De La Salle University Manila Entrance Exam Set

The core of this question lies in understanding the Lasallian principle of “Faith in the Divine Presence” and its practical application within an academic community like De La Salle University Manila. This principle, central to the university’s identity, emphasizes recognizing God’s presence in all things and people, fostering a sense of community, and guiding ethical conduct. When a student encounters a peer struggling with academic integrity, the most aligned response with this Lasallian value is to offer supportive guidance and encourage a path towards ethical resolution. This involves approaching the situation with compassion, understanding the potential pressures the peer might be facing, and gently steering them towards resources or personal reflection that uphold academic honesty. This approach prioritizes the well-being and moral development of the individual, reflecting the university’s commitment to holistic education. Conversely, immediate reporting without any attempt at dialogue or support, or conversely, ignoring the situation entirely, would not fully embody the proactive and compassionate engagement that the Lasallian charism promotes. The goal is not merely to enforce rules but to cultivate an environment of integrity and mutual respect, rooted in a spiritual understanding of human dignity.

The question probes the understanding of ethical considerations in research, specifically concerning the principle of informed consent and its application in a university setting like De La Salle University Manila. The scenario involves a psychology student, Anya, conducting a study on stress levels among university students. The core ethical dilemma arises from her decision to collect data without explicitly informing participants about the specific nature of the stress assessment, opting instead for a general description. This action violates the principle of informed consent, which mandates that participants must be fully apprised of the study’s purpose, procedures, potential risks, and benefits before agreeing to participate. While Anya’s intention might be to avoid influencing participant responses, this does not supersede the ethical requirement for transparency. The ethical guidelines prevalent in academic institutions, including those at De La Salle University Manila, emphasize participant autonomy and the right to make an informed decision. Therefore, the most ethically sound approach would be to provide a comprehensive disclosure, even if it means potential for some participant bias. The other options represent either a lesser ethical breach or a misinterpretation of ethical principles. Collecting data without any consent would be a severe violation. Collecting data with a vague description, as Anya did, is problematic. Obtaining consent after data collection is retrospective and invalidates the initial consent process. Thus, the most appropriate ethical recourse is to re-obtain consent with full disclosure.

The question probes the understanding of ethical considerations in research, specifically concerning data integrity and academic honesty, which are foundational principles at De La Salle University Manila. The scenario involves a student, Miguel, who discovers a discrepancy in his research data that could potentially invalidate his findings if not addressed. The core ethical dilemma lies in how to proceed with this discovery. Option A, “Miguel should immediately report the discrepancy to his research advisor, detailing the nature of the error and its potential impact on the study’s conclusions, and propose a revised methodology or data analysis plan,” represents the most ethically sound approach. This aligns with the principles of transparency, accountability, and the pursuit of truth in academic research, which are emphasized in De La Salle University Manila’s commitment to scholarly excellence. Reporting the issue promptly allows for collaborative problem-solving, ensures that the research process remains rigorous, and upholds the integrity of the academic record. This proactive stance demonstrates a commitment to the scientific method and ethical research practices. Option B suggests ignoring the discrepancy, which is a clear violation of academic integrity. Option C proposes fabricating data to align with initial hypotheses, which is outright scientific misconduct. Option D suggests subtly altering the data without disclosure, which is also a form of data manipulation and dishonesty. These options all undermine the credibility of research and violate the ethical standards expected of students and researchers within any reputable academic institution, including De La Salle University Manila. The university’s emphasis on Lasallian values, such as integrity and truth, makes the transparent reporting of errors paramount.

The question probes the understanding of ethical considerations in research, specifically within the context of academic integrity and the potential for bias in data presentation, which are core tenets at De La Salle University Manila. The scenario describes a researcher selectively highlighting findings that support a pre-existing hypothesis while downplaying contradictory evidence. This practice directly violates the principle of objective reporting and can lead to misleading conclusions. The correct answer, therefore, must address the ethical breach of selective reporting and its impact on scientific validity. Ethical research at De La Salle University Manila emphasizes transparency, honesty, and the pursuit of truth. Researchers are expected to present their findings comprehensively, acknowledging all significant results, whether they support or refute their initial assumptions. The act described in the question is a form of confirmation bias manifested in data presentation, undermining the very foundation of empirical inquiry. This can lead to flawed decision-making if the biased research is used as a basis for further study or policy. The university’s commitment to Lasallian values, including truth and integrity, necessitates a critical evaluation of research practices that deviate from these principles. Understanding this ethical dimension is crucial for aspiring scholars who will contribute to the academic discourse and uphold the reputation of their alma mater. The core issue is not simply about finding a result, but about the integrity of the process by which that result is communicated and interpreted.

The scenario describes a critical ethical dilemma faced by a researcher at De La Salle University Manila. The core issue revolves around the potential conflict between the pursuit of scientific advancement and the imperative to protect vulnerable populations from exploitation. The researcher has developed a promising new diagnostic tool for a rare tropical disease prevalent in a low-income community. However, the community members, due to their limited understanding of research protocols and potential long-term implications, are being offered minimal compensation for their participation, which could be interpreted as coercion. The principle of **beneficence** in research ethics mandates that researchers maximize potential benefits while minimizing potential harms. In this case, the potential benefit is a new diagnostic tool, but the potential harm lies in the exploitation of the community. **Justice** requires that the burdens and benefits of research are distributed fairly. Offering inadequate compensation to a vulnerable population for their participation, especially when the research is likely to yield significant benefits for a wider population or the researcher, violates this principle. **Respect for persons** (autonomy) demands that individuals are treated as autonomous agents and that those with diminished autonomy are afforded protection. The community’s limited understanding and the power imbalance suggest that their consent might not be fully informed or voluntary. Therefore, the most ethically sound approach, aligning with the core tenets of research ethics emphasized at institutions like De La Salle University Manila, is to halt data collection until a more equitable compensation structure and a clearer, culturally sensitive informed consent process are established. This ensures that the research proceeds with integrity, respecting the dignity and rights of the participants, and upholding the university’s commitment to responsible scholarship. The researcher must revise the compensation to reflect the value of the participants’ contribution and the potential risks involved, and ensure the consent process is truly understood by all involved.

The scenario describes a student at De La Salle University Manila grappling with the ethical implications of using AI-generated content for academic work. The core of the issue lies in academic integrity and the university’s commitment to fostering original thought and genuine learning. De La Salle University Manila, like many institutions, emphasizes the Lasallian values of faith, service, and communion in learning. Submitting AI-generated work without proper attribution or understanding directly contradicts these values by misrepresenting the student’s own effort and learning process. The question probes the student’s understanding of academic responsibility within the context of De La Salle University Manila’s ethos. The correct answer must reflect a proactive and ethical approach to utilizing AI tools, aligning with the university’s standards for scholarly conduct. This involves recognizing the potential of AI as a learning aid but also acknowledging the imperative to engage critically and authentically with the material. The student should seek to understand the underlying concepts, synthesize information, and express their own insights, rather than merely presenting AI output as their own. This approach upholds the principles of intellectual honesty and personal growth, which are central to the De La Salle educational experience. The other options represent varying degrees of misunderstanding or avoidance of these core principles, ranging from outright submission of unverified AI content to a passive reliance on the tool without critical engagement.

The scenario describes a student at De La Salle University Manila grappling with the ethical implications of using AI-generated content for academic work. The core issue revolves around academic integrity, intellectual property, and the learning process. The student’s internal conflict highlights the tension between efficiency and genuine understanding. De La Salle University Manila, with its Lasallian values, emphasizes critical thinking, intellectual honesty, and holistic development. Submitting AI-generated work as one’s own directly contravenes these principles. It bypasses the crucial stages of research, analysis, synthesis, and original expression that are fundamental to learning and personal growth. While AI tools can be valuable for research assistance, idea generation, or grammar checking, their output should not be presented as original student work. The most appropriate course of action, aligning with De La Salle University Manila’s commitment to academic excellence and ethical conduct, is to consult with the professor. This allows for clarification of policies, discussion of the student’s intent, and guidance on how to properly integrate AI tools ethically. It fosters a transparent and responsible approach to academic challenges. Option b) is incorrect because directly submitting the AI-generated work without disclosure is a clear violation of academic integrity and would likely lead to severe penalties. Option c) is also incorrect; while seeking peer advice is valuable, it doesn’t substitute for understanding and adhering to university policy and seeking authoritative guidance from the instructor. Option d) is flawed because while understanding the university’s stance is important, the immediate and most constructive step is direct communication with the professor to address the specific situation and seek clarification on acceptable use.

The question assesses understanding of the Lasallian educational philosophy, specifically its emphasis on holistic development and the integration of faith, knowledge, and service. De La Salle University Manila’s mission statement and core values, often articulated through the “Faith, Zeal, and Service” motto, highlight the importance of developing well-rounded individuals who contribute positively to society. The scenario presented involves a student grappling with academic rigor and extracurricular demands while also seeking personal growth and a sense of purpose. The correct option, “Fostering a balanced approach that integrates academic excellence with personal reflection and community engagement,” directly aligns with this philosophy. It acknowledges the need for academic achievement but also emphasizes the crucial role of introspection and active participation in the broader community, which are cornerstones of a Lasallian education. This approach encourages students to develop not only intellectual capabilities but also moral and social consciousness, preparing them for leadership and service in a diverse world. The other options, while potentially beneficial, do not capture the comprehensive, integrated nature of the Lasallian ideal as effectively. For instance, focusing solely on academic performance or extracurricular specialization might neglect the spiritual and ethical dimensions, while an overemphasis on immediate career outcomes could overshadow the long-term goal of developing virtuous citizens.

The question probes the understanding of ethical considerations in research, specifically concerning the balance between scientific advancement and participant welfare, a core tenet in academic institutions like De La Salle University Manila. The scenario presents a researcher at De La Salle University Manila aiming to study a novel therapeutic approach for a rare neurological disorder. The proposed method, while promising, carries a significant unknown risk profile due to its experimental nature. The ethical dilemma lies in recruiting participants who are often desperate for treatment, potentially making them more susceptible to overlooking risks. The principle of **beneficence** (doing good) and **non-maleficence** (avoiding harm) are paramount. While the research could lead to a breakthrough (beneficence), the unknown risks necessitate extreme caution to prevent harm (non-maleficence). The concept of **informed consent** is critical here. It requires participants to be fully aware of the potential benefits, risks, alternatives, and the voluntary nature of their participation. Given the experimental nature and unknown risks, a robust informed consent process is not just a formality but an ethical imperative. The researcher must ensure that participants are not unduly influenced by their condition or the potential for a cure. This involves clearly articulating the experimental nature of the treatment, the possibility of adverse effects, and the availability of standard care. The ethical review board’s role is to scrutinize the research protocol to ensure these safeguards are in place. Therefore, the most ethically sound approach is to prioritize a comprehensive and transparent informed consent process that thoroughly educates potential participants about the uncertainties and risks involved, allowing them to make a truly autonomous decision. This aligns with the Lasallian commitment to responsible scholarship and the dignity of every individual.

The core of this question lies in understanding the Lasallian principle of “Faith and Zeal” as it applies to community engagement and the pursuit of knowledge. Faith, in this context, refers to a deep-seated belief in the inherent dignity of every person and the transformative power of education. Zeal signifies the passionate and energetic commitment to service and the betterment of society. When a De La Salle University Manila student engages in a community outreach program that involves teaching basic literacy to underprivileged children, they are embodying both. The faith component is evident in the belief that education can uplift these children and break cycles of poverty, recognizing their potential. The zeal is demonstrated through the active, dedicated effort to impart knowledge and skills, going beyond mere obligation to foster genuine learning and hope. This aligns with the university’s mission to form leaders who are not only academically proficient but also socially responsible and committed to serving the common good. The other options, while potentially positive actions, do not as directly or comprehensively encapsulate the intertwined nature of faith and zeal in a service-oriented educational context as described. For instance, focusing solely on academic excellence, while important, misses the outward-facing, service-driven aspect. Similarly, adhering to university policies, while necessary, is a procedural requirement rather than a manifestation of core Lasallian values in action. Participating in campus events, while fostering community, may not inherently involve the deep commitment to social impact that defines “Faith and Zeal” in this specific application.

The question probes the understanding of ethical considerations in research, particularly concerning the principle of beneficence and non-maleficence within the context of De La Salle University Manila’s commitment to social responsibility and ethical scholarship. The scenario involves a researcher at De La Salle University Manila developing a new educational technology. The core ethical dilemma lies in balancing the potential benefits of the technology with the risks of unintended negative consequences for vulnerable student populations. The principle of beneficence requires maximizing potential benefits, while non-maleficence mandates minimizing harm. In this case, the technology aims to improve learning outcomes, a clear benefit. However, the potential for exacerbating existing digital divides or creating new forms of academic stress represents a risk of harm. A robust ethical review process, as emphasized in academic institutions like De La Salle University Manila, would necessitate a thorough risk-benefit analysis. This analysis would involve identifying potential harms, assessing their likelihood and severity, and developing mitigation strategies. The most ethically sound approach, aligning with the university’s Lasallian values of service and integrity, is to prioritize the safety and well-being of participants. This means not proceeding with deployment if the potential harms outweigh the demonstrable benefits, or if adequate mitigation strategies cannot be reliably implemented. Therefore, the researcher should conduct further pilot studies to rigorously assess and mitigate potential negative impacts before widespread adoption. This iterative approach ensures that the pursuit of innovation does not compromise ethical obligations to the student community.

The question probes the understanding of the Lasallian educational philosophy, particularly its emphasis on holistic development and service-learning, within the context of a hypothetical student initiative at De La Salle University Manila. The core of the Lasallian mission involves fostering faith, service, and communion. A student-led initiative that aims to bridge academic learning with tangible community impact, while also promoting collaborative problem-solving and ethical reflection, directly aligns with these principles. Specifically, an initiative that focuses on developing sustainable solutions for local environmental challenges, involving community engagement and interdisciplinary collaboration, embodies the university’s commitment to social responsibility and intellectual growth. This approach moves beyond mere academic achievement to cultivate well-rounded individuals who contribute positively to society. The other options, while potentially valuable, do not as comprehensively integrate the core tenets of the Lasallian mission. For instance, a purely research-focused project, while academically rigorous, might lack the direct community engagement component. A student-led advocacy campaign, while service-oriented, might not equally emphasize the collaborative, interdisciplinary problem-solving aspect. A purely skills-development workshop, while beneficial, might not inherently tie into broader societal impact or ethical reflection as strongly as a project addressing real-world community issues. Therefore, the initiative that best reflects the De La Salle University Manila’s ethos is one that synergizes academic inquiry with practical, community-centered action, fostering a sense of shared responsibility and transformative learning.

The question probes the understanding of ethical considerations in research, specifically within the context of De La Salle University Manila’s commitment to responsible scholarship and its Lasallian values. The scenario presents a researcher, Dr. Anya Reyes, who has discovered a novel method for improving crop yield in arid regions, a topic relevant to sustainable development initiatives often explored at DLSU. However, her preliminary findings, while promising, are based on a limited sample size and have not undergone rigorous peer review. The ethical dilemma lies in whether to disseminate these findings to farmers in a drought-stricken area before full validation. Option a) is the correct answer because it emphasizes the principle of beneficence (doing good) while acknowledging the paramount importance of scientific integrity and avoiding potential harm. Disseminating unverified information, even with good intentions, can lead to farmers adopting ineffective or even detrimental practices, undermining their livelihoods and trust in scientific research. This aligns with DLSU’s emphasis on evidence-based practice and ethical conduct in all academic endeavors. The explanation highlights the need for transparency about the limitations of the research and the importance of waiting for peer review and further validation to ensure the reliability and safety of the proposed solution. This approach upholds the university’s commitment to producing knowledge that is both impactful and ethically sound, reflecting a deep understanding of the responsibilities that come with scientific discovery. Option b) is incorrect because it prioritizes immediate dissemination over scientific rigor, potentially causing harm if the findings are inaccurate. While the intention is good, it bypasses crucial steps in the research process. Option c) is incorrect because it suggests a compromise that still risks premature dissemination of unverified results, albeit with a disclaimer. The ethical imperative is to ensure the information is robust before widespread application. Option d) is incorrect because it advocates for withholding potentially beneficial information indefinitely, which could be seen as a failure of beneficence if the findings are indeed valid and could alleviate suffering. The ethical balance requires careful consideration, not outright suppression.

The question assesses understanding of the Lasallian educational philosophy, specifically its emphasis on holistic development and service-learning, within the context of a university’s mission. De La Salle University Manila’s mission statement and core values often highlight the formation of individuals who are not only academically proficient but also socially responsible and committed to contributing to society. Therefore, an initiative that directly integrates academic learning with community engagement and addresses a societal need, aligning with the university’s commitment to social justice and nation-building, would be the most representative of its educational ethos. The calculation here is conceptual, not numerical. We are evaluating which option best embodies the principles of holistic education and social responsibility inherent in De La Salle University Manila’s mission. Option A: “Establishing a university-wide mentorship program pairing senior students with incoming freshmen to foster academic and personal adjustment.” This focuses on internal student support, which is valuable but less directly tied to external societal impact or a broad interpretation of service. Option B: “Developing a comprehensive curriculum that integrates critical thinking, ethical reasoning, and discipline-specific knowledge across all undergraduate programs.” This is foundational to good education but doesn’t inherently include the outward-facing, community-oriented aspect often emphasized in Lasallian institutions. Option C: “Launching a collaborative research initiative with local communities to address pressing environmental concerns, with student involvement in data collection and analysis, and findings disseminated for public benefit.” This option directly links academic pursuits (research, data analysis) with tangible community needs (environmental concerns) and public dissemination, reflecting a strong commitment to service-learning and societal contribution, core tenets of the Lasallian mission. Option D: “Expanding library resources and digital learning platforms to enhance access to academic materials for all enrolled students.” This focuses on improving the learning environment, which is important for academic success, but lacks the direct connection to community service and holistic development that defines the Lasallian approach to education. Therefore, Option C most accurately reflects the integration of academic rigor with social responsibility and community engagement that is central to the De La Salle University Manila’s educational philosophy.

The question probes the understanding of the Lasallian educational philosophy, specifically its emphasis on holistic development and service-learning, as applied to a contemporary challenge. The core of the Lasallian mission involves fostering intellectual, spiritual, and social growth, often through engagement with societal needs. A program designed to address the digital divide among underserved communities in Metro Manila, while incorporating mentorship from university students, directly aligns with these principles. Such a program would not only impart technical skills but also cultivate empathy, civic responsibility, and a commitment to social justice, all cornerstones of a Lasallian education. The other options, while potentially beneficial, do not as directly or comprehensively embody the integrated approach to academic learning and social impact that is characteristic of De La Salle University’s ethos. For instance, focusing solely on curriculum development for online courses, while relevant to digital literacy, misses the crucial element of community engagement and direct service. Similarly, a program emphasizing research into educational technology without a direct service component, or a purely extracurricular coding competition, would not fully capture the spirit of transformative, faith-based education and community upliftment that De La Salle University champions. The chosen option represents a synthesis of academic application, student formation, and tangible social contribution, reflecting the university’s commitment to forming leaders who serve.

The question probes the understanding of ethical considerations in research, specifically concerning data integrity and academic honesty, core values emphasized at De La Salle University Manila. The scenario involves a student, Anya, who discovers a discrepancy in her research data that could significantly alter her findings. The ethical dilemma lies in how Anya should proceed. Option A, which suggests Anya should meticulously re-examine her methodology, re-collect the data if feasible, and transparently report any unavoidable discrepancies or limitations in her findings, aligns with the principles of scientific integrity and the De La Salle University’s commitment to scholarly excellence. This approach prioritizes truthfulness, accountability, and the advancement of knowledge, even if it means challenging initial assumptions or results. Option B, while acknowledging the need for review, implies a less rigorous approach by suggesting a simple “adjustment” without emphasizing transparency or re-collection, potentially leading to data manipulation. Option C, focusing solely on the potential impact on her thesis grade, prioritizes personal outcomes over academic integrity, which is antithetical to the university’s values. Option D, which suggests ignoring the discrepancy to avoid complications, is a clear violation of academic honesty and ethical research practices. Therefore, the most ethically sound and academically responsible course of action, reflecting the standards expected at De La Salle University Manila, is to address the discrepancy with utmost rigor and transparency.

The core of this question lies in understanding the Lasallian educational philosophy, particularly its emphasis on holistic development and critical engagement with societal issues, as reflected in its commitment to social justice and academic excellence. De La Salle University Manila, as an institution, fosters an environment where students are encouraged to apply their learning to real-world challenges, aligning with its mission to form “men and women for others.” This involves not just acquiring knowledge but also developing the capacity for ethical reasoning, collaborative problem-solving, and a deep sense of responsibility towards the community. Therefore, a student who demonstrates an ability to connect theoretical concepts to practical applications that address societal needs, while also showing a commitment to continuous learning and ethical conduct, best exemplifies the qualities sought by De La Salle University Manila. This is not about memorizing facts but about synthesizing information and demonstrating a proactive, socially conscious approach to knowledge. The university values individuals who can critically analyze complex situations and contribute meaningfully to positive change, reflecting its charism and pedagogical approach.

The question probes the understanding of ethical considerations in research, specifically concerning the principle of informed consent and its application in a university setting like De La Salle University Manila. The scenario involves a student researcher, Anya, who is collecting data for her thesis. She encounters a participant, Mr. Reyes, who expresses initial willingness but then exhibits signs of discomfort and a desire to withdraw. The core ethical principle at play is the participant’s right to autonomy and the researcher’s obligation to respect that autonomy. Anya’s ethical obligation is to cease data collection immediately upon Mr. Reyes’s expressed or implied withdrawal. This aligns with the fundamental tenets of research ethics, which prioritize the well-being and rights of participants. The principle of informed consent is not a one-time event but an ongoing process. Even if Mr. Reyes initially consented, his subsequent discomfort and attempt to disengage signify a withdrawal of that consent. Anya’s duty is to honor this withdrawal without coercion or undue influence. Option A, “Immediately cease data collection and thank Mr. Reyes for his time, ensuring no further attempts are made to collect data from him for this study,” directly addresses this ethical imperative. It respects Mr. Reyes’s autonomy and upholds the principle of voluntary participation. Option B is incorrect because continuing data collection, even with the intention of explaining later, violates the participant’s right to withdraw at any point and can be perceived as coercive. This undermines the trust essential in research relationships and is contrary to ethical guidelines emphasized in academic institutions like De La Salle University Manila. Option C is incorrect because while documenting the situation is important, it should not precede the immediate cessation of data collection. The participant’s immediate well-being and right to withdraw take precedence over documentation. Furthermore, attempting to “reassure” him might be interpreted as pressure to continue, which is ethically problematic. Option D is incorrect because sharing the participant’s discomfort with a supervisor without first addressing the immediate ethical breach (continuing data collection) is a secondary concern. The primary ethical responsibility lies with Anya to act responsibly in the moment. While supervision is crucial, it does not excuse the failure to uphold participant rights directly. The emphasis in De La Salle University Manila’s academic programs is on responsible conduct of research, which begins with respecting participant autonomy.

The core of this question lies in understanding the Lasallian principle of “Faith in the Divine Presence” and its practical application within an academic community focused on holistic development. This principle, central to the De La Salle University’s ethos, emphasizes recognizing God’s presence in all aspects of life, including learning, relationships, and service. When a student faces academic challenges, the Lasallian approach encourages seeking support not just from peers or faculty, but also through prayer and reflection, fostering a sense of spiritual resilience and community. This aligns with the university’s commitment to forming individuals who are not only intellectually capable but also morally and spiritually grounded. The other options, while potentially valuable, do not directly embody this specific foundational Lasallian value. Focusing solely on academic rigor without acknowledging the spiritual dimension would be incomplete from a Lasallian perspective. Relying exclusively on external validation or solely on individual effort, while important, misses the communal and faith-based support system that the university actively promotes. Therefore, integrating faith into the problem-solving process, as reflected in seeking spiritual guidance and communal prayer, is the most congruent response to the Lasallian educational philosophy in this context.

The core of this question lies in understanding the Lasallian principle of “Faith in the Divine Presence” and its practical application in an academic setting, particularly within the context of De La Salle University Manila’s commitment to holistic education. This principle emphasizes recognizing God’s presence in all aspects of life, including intellectual pursuits and community interactions. When a student faces a challenging academic task, such as a complex research project, the Lasallian approach encourages not just intellectual effort but also spiritual reliance and ethical conduct. The correct option reflects this by suggesting a combination of diligent study (intellectual effort), seeking guidance from mentors (community and wisdom), and prayer (spiritual reliance). This multifaceted approach aligns with the university’s mission to form well-rounded individuals who are not only academically proficient but also morally grounded and spiritually aware. The other options, while potentially containing elements of good practice, fail to fully encompass the integrated spiritual and intellectual dimension central to the Lasallian educational philosophy. For instance, focusing solely on personal effort without acknowledging the spiritual aspect, or relying exclusively on external help without personal responsibility, would be incomplete. The emphasis on faith, community, and personal diligence represents the unique character of a Lasallian education, aiming to foster individuals who contribute positively to society through their integrated development.

The question probes the understanding of ethical considerations in research, specifically within the context of De La Salle University Manila’s commitment to responsible scholarship and its Lasallian values. The scenario involves a student researcher, Anya, who discovers a potential conflict of interest in her funding source. The core ethical principle at play is the researcher’s obligation to maintain objectivity and transparency, even when it might jeopardize funding or personal relationships. Anya’s discovery of the funding source’s vested interest in a particular outcome of her study creates an ethical dilemma. The principle of informed consent, while crucial, is not the primary issue here; it pertains more to the participants’ understanding of the research. Similarly, data integrity is paramount, but the dilemma isn’t about falsifying data, but rather about the *perception* of bias due to the funding. Confidentiality is also important, but it doesn’t directly address the conflict of interest itself. The most appropriate ethical course of action, aligning with scholarly integrity and the values emphasized at De La Salle University Manila, is to disclose the conflict of interest to the relevant institutional review board (IRB) or ethics committee. This allows for an informed decision about how to proceed, potentially involving modifications to the research design, increased oversight, or even seeking alternative funding. Transparency with the funding body and participants, while important, is secondary to the initial disclosure to the oversight committee, which is responsible for upholding ethical standards. Therefore, the most robust and ethically sound first step is to report the conflict to the IRB.

The question probes the understanding of the Lasallian educational philosophy, specifically its emphasis on holistic development and the integration of faith and reason within an academic community. De La Salle University Manila’s mission statement and core values underscore the importance of forming individuals who are not only academically proficient but also socially responsible and ethically grounded. The concept of “faith and reason” is central to this, advocating for the harmonious interplay between intellectual inquiry and spiritual or moral conviction. This integration aims to foster critical thinking that is informed by a strong ethical framework, preparing students to contribute meaningfully to society. Therefore, an approach that prioritizes the cultivation of intellectual curiosity alongside the development of a robust moral compass, encouraging students to question and explore while remaining grounded in ethical principles, best embodies this philosophy. This aligns with the university’s commitment to forming “men and women of faith and action.” The other options, while potentially valuable in an educational setting, do not as directly or comprehensively capture the unique blend of intellectual rigor and ethical formation that is a hallmark of the Lasallian tradition at De La Salle University Manila. For instance, focusing solely on empirical data without considering its ethical implications, or prioritizing individual achievement over community well-being, would deviate from the holistic and faith-informed approach.

The question probes the understanding of ethical considerations in research, specifically concerning the principle of informed consent and its practical application in a university setting like De La Salle University Manila. The scenario involves a psychology student, Anya, conducting a study on stress levels among university students. The core ethical dilemma lies in how Anya obtains consent from participants. Option A is correct because obtaining explicit, voluntary, and informed consent is a cornerstone of ethical research. This means participants must be fully aware of the study’s purpose, procedures, potential risks and benefits, and their right to withdraw at any time without penalty. Anya’s approach of providing a detailed information sheet and a separate consent form, clearly outlining these aspects, adheres to this principle. This aligns with the rigorous ethical standards expected in academic research at institutions like De La Salle University Manila, which emphasizes responsible scholarship and the protection of human subjects. Option B is incorrect because passive consent, where consent is assumed unless a participant actively objects, is generally considered ethically insufficient, especially in studies involving potentially sensitive topics like stress. It fails to guarantee active, informed agreement. Option C is incorrect because while debriefing is an important ethical step, it occurs *after* participation and does not substitute for obtaining informed consent *before* the study begins. Consent must be secured prior to any data collection. Option D is incorrect because obtaining consent only from a supervising professor, without direct consent from the student participants themselves, is a clear violation of ethical research practices. Participants must be the ones to grant consent for their involvement.

The core concept tested here is the understanding of how different pedagogical approaches, particularly those emphasizing critical thinking and active learning, align with the Lasallian educational philosophy. De La Salle University Manila, with its commitment to “Faith, Zeal for Service, and Communion in Mission,” fosters an environment where students are encouraged to question, analyze, and contribute to societal progress. A pedagogical approach that prioritizes rote memorization and passive reception of information, while potentially efficient for basic knowledge transfer, would not fully cultivate the critical inquiry and problem-solving skills essential for advanced study and responsible citizenship, which are hallmarks of a Lasallian education. Therefore, an approach that integrates experiential learning, collaborative problem-solving, and reflective practice is most congruent with the university’s mission. This fosters intellectual curiosity, develops analytical abilities, and encourages students to apply knowledge in meaningful ways, thereby preparing them to be agents of positive change. Such methods directly support the university’s aim to produce graduates who are not only academically proficient but also ethically grounded and socially aware, capable of addressing complex challenges in a dynamic world.

The question probes understanding of the Lasallian educational philosophy, specifically its emphasis on holistic development and community engagement, as reflected in the university’s mission. The core of the Lasallian ethos, rooted in the teachings of St. John Baptist de La Salle, centers on the “whole person” – intellectual, spiritual, social, and emotional growth. This is often translated into academic programs and extracurricular activities that foster critical thinking, ethical reasoning, and a commitment to service. De La Salle University Manila’s strategic direction and its emphasis on producing graduates who are not only academically proficient but also socially responsible and globally aware align with this foundational principle. Therefore, an initiative that directly supports the development of civic responsibility and critical engagement with societal issues, while also fostering collaborative learning, would be the most aligned with the university’s core values and its role as a leading institution in the Philippines. This involves moving beyond mere knowledge acquisition to the application of that knowledge for the betterment of society, a hallmark of a Lasallian education.

The question probes the understanding of ethical considerations in research, specifically concerning the principle of informed consent and its application in a De La Salle University Manila context. The scenario involves a researcher, Dr. Anya Reyes, studying the impact of social media engagement on adolescent well-being. The core ethical dilemma arises from the potential for subtle coercion or lack of full comprehension by the adolescent participants regarding the research’s scope and their right to withdraw. Informed consent, a cornerstone of ethical research, requires that participants voluntarily agree to participate after being fully apprised of the study’s purpose, procedures, potential risks, and benefits. For adolescent participants, this often necessitates obtaining consent from both the adolescent and their legal guardian, ensuring the adolescent also provides assent. The scenario highlights that simply obtaining a signature on a consent form, especially if the language is complex or the implications are not fully grasped, does not equate to genuine informed consent. The researcher’s obligation extends to ensuring comprehension and the freedom to withdraw without penalty. Option A, emphasizing the researcher’s responsibility to ensure participants *comprehend* the study’s implications and their right to withdraw at any stage, directly addresses the core ethical requirement of informed consent in a nuanced manner. This goes beyond mere procedural compliance. It aligns with De La Salle University Manila’s commitment to responsible scholarship and the Lasallian value of respect for persons. Option B is incorrect because while maintaining confidentiality is crucial, it is a separate ethical principle from ensuring comprehension of consent. Confidentiality pertains to protecting participant data, not the initial agreement to participate. Option C is incorrect because while avoiding deception is important, the scenario doesn’t explicitly describe deception. The issue is more about the *quality* of the consent obtained, not necessarily a deliberate misrepresentation. Furthermore, the primary ethical breach, if any, lies in the potential for inadequate comprehension, not necessarily the absence of a debriefing, which is often related to deception. Option D is incorrect because while minimizing harm is a fundamental ethical principle, the scenario focuses on the consent process itself. The potential for harm is a consequence that informed consent aims to mitigate by allowing participants to make an informed decision, but the question is about the *process* of obtaining that consent ethically. The researcher’s proactive approach to ensure understanding is the most direct ethical imperative in this context.

The question probes the understanding of ethical considerations in research, specifically concerning the principle of informed consent and its application in a De La Salle University Manila context, which emphasizes Lasallian values of faith, service, and communion. The scenario involves a psychology student, Anya, conducting research on campus. The core ethical dilemma lies in obtaining consent from participants who may not fully grasp the implications of their involvement, especially if the research touches upon sensitive topics or involves potential risks, however minor. The principle of informed consent, a cornerstone of ethical research, requires that participants voluntarily agree to participate after being fully apprised of the research’s purpose, procedures, potential risks and benefits, and their right to withdraw at any time without penalty. In a university setting like De La Salle University Manila, where a strong emphasis is placed on community and responsible scholarship, ensuring genuine understanding and voluntary participation is paramount. Option A, “Ensuring participants fully comprehend the research’s objectives, potential risks, and their right to withdraw before agreeing to participate, and documenting this understanding,” directly addresses the core tenets of informed consent. This aligns with ethical guidelines and the university’s commitment to responsible research practices. It emphasizes not just obtaining a signature, but ensuring genuine comprehension, which is crucial for upholding participant autonomy and the integrity of the research process. This approach reflects the university’s dedication to fostering a culture of ethical awareness and academic integrity among its students. Option B, “Prioritizing the speed of data collection to meet project deadlines, even if it means simplifying the consent process,” directly violates the principle of informed consent and disregards the ethical obligations of researchers. This approach prioritizes expediency over participant welfare and ethical rigor, which is antithetical to the values promoted at De La Salle University Manila. Option C, “Assuming that all university students are sufficiently educated about research ethics and require only a brief overview of the study’s purpose,” is a dangerous assumption that overlooks the diversity of student backgrounds and their potential lack of prior exposure to research methodologies and ethical protocols. It fails to ensure genuine understanding and could lead to coerced or uninformed participation. Option D, “Focusing solely on the potential benefits of the research for the academic community, downplaying any potential discomfort participants might experience,” is also ethically problematic. While highlighting benefits is important, it is equally crucial to transparently disclose potential risks or discomforts to allow for a truly informed decision. This selective disclosure undermines the principle of full disclosure inherent in informed consent. Therefore, the most ethically sound and aligned approach with the principles of responsible research and the values of De La Salle University Manila is to ensure thorough comprehension and documentation of informed consent.

The question probes the understanding of the Lasallian educational philosophy, specifically its emphasis on holistic development and service-learning, as applied to the context of a university’s strategic planning for student engagement. The core of the Lasallian mission involves fostering faith, service, and communion. When considering how De La Salle University Manila would approach enhancing student engagement in its academic programs, the most aligned strategy would be one that integrates academic learning with community impact and personal growth. A strategy that focuses solely on increasing participation metrics without a qualitative component or connection to the university’s core values would be superficial. Similarly, a strategy that prioritizes extracurricular activities over academic integration might miss the mark on the holistic development aspect. Furthermore, a purely transactional approach, where engagement is seen as a means to an end (e.g., career placement) without fostering a deeper sense of purpose and community, would also be less aligned. The optimal approach, therefore, would be one that actively seeks to connect classroom learning with real-world application through community service, ethical reflection, and collaborative projects. This aligns with the Lasallian principle of “Enter to Learn, Go Forth to Serve.” Such a strategy would not only boost engagement but also cultivate well-rounded individuals committed to social responsibility, a hallmark of De La Salle University Manila’s educational ethos. This approach emphasizes the development of the whole person, integrating intellectual, social, and spiritual dimensions, which is central to the university’s mission.

The question probes the understanding of how different academic disciplines at De La Salle University Manila might approach a complex societal issue, emphasizing the university’s Lasallian values and interdisciplinary focus. The scenario involves a proposed urban development project impacting a historical district. To arrive at the correct answer, one must consider the core methodologies and ethical frameworks prevalent in various fields. * **Engineering/Architecture:** Would focus on structural integrity, environmental impact assessments (EIA), zoning laws, and sustainable design principles. Their concern is the physical realization and its technical feasibility. * **Sociology/Anthropology:** Would examine the impact on community cohesion, cultural heritage preservation, displacement of residents, and social equity. Their focus is on human interaction and societal structures. * **Economics:** Would analyze cost-benefit ratios, job creation, local economic stimulus, and potential gentrification effects. Their lens is primarily financial and market-driven. * **Philosophy/Theology (Lasallian Values):** Would delve into the ethical dimensions, the common good, the dignity of persons, stewardship of creation, and the long-term societal well-being beyond immediate economic gains. This aligns with De La Salle University Manila’s core mission. The question asks which perspective would most likely prioritize the “holistic well-being of the community and the preservation of intangible cultural heritage,” which are deeply rooted in ethical considerations and the humanistic aspects of development, rather than purely technical or economic metrics. While other disciplines contribute to understanding the problem, the philosophical and theological underpinnings, particularly those emphasizing human dignity and the common good, are most directly aligned with prioritizing holistic well-being and intangible heritage. This reflects the Lasallian emphasis on forming “Men and Women for Others.” The integration of these values into academic inquiry is a hallmark of De La Salle University Manila’s educational philosophy. Therefore, a discipline that critically examines the ethical and humanistic dimensions, informed by principles of social justice and the common good, would be most inclined to champion these specific priorities.

The question probes the understanding of ethical considerations in research, specifically concerning the principle of informed consent and its practical application in a university setting like De La Salle University Manila. The scenario involves a psychology student, Anya, conducting a study on campus stress. The core ethical dilemma arises from her decision to collect data from participants without explicitly detailing the potential for psychological discomfort, even if minor. Informed consent, a cornerstone of ethical research, requires that participants are fully apprised of the study’s purpose, procedures, potential risks, and benefits before agreeing to participate. This includes understanding the nature of any stimuli or questions that might evoke emotional responses. Anya’s omission, even if unintentional or perceived as minor, violates this principle because it prevents participants from making a truly informed decision about their involvement. The potential for psychological discomfort, however slight, is a risk that should be disclosed. The other options represent less ethically sound or incomplete approaches. Option B suggests that consent is only necessary if the discomfort is “significant,” which is an arbitrary and subjective threshold that undermines the protective intent of informed consent. Ethical guidelines emphasize minimizing *any* potential harm or discomfort, not just significant ones. Option C proposes that parental consent is paramount, which is irrelevant here as the participants are university students, presumed to be adults capable of providing their own consent. While parental consent is crucial for minors, it is not the primary ethical consideration for adult participants. Option D suggests that the university’s Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval automatically absolves the researcher of individual ethical responsibilities, which is incorrect. IRB approval signifies that the research plan meets ethical standards, but the researcher is still obligated to implement these standards diligently during data collection, including ensuring proper informed consent is obtained from each participant. Therefore, Anya’s action is ethically problematic because it bypasses the crucial step of fully informing participants about potential psychological discomfort, thereby compromising the integrity of the informed consent process.