Relationships integrity and public openness 20 mark review

Main review 20 marks

Answer all three main questions: two carry 5 marks with a 50-word limit each; the third carries 10 marks with a 150-word limit. Suggested time: 25 minutes, then self-review. The three separately labelled alternate items are extra practice, not additional compulsory marks. This is an original teaching test, not an official RPSC paper or prescribed module test. The official 9 January 2026 scheme gives indicative unit-level formats and allows variation. Attempt the questions before reading the guides. Models illustrate reasoning, not compulsory wording. Award equivalent, justified answers under the same criteria; names or slogans alone earn no reasoning marks. Word counts use whitespace-separated words in each language.

Main review questions

Main question 1 5 marks 50 words

An officer is an unpaid trustee of an association applying for a grant she evaluates. She declares the role. Must the association be rejected, or may she continue unchanged? Explain a defensible alternative under a procedure that permits independent reassignment.

Main question 2 5 marks 50 words

Can revising an administrative recommendation demonstrate integrity? Give a philosophical reason and distinguish evidence-based revision from opportunistic reversal.

Main question 3 10 marks 150 words

A fictional municipal office publishes a road-repair priority list. A critical newspaper alleges favouritism between wards. Verification supports the sequence under the published hazard and essential-access criteria; it does not establish favouritism. A supervisor proposes excluding the newspaper from briefings and releasing complainants’ contact details to discredit its story. The authorised protocol permits publication of criteria and aggregate inspection findings, equal access to briefings and recorded responses to new evidence. Requests for individual records receive a separate competent legal decision. Explain a liberal-society justification for openness and recommend a truthful, fair and appropriately bounded response.

Main review answers and rubrics

Main question 1

Illustrative answer. Her trusteeship links an applicant's interest to her evaluation, without proving corruption. Declaration exposes but does not remove the conflict; automatic rejection unfairly prejudges the association. The authorised manager should independently reassign her affected duties and access, record the arrangement, and retain ordinary eligibility criteria.

Rubric. Accurate conflict diagnosis 1.5; Reason declaration and automatic applicant rejection are insufficient 1.5; Authorised independent arrangement 1; Clarity and 50-word discipline 1

Accepted alternatives. Credit responsibility to the association, loyalty or a reasonable risk to independent judgement as the relevant interest; personal payment is unnecessary. Recusal with authorised replacement and access control is equivalent. Do not require a finding of misconduct or the association's disqualification.

Repair a weak answer. “Declare and continue” names visibility but leaves influence unchanged. “Reject the association” ignores fair eligibility. Repair either by separating the officer's role from the applicant's merits and naming independent, documented management.

Main question 2

Illustrative answer. Yes. Integrity involves defensible commitments and responsible judgement, not preserving every belief unchanged. Correcting a recommendation when verified evidence changes honours a commitment to accuracy and respect for affected people. Reversing it merely for approval or reward abandons that public reason; explaining the revision makes the difference inspectable.

Rubric. Integrity distinction 2; Philosophical reason tied to revision 2; Clarity and 50-word discipline 1

Accepted alternatives. A duty-based argument about honest reasons, an argument about respect for fellow deliberators, or a consequence-based argument about reliable public decisions may earn full credit if it distinguishes justified revision from convenience. An original example can carry the explanation; a philosopher's name is not required.

Repair a weak answer. “Integrity means sticking to your word forever” confuses commitment with an empirical conclusion. Identify the continuing value, the new reliable fact and the reason the recommendation should change. Mere willingness to change is also insufficient without a good reason.

Main question 3

Illustrative answer. Public authority binds citizens who may disagree; accessible reasons enable informed scrutiny without requiring unanimity. Publish the hazard and essential-access criteria with aggregate inspection findings and explain how they support the sequence. Different priorities can respect equal standing when relevant risks differ. Say that verification supports this list, not that every possible allegation is disproved. Keep briefing access equal and answer the newspaper factually; critical coverage is no ground for exclusion. Do not release complainants' contacts to discredit it. Individual-record requests need a separate competent legal assessment, including applicable information limits. Preserve inspection records and the response, identify who will answer further questions under the protocol, and reassess credible new evidence. This makes the decision checkable while protecting justified privacy and retaining a route to correction.

Rubric. Liberal-society rationale for reasons and scrutiny 2; Accurate and inspectable explanation of evidence 2; Impartial non-retaliatory response to media 2; Proportionate information limits and competent statutory route 2; Accountable follow-through 1; Coherence and 150-word discipline 1

Accepted alternatives. Accept an accessible briefing note, explained aggregate map or criteria-linked summary if allowed by the stipulated publication powers. A candidate may emphasise equal citizenship, liberty or public justification. Additional review is acceptable if proportionate; the answer must retain the supported findings, equal media access and a separate legal route for individual records. No apology for unproved favouritism is required.

Repair a weak answer. “The allegation is false, so ban the paper” overstates the verification and punishes scrutiny. “Publish everything” exposes complainants without answering the priority question. Repair by explaining the evidence and relevant need, protecting equal access, limiting routine disclosure and keeping reassessment open.

Extra practice not part of the 20 marks

Alternate practice 1 5 marks 50 words

Why may a person owe special care to a friend while still owing impartial treatment when exercising a public role?

Alternate practice 2 5 marks 50 words

Explain why equal moral standing need not require identical administrative treatment. Use a task-relevant difference.

Alternate practice 3 10 marks 150 words

An officer has given honest advice against a policy. The competent government lawfully adopts it after considering that advice, without ordering false records or discriminatory delivery. Explain how integrity and non-partisanship guide the officer’s next steps.

Extra practice answers and rubrics

Alternate practice 1

Illustrative answer. Friendship and promises can create special duties of care, honesty and confidence. Giving a friend one's own time can honour them. Public authority is entrusted for everyone affected, so personal loyalty cannot replace relevant criteria. Private care remains constrained by others' rights, consent and legitimate interests.

Rubric. Ethical obligations within a private relationship 1.5; Reasoned distinction between private resources and public power 1.5; Ethical limits on private care 1; Clarity and 50-word discipline 1

Accepted alternatives. Family responsibility or a freely made promise may replace friendship. Credit another original private-resource example if it respects consent and other people's legitimate interests. The central distinction is the capacity in which the person acts, not a claim that emotions vanish in public work.

Repair a weak answer. “We may favour friends privately” is incomplete. Explain what care actually owes, why the resource is yours to offer and why entrusted public power requires a different justification. Add a limit such as honesty or consent.

Alternate practice 2

Illustrative answer. Equal standing requires taking everyone's interests seriously, not ignoring relevant differences. Under published service-need criteria, adults lacking any usable late-night bus alternative may warrant greater provision than an otherwise similar route with an alternative. Apply and verify the same criteria; party preference or personal closeness cannot substitute for need.

Rubric. Explanation of equal moral standing 1.5; Task-relevant difference and reason 1.5; Consistent checkable criteria against favouritism 1; Clarity and 50-word discipline 1

Accepted alternatives. Another task-relevant difference, such as verified access barriers in a service, is acceptable if the purpose and criterion are explained. An equal allocation may also be justified when relevant facts are equal; the question rejects automatic identical treatment, not equality itself.

Repair a weak answer. “Everyone must get exactly the same” omits the service's purpose and actual barriers. “Help the needy” is too vague. Specify the relevant difference, how it affects the task and how the same criterion can be checked for everyone.

Alternate practice 3

Illustrative answer. The officer's duty is to give the competent government an honest basis for choice and then serve the public through lawful decisions. Integrity preserves the recorded advice and its reasons; it does not require pretending to agree or secretly sabotaging implementation. Non-partisanship means working professionally whichever party governs, without manipulating evidence or access for party advantage. Since the advice was considered and the adopted policy is lawful on the stated facts, the officer should implement it earnestly within assigned powers. Keep accurate records, monitor relevant outcomes and raise credible new evidence through the appropriate authorised review channel. A changed recommendation should follow reasons, not rewards. This is neither a personal veto over democratic policy nor an instruction to obey every possible future order; a new illegality or discriminatory direction would require fresh assessment under applicable duties.

Rubric. Public role and democratic justification 2; Integrity and recorded honest advice 2; Non-partisan lawful implementation 2; Records and authorised review of new evidence 2; No private veto or unlimited obedience 1; Coherence and 150-word discipline 1

Accepted alternatives. Credit an explanation centred on institutional trust, equal citizenship or a fair division of democratic and professional responsibilities, provided it explains the next steps. A candidate may request lawful clarification of practical issues without obstructing the stated lawful decision. No invented power to cancel policy, punish the government or guarantee protection is needed.

Repair a weak answer. “Resign or refuse, otherwise integrity is lost” treats personal agreement as the source of public authority. “Obey every order” abandons honest judgement and legal limits. Repair by separating advice from decision authority, implementing the lawful policy and retaining a reasoned review route.

Assessment source

RPSC Mains indicative scheme 9 January 2026 Paper II Unit I