UPSC MainsENGLISH-COMPULSORY20131 Marks
Q44.

he was late for the meeting, his boss didn't get angry.

How to Approach

This question tests basic English grammar and understanding of conjunctions and implied meaning. The core task is to identify the relationship between the two clauses and infer the reason for the boss's reaction (or lack thereof). The answer should focus on explaining the implied reason – likely a mitigating circumstance or a forgiving nature of the boss – rather than simply restating the sentence. A concise and logical explanation is key.

Model Answer

0 min read

Introduction

The sentence "He was late for the meeting, his boss didn't get angry" presents a scenario where a typical consequence (anger from a boss due to tardiness) does not occur. This suggests an underlying reason or context that explains the boss’s unexpected reaction. Understanding this requires analyzing the implied relationship between the two clauses and identifying potential mitigating factors that could prevent the boss from expressing anger. The sentence highlights the importance of considering context when interpreting events and reactions.

The sentence indicates a deviation from the expected norm. Typically, an employee’s lateness would elicit a negative response from their superior. However, the boss’s lack of anger suggests that there was a reason, either known or implied, that justified or excused the employee’s tardiness.

Possible Explanations

Several factors could explain the boss’s reaction:

  • Valid Reason for Lateness: The employee might have had a legitimate reason for being late, such as a traffic accident, a family emergency, or an unavoidable prior commitment. The boss may have been informed of this reason and understood its validity.
  • Prior Good Performance: The employee might be a consistently high performer with a strong track record. The boss may have chosen to overlook a single instance of lateness due to the employee’s overall value to the organization.
  • Boss’s Temperament: The boss might be known for their understanding and forgiving nature. They may not react strongly to minor infractions, preferring a more lenient approach to management.
  • Meeting Context: The meeting itself might not have been particularly important or urgent. If the employee’s presence wasn’t crucial, the boss might have been less concerned about their lateness.
  • Mitigating Circumstances: Perhaps the employee proactively communicated their anticipated delay, offering an apology and explanation. This preemptive communication could have softened the impact of their lateness.

Grammatical Analysis

The sentence uses a comma to connect two independent clauses. This implies a causal relationship, but it’s not explicitly stated. The lack of a coordinating conjunction (like ‘but’ or ‘so’) further emphasizes the implied connection. The sentence relies on the reader to infer the reason behind the boss’s lack of anger.

Illustrative Scenario

Consider a scenario where the employee was delayed due to assisting a colleague with a critical task. The boss, aware of the employee’s helpfulness and dedication, might choose not to reprimand them for being late to the meeting. This demonstrates how context and mitigating circumstances can influence reactions.

The Importance of Context

This simple sentence underscores the importance of considering context in all situations. A reaction is rarely isolated; it’s shaped by a multitude of factors. Effective communication and understanding these factors are crucial for building positive relationships in both personal and professional settings.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the sentence "He was late for the meeting, his boss didn't get angry" implies that the boss’s reaction was influenced by factors beyond the lateness itself. These factors could include a valid reason for the delay, the employee’s past performance, the boss’s temperament, or the context of the meeting. The sentence serves as a reminder that understanding the underlying reasons behind actions is essential for accurate interpretation and effective communication.

Answer Length

This is a comprehensive model answer for learning purposes and may exceed the word limit. In the exam, always adhere to the prescribed word count.

Additional Resources

Key Definitions

Mitigating Circumstance
A factor that reduces the degree of blame or culpability. It explains or justifies an action that might otherwise be considered wrong or unacceptable.
Implied Meaning
The meaning that is suggested or understood without being explicitly stated. It requires the reader or listener to draw inferences based on the available information.

Key Statistics

A 2023 study by Gallup found that 74% of employees believe their manager cares about their well-being. This suggests a trend towards more empathetic leadership, potentially leading to more forgiving responses to minor infractions.

Source: Gallup, "State of the Global Workplace: 2023 Report"

According to a 2022 report by SHRM (Society for Human Resource Management), companies with strong employee engagement report 21% higher profitability.

Source: SHRM, "The Business Case for Employee Engagement"

Examples

The Case of Satya Nadella at Microsoft

Satya Nadella, upon becoming CEO of Microsoft, fostered a culture of empathy and learning from mistakes. This shift in leadership style led to a more forgiving environment where employees felt comfortable taking risks and acknowledging failures without fear of harsh repercussions.

Frequently Asked Questions

Does this sentence imply the boss approved of the lateness?

Not necessarily. It simply means the boss didn't react with anger. Approval and a lack of anger are distinct responses. The boss might have still been mildly displeased but chose not to express it.