In the real life situation above, the solution was; to cover up the atrocity (by planting weapons on the bodies), claim the soldiers were fired on (they weren't), and prevent the only MP in the House of Commons who had personally witnessed the event from speaking on the floor (in contravention of parliamentary tradition).

I think the point is that a political undergrad should be able to white a speech justifying any position, since this is a generally useful skill for a future politician.

Defending and justifying a position you don't personally hold is an especially useful exercise imo.

Eton is at a high-school level though.

Ugh, missed that. Still, the point stands, I believe.

It has happened so infrequently that it rather highlights it as an unusual choice of question - why not a terrorist incident, foreign war, natural disaster or incident with a Royal?

You would almost suspect that they are trying to select individuals who have a natural instinct to maintaining current power structures, but clearly that is nonsense and what they are looking for is a carefully reasoned response.