949).
tendency to achieve the goal without
Experimental social psychologists have
anyone's help (self descriptive state-
used game situations to study cooperative
ment)
and competitive behaviour, and their various Cooperative proneness (P Coop): An
dimensions. One such method is the Maxi-
orientation to share the attainment of
mizing Differences Game (McClintock and
a goal and its rewards (projective
Nuttin, 1969). The development of co-
statement)
operative and competitive behaviour, as Competitive proneness (P Comp): An
reflected in the game, in three age groups
orientation to achieve the goal and
has been discussed in detail elsewhere
deprive the other of its attainment
(Pareek and Banerjee, in press). Co-
(projective statement)
operative and competitive behaviour are Trust (T): Cooperation following defection
treated as dichotomous, in the game situ-
by both (game behaviour)
ation. An individual is either cooperative or Trustworthiness (Tr): Cooperation following
he is competitive—he cannot be high or low
cooperation by both (game behaviour)
on both these dimensions at the same time. Forgiveness (F): Cooperation following a
However, there are probably a very few
combination of cooperation by self and
life situations, which are purely either co-
defection by other (game behaviour)
operative or competitive. Most situations Repentence (R): Cooperation following a
of every day involves a complex set of
combination of defection by self and
goals and subgoals, so competition and co-
cooperation by other (game behaviour)
operation do not exist separately, i.e., they Retaliation (Re): Defection following a
are not purely dichotomous and often exist
combination of cooperation by self and
together in the same situation (Philips and
defection by other (game behaviour)
Devault, 1957). It may be useful to test Exploitation (E): Defection following
these assumptions. The present study has
cooperation by both (game behaviour)
made an attempt to analyse the nature of
cooperation and competition in a group of
Three devices were used for measuring
preadolescents.
the variables mentioned above.

AN ANALYSIS OF COOPERATION AND COMPETITION
75
GAME
items each for cooperative and competitive
dispositions, having high scale values and
To measure Coop, Comp, T, Tr, F, R, Re, low Q values were selected for the Inventory.
and E Maximizing Difference Game (MDG) In the Inventory a subject is asked to
(McClintock and Nuttin, 1969) was used. respond on a 4-point scale on the item being
It is a two-person game where a S wants applicable to him, scores of 0, 1, 2, and 3
either to maximize the difference in gain being given for not applicable, applicable
between partner and himself (competition) to some extent, applicable to a great extent,
or to facilitate his partner also to get equal and fully applicable. Thus, a person can
points (cooperation). The details of the game get a maximum score of 30 on each of the
and scoring are described elsewhere (Pareek two dispositions. Test-retest reliability (after
and Banerjee, submitted) as also Develop-
2 weeks); was found to be .59 (N = 19).
mental Patterns (Pareek and Banerjee, in
press.) The game is played in dyad. COOPERATIVE AND COMPETITIVE PRONENESS
The two partners are not visible
INSTRUMENT (CCPI):
to each other, and they play 100 moves.
In each move each player decides to choose
P Coop and P Comp were measured by
a cooperative (C) response, or a defecting a scale consisting 5 items, each item having
or competing (D) response. These are 3 alternate responses. Each item described
recorded for each move for each subject. a classroom situation, and of the three
The pay-off depends on the combination of alternatives, one showed cooperative pro-
responses: if both responses, are cooperating neness, another competitive proneness, and
(CC), the pay off is 6-6; if both are defecting the third was a neutral one. The items were
(DD), the pay off is 0-0. If one subject selected on the basis of unanimity of the
defects and the other cooperates, the pay judges on showing such proneness. Each
off is 5-0, the defecting subject getting 5, response is then scored either for competitive
and the cooperative subject getting 0. or for cooperative proneness, and it could
Scoring of other variables are mentioned get a 0 (neutral). The maximum score,
against them in the list given above.
therefore, on either competitive or co-
operative proneness could be 5, and
COOPERATIVE AND COMPETITIVE DISPOSITION
minimum could be 0. The test-retest
INVENTORY (CCDI)
reliability (after 2 weeks) was found to be
.496 (N=19). The statements contained in
A self-checking inventory was developed CCDI and CCPI are reproduced in the
to measure cooperative and competitive Appendix.
dispositions. Cooperative and competitive
dispositions are not regarded as dichoto-
SAMPLE
mous, or exclusive of each other. So two
sub-inventories, one for cooperative dis-
The study was conducted on preadoles-
position and the other for competitive cents studying in Class 8 of Government
disposition, were prepared. After editing and private schools of Udaipur. The sample
statements, 20 statements each for co-
included children from all the major
operative disposition and competitive communities of Udaipur: Hindus, Jains,
disposition were given to judges for rating Bohras, and Tribes (Bhils and Meenas).
on a 5-point scale the extent to which the The details of the sample are given in
statements showed the disposition. Ten Table 1.

76
UDAI PAREEK AND NARENDRA DIXIT
T A B L E 1
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
D E T A I L S OF THE SAMPLE
Mean values and SDs of the total sample
as well as for boys and girls on various
variables i.e. cooperation (Coop), competi-
Hindu
Jain
Bohra
Tribes
Total
tion (Comp), competitive disposition
(D Comp), cooperative disposition (D Coop),
Boys
20
20
20
10
70
competitive proneness (P Comp), coopera-
tive proneness (P Coop), trust (T), trust-
Girls
20
20
20
20
80
worthiness (Tr), forgiveness (F), repentence
Total
40
40
40
30
150
(R), retaliation (Re) and exploitation (E) are
given in the Table 2.
TABLE 2
M E A N S AND S D S FOR ALL VARIABLES FOR THE TOTAL SAMPLE AND BOYS AND GIRLS
Variables
Total Sample (N=150)
Boys (N=70)
Girls (N = 80)
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
D Comp
16.733
5.728
16.414
4.410
17.250
7.470
D Coop
21.213
4.248
20.530
4.220
21.035
4.500
P Comp
1.213
3.837
1.285
0.842
1.240
0.849
P Coop
2.440
1.074
2.630
1.453
2.400
1.105
Coop
51.087
29.674
55.921
28.170
48.350
28.170
Comp
48.913
29.674
44.079
30.230
52.650
30.230
F
9.960
15.247
8.914
14.600
7.212
16.100
R
6.367
6.825
5.264
6.200
8.087
8.050
T
9.493
8.107
8.285
9.100
10.550
7.820
Tr
21.780
26.199
28.671
30.990
15.875
22.716
Re
8.600
7.154
7.414
6.860
9.637
8.210
E
6.967
7.549
5.517
6.320
8.137
8.544
Mean values show that the sample is behaviour (Comp). Also mean on trust-
consistently high on cooperative disposition worthiness (Tr) is very high which is
(D Coop), cooperative proneness (P Coop), supposed to be related to cooperation.
and in cooperative game behaviour (Coop)
Table 3 and 4 give means and standard
than in competitive disposition (D Comp), deviations of the various groups on different
proneness (P Comp), in competitive game variables.

AN ANALYSIS OF COOPERATION AND COMPETITION
77
TABLE 3
(See Table 4 on the following page)
M E A N AND SD FOR VARIOUS SUB-CULTURAL G R O U P
Table 2 reveals that girls were high on
Difference was found significant only on
competitive and cooperative disposition trust and exploitation where boys were
( M = 17.25 and 21.03 respectively) but in found to be higher on trust (M=28.67) than
actual game behaviour boys showed more girls (M = 15.875) and the girls showed more
cooperative behaviour (M=55.92) than girls exploitation (M=8.137) than boys (M=5.17)
(M=48.35) did. Also mean score on trust-
and t ratios in both the cases were
worthiness of boys was greater than that significant at .01 and .05 level respectively.
of girls. But analysis of variance did not
Among the various sub-cultural groups
show any significant difference between boys (Table 4) where Bohras were found to have
and girls (Table 5) on these variables.
a higher tendency for cooperative disposi-
tion (M=21.95) and competitive disposition
TABLE 5
(M=18.52), while the Hindus were higher
on competitive proneness and cooperative
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF VARIOUS VARIABLES proneness. In the game behaviour the
FOR TOTAL SAMPLE
Bohras were found to be mostly competitive
( N = 1 5 0 )
(M = 56.75) whereas Hindus were found to
be more cooperative (M=54.32). Analysis
of variance revealed that these subcultural
groups differed significantly in competitive
disposition. Also they were found to differ
on forgiveness and exploitation. On
competitive proneness Hindus were the
highest (M=2.675) followed by Bohras
(M=1.575), Tribes (N=1.167) and Jains
(M=1.118). t test reveals that Hindus
differed from Jains (P < .01), Bohras
(P < .05) and Tribes (P < .05). Jains were
found to differ from Bohras (P < .05) but
tribes were not found to have any
significant difference with Jains and Bohras
F Ratio significant at .05 level = *
F Ratio significant at .01 level = **
on the competitive proneness (Table 6).


AN ANALYSIS OF COOPERATION AND COMPETITION
79
TABLE 6
SUB-CULTURAL DIFFERENCES ON SOME VARIABLE
t Values significant at .05 level = *
t Values significant at .01 level = **
On forgiveness, t test showed that only ( M = 17.700) scored least on cooperative
Jains and Bohras differed in this regard disposition. Bohra girls were high on com-
(p < .05) but rest of the groups did not petitive proneness ( M = 1.650) whereas the
show any significant difference among them-
Hindu boys and tribal boys were having
selves, t test for exploitation showed Hindus high cooperative proneness (M=2.80) and
to differ from Bohras and Jains but not Jain girls (M=2.20) were least cooperative
with tribes (at .05 and .01 level respectively) prone and Tribal boys were least competi-
significantly. Rest of the groups did not tive prone. In game behaviour Bohra girls
indicate any significant difference.
showed the highest competition (M=57.650)
among various groups. Hindu and Tribal
Table 4 shows that Bohra boys scored boys (M=62.550 and 62.500 respectively)
more on competitive (M = 17.150) and co-
showed almost equal cooperation in the
operative (M=23.200) disposition, whereas game behaviour and highest among various
the Hindu girls scored least on competitive groups. t test between the boys and girls
disposition ( M = 15.05) and Tribal boys of various sub-cultural groups showed that

80
UDAI PAREEK AND NARENDRA DIXIT
these groups did not differ on competitive
For sex differences in different subc-
disposition significantly. Jain girls and cultural groups, t test revealed that on com-
tribal girls showed more cooperative dis-
petitive disposition there was no difference,
position than Jain and Tribal boys but Jain girls (M=22.550) differed from Jain
(P < .01 and .05 respectively), but Bohra boys (M=19.80) significantly (P < .05)
boys showed more cooperative tendency and tribal girls (M=22.900) from tribal boys
(M=17.700), which was significant at .01
than Bohra girls. On proneness instrument level, showing a higher disposition for co-
only tribal girls showed significant difference operation, while the Bohra boys exhibited
in the competitive proneness than tribal more disposition for cooperation than
boys (P < .01). Rest of the groups did not Bohra girls, the difference being significant
show any significant difference in the at .01 level. Tribal boys had lower com-
competitive proneness. No significant petitive proneness than tribal girls (P < .01)
difference was found between sex groups of but no significant difference was observed
various sub-cultural groups on their prone-
on cooperative proneness and in game be-
ness for cooperation and in their game haviour in sex groups of various sub-
behaviour.
cultural groups (Table 7).
TABLE 7
SEX DIFFERENCES IN DIFFERENT SUB-CULTURAL GROUPS ON VARIOUS VARIABLES
Variables
Hindu
Jain
Bohra
Tribes
Boys Girls Boys Girls Boys Girls Boys Girls
D Comp Mean
16.650 15.050 15.600 16.400 17.150 19.900 16.000 16.750
t
.935
.420
1.419
.005
D Coop Mean
20.000 21.100 19.800 22.550 23.200 20.200 17.700 22.900
t
.840
2.162*
2.056*
4.688**
P Comp Mean
1.200 0.800 1.100 1.100 1.500 1.650 0.700 1.400
t
1.788
0.000
.172
7.000**
P Coop Mean
2.800 2.550 2.250 2.200 2.250 2.450 2.800 2.400
t
.684
.150
.600
1.000
Coop Mean
62.550 46.100 57.800 52.150 44.150 42.350 62.500 48.800
t
1.949
.536
.155
1.300
Comp Mean
37.450 53.900 42.200 47.850 55.850 47.650 37.500 51.200
t
1.949
.536
.155
1.300
F Mean 6.550 6.900
13.950 6.950 4.100 5.700 13.200 9.300
t
.093
.922
.770
.548
R Mean 6.350 6.900 6.800 6.950 2.275 5.100 6.000 13.400
t
.255
.058
1.765
3.380**
T Mean 8.050 15.150 9.000 4.850 9.350 8.880 5.200 15.400
t
2.254*
2.083*
.230
3.300**
Tr Mean 40.450 12.950 23.800 22.600 17.800 19.300 35.600 8.650
t
3.258**
.135
.176
2.527*
Re Mean
6.300 10.850 8.600 4.800 8.350 8.850 5.400 14.050
t
1.865
1.800
.213
3.351**
E Mean 7.700 11.200 5.650 7.350 3.550 5.800 5.200 8.400
t
1.154
.636
1.310
1.400
t Values significant at .05 level = *
t Values significant at .01 level = **

AN ANALYSIS OF COOPERATION AND COMPETITION
81
Hindu boys (M=40.450) showed more bles, and not two poles of the same varia-
trustworthiness than girls ( M = 12.950) at ble. Competitive game behaviour has a
.01 level of significance but Hindu girls significant negative relationship with P
( M = 15.15) were significantly high (P < .05 Coop (—.218). In summary, it appears that
on trust than Hindu boys ( M = 8 050). Jain while competition and cooperation are not
boys (M=9.00) were high (P < .05) on trust dichotomous, P Coop as measured by the
than girls (M=4.850). Also tribal girls show-
Instrument seems to reveal cooperative be-
ed more repentence (M=13.4), retaliation haviour, and that both D Comp and P
(M=13.4) and trustworthiness (M=8.650), Comp scores show a different kind of com-
than tribal boys (M=6.00, 5.400, 5.200 petition than that revealed in the game be-
respectively), the difference was significant haviour. It may be mentioned here that
at .01 level but tribal boys exhibited more defection in game behaviour shows a
trust (M=35.600) than tribal girls tendency to gain at the cost of (or, more
(M=8.6500), the significance level was .05. appropriately even not gain but cause loss
to) the partner in the game. The competi-
RELATIONSHIP AMONGST THE
tion, on the other hand, implied in the
DIFFERENT VARIABLES
two tests of disposition and proneness is
of a different kind.
Table 8 gives the values of correlations
Regarding other variables of game
amongst the different variables (See on the behaviour F and Tr show positive correla-
following page).
tion with Coop (r=.442 and .722) but Coop
Most of the correlations are small and strangely enough has negative correlation
are not significant statistically. However, with T ( r = - . 1 6 4 ) . Also T was found to be
the values of correlations amongst game negatively correlated with Tr (r=— .424)
behaviour and disposition and proneness positively to Re (r=.844), and E (r=.240)
are both interesting and baffling. Competi-
Exploitation was positively related with
tive disposition was found to have signi-
repentence (r=.786), but negatively to
ficantly positive correlation with competi-
forgiveness (r=— .174). Trustworthiness also
tive proneness (r=.269) but the same is showed a negative relationship with retalia-
not true of cooperative disposition and tion. Rest of the correlations are not
proneness (r=.082). It seems that compe-
significant statistically.
tition as revealed in the disposition and
Some of the correlations are apparently
proneness items has something common, baffling. However, these do reveal some
but this is not so with cooperation. Again, interesting dynamics. Let us take trust (T).
there is a negative and significant corre-
Trust is a kind of initial move, a testing
lation between P Comp and P Coop move to indicate to the partner that the
(—.423), showing that competitive and co-
subject is willing to cooperate. In this sense,
operative proneness, as revealed in the pro-
it is not a move of blind trust. In the same
jective statements, are opposite of each sense, competition (Comp) is an initial
other. The value of the negative correla-
move. We find that both have some positive
tion is higher even that of the correlation correlation (.164). If, however, the partner
between competitive and cooperative game does not show response with cooperation,
behaviour (—.010). In fact, the latter cor-
or after some cooperative moves, he
relation, almost of zero value, indicates a switches to defection, the subject is likely
strong possibility of competition and co-
to react strongly; we find a highly significant
operation between two independent varia-
correlation between trust and retaliation


AN ANALYSIS OF COOPERATION AND COMPETITION
83
(.844). Trust (as a testing move) has negative the partner's move, may be a tendency to
correlation (—.424) with trustworthiness express deviance, Repentance has no
(having blind trust). Trustworthiness seems significant correlation with any other
to contribute to cooperation (r=.722), and variable, and thus shows that it is more an
is obviously opposite of retaliation expression of deviance than anything else.
(r=—.427). Strangely, repentance (R) and Forgiveness also seems to play the same
exploitation (E) have a very high positive role, although it is positively correlated with
correlation (.786). Both R and E are non-
cooperative game behaviour (r=.442).
reciprocal moves, Tr and Re being reciprocal
moves. It is interesting that there is a high
The above results are based on the
correlation between R and E showing a analysis of data from a limited sample. A
tendency of a subject using one to use the more detailed study is needed to reveal the
other also — a tendency to respond against dynamics of cooperation and competition.
REFERENCES
Anderson. W. A. and
Society. New York: D. Van Nostrand Company, Inc.
Parker, F. B.
1964
Blair, G. M.;
Educational Psychology. New York: The McMillan Company.
Jones, R. S. and
Simpson, R. H.
1962
Deutsch, M.
'Theory of Cooperation and Competition'. Human Relations,
1949(a)
2: 129-152.
English, H. B.
A Comprehensive Dictionary of Psychological and Psycho-
and English, A. C.
analytical terms. New York, Longmans Green and Co.
1958
Fairchild, A.
A Dictionary of Sociology.
1944
Green, A. W.
Sociology. McGraw Hill Book Co., Inc.
1956
Kahn, Arnold; Hottes,
"Cooperation and Optimal Responding in the PD Game:
Joe and
Effects of Sex and Physical Attractiveness," Journal of Personality
Davis, William
and Social Psychology, 17(3): 267-279.
1971
McClintock, C. G.
"Development of Competitive Game Behaviour in Children
and Nuttin, J. M.
Across Two Cultures," Journal of Experimental Social Psychology.
1969
5: 203-218.
Pareek, Udai and
Development of Cooperative and Competitive Behaviour in
Banerjee, Debadatta
Children of some Indian Sub-cultures (Submitted)
Pareek, Udai and
"Developmental Trends in the Dimension of Cooperative and
Banerjee, Debadatta
Competitive Game Behaviour in Some Sub-culture", Indian
Educational Review (in press).
Philips, B. N.
"Evaluation of Research on Cooperation and Competition".
and Devault, M. V.
Psychological Reports, 3: 289-292.
1957
Zajonc, R. B.
Social Psychology: An Experimental Approach. California:
1966
Wadsworth Publishing Co., Inc.

84
UDAI PAREEK AND NARENDRA DIXIT
APPENDIX
ITEMS FOR CCDI AND CCPI
CCDI
16. I want to top the class in studies.
17. I always think how to surpass others.
1. Being given any work on the class, 18. I like playing after making team.
I always help others so that they can 19. I like to take parts in competitions and
also finish that with me.
also wish that I must do better than
2. In the class when two of us have
others.
solved the problem simultaneously, 20. To do a work well, I want to do it
even then I wish that the teacher
with others.
should see mine first and praise me.
3. Whenever there is a problem in the CCPI
class, I want to solve it jointly.
4. I enjoy accomplishing a work, if I
1. Shyam went to play with his two
feel that others also have done equally
friends in the game period. Teacher
good.
gave them some wooden blocks to
5. I want that there should be competi-
make designs. The teacher only told
tion in the class and I must get the
them that today we will make designs
highest mark.
with these blocks. Then what Shyam
6. Whenever there is a problem in the
will do?
class, I want to solve it myself.
(a) Shyam will try quickly to make
7. Generally, I like to work with those
those designs alone without his
people whom I think that they are
friends.
better than me in two or three things.
(b) Shyam will like to finish those
8. While playing, I want to play the best
designs with his friends.
and win.
(c) He will ask the teacher to distribute
9. I like to do better than others on any
equal amount of work to them.
task.
2. Sohan and Pran were given a game
10. At the time of examination I want to
to play, at the end of which they were
help my friends along with me.
supposed to get a toffee for each 20
11. While playing, I wish that my team-
marks. These could be played in three
mates should win the game.
ways (1) more marks, but distributed
12. Sometimes when I see that other boy
equally to both, (2) either of them may
is fairing equally good, I feel depressed.
get, (3) neither of them may get. What
13. I wish that others should also get
will Sohan think in this situation.
reward, along with me on any
(a) Sohan will like to score as much
rewarding task.
number as possible even if his
14. At the time of examination, I want
friend gets equal marks.
to study alone, so that I can stand first.
(b) Sohan will like to score as much
15. Being given any work in the class I
as possible but not let other partner
want to finish it by joining others.
get any.

AN ANALYSIS OF COOPERATION AND COMPETITION
85
(c) He will go on play without any
(a) I will work along with other boys
understanding.
of my class so that we can decorate
the best.
3. Ram and Shyam are studying in the
(b) I will do my work nicely and will
same class. Ram is good at Science and
not help others no matter the
Shyam at Mathematics. Shyam always
reputation of my class goes down.
helps Ram in Mathematics but Ram
never helps him willingly. What will
(c) I will ask my monitor what I
Shyam Do?
should do?
(a) In future, he will not give any
5. Five boys of the class were asked to
help to Ram and would like to
write slogans to be used in the election.
get more marks in Science than
They were told to make interesting
Ram.
and small slogans what will they do?
(b) Even when Ram is not helping,
(a) All will write some slogans
Shyam will help Ram.
together and those liked by all
will be given to the teacher.
(c) Both will try to study by themselves.
(b) All the boys will write the slogans
4. On the occasion of School's annual
separately and will try that his
function, the school was being
slogans should be interesting and
decorated. All classes were distributed
shorter than others.
the work of preparing garlands. What
(c) They will ask the teacher what is
Suresh of class VIII will think before
the minimum number, of slogans,
starting the work.
one has to write.