IIFT Data Interpretation MCQ Quiz - 1 - CAT MCQ

The total number of students from the Arts background increased by 25% in 2012 as compared to 2011. Number of students from the Arts background in 2011 = 20% of 300 = 60.
Therefore, number of students from the Arts background in 2012 = 1.25 x 60 = 75 This forms 15% of the total batch size in 2012.
So, total batch size in 2012 = 75/0.15 = 500. For 300 and 500 stuents in 2011 and 2012, the number of students from each background were: 

Thus, there were 150 - 45 = 105 more students in the humanities background in 2012 as compared to 2011.
Hence, option 2.

Irrespective of the number of total students in 2011, the percentage change in the number of students from a particular background will remain the same. 
Therefore, consider the solution to the previous question and assume the total number of students in 2011 to be 300.

So, the number of students from a Science background in 2011 and 2012 is 90 and 150 respectively. 
Hence, 

Hence, option 4.

Consumption of the household in 2006 = 2000 units 

Therefore Billed amount = (100 x 2.23) + (300 x 4.78) + (400 x 6.78) + (700 x 9.28) + (500 x 10.78) = 223 + 1434 + 2712 + 6496 + 5390 
= Rs. 16,255.

Payable amount = 16255 + (12.36% of 16255) = 1.1236 x 16255 ~ Rs. 18,264.

Hence, option 2.

The number of units consumed in 2002 and 2004 is 1200 and 1800 respectively.
In 2004, the billed amount on the first 1200 units is the same as the billed amount for 2002.
So, the payable amount for the first 1200 units in 2004 is the same as the entire payable amount for 2002.
Thus, the required difference is entirely due to the additional 600 units consumed in 2004 and the service tax calculated on these 600 units. 300 of these 600 units fall in the 801-1500 slab and the remaining fall in the 1501-2000 slab.
Payable amount for the additional = 1.1236 x [(300 x 9.28) + (300 x 10.78)] = 1.1236 x (2784+ 3234) = Rs. 6761.82
Hence, option 3.

Since the service tax rate remains constant over the given period, the service tax can be calculated directly on the total billed amount instead of calculating the service tax for each billed amount.
Consider the solution to the first question. The billed amount for 2006 is Rs. 16,255 The billed amount for the other years is:

2000: (100 x 2.23) + (300 x 4.78) + (400 x 6.78) + (200 x 9.28) = 223 + 1434 + 2712 + 1856 = Rs. 6,225.

2002: (100 x 2.23) + (300 x 4.78) + (400 x 6.78) + (400 x 9.28) = 223 + 1434 + 2712 + 3712 = Rs. 8,081

2004: (100 x 2.23) + (300 x 4.78) + (400 x 6.78) + (700 x 9.28) + (300 x 10.78) = 223 + 1434 + 2712 + 6496 + 3234 = Rs. 14,099.

2008: (100 x 2.23) + (300 x 4.78) + (400 x 6.78) + (700 x 9.28) + (500 x 10.78) + (400 x 12.28) = 223 + 1434 + 2712 + 6496 + 5390 + 4912 = Rs. 21,167.

Total billed amount = 6225 + 8081 + 14099 + 16255 + 21167 = Rs. 65,827.

Total service tax = 12.36% of 65827 ~ Rs. 8,136 Hence, option 3.

Because, the period is only 2 years, calculate the CAGR for male and female voters using the formula: 

Now, in a particular constituency, if the ratio on the RHS is higher for males, the males will have a higher CAGR in that constituency. 
Hence, calculate only the ratio on the RHS, as shown below.

Thus, the CAGR for males is less than that for females in five constituencies i.e. C, D, E, F and H.
Hence, option 3.

Calculate the total number of voters in 2012 and 2014, and their corresponding percentage growth as shown below: 

Thus, the highest percentage growth is in constituency H. Hence, option 4.

Consider the solution to the earlier questions. 

Now, the final value and initial value of total voters has been found earlier, as shown below. 

As explained earlier, the constituency with the least ratio of final to initial voters will have the least CAGR. 

Thus, the least constituency with the least percentage growth will have the least ratio, and hence, the least CAGR.
This constituency is F. Hence, option 1.  

Percentage growth of Upper primary schools: 

The year 2002-03 has seen the maximum growth. Hence, option 3.

Option (1): 

Increase = 21.24 - 20.70 = 0.54%

Decrease = 67.09 - 65.78 = 1.31% Since the increase in percentage share of Upper primary institutions in 2000-01 is less than the decrease in percentage share of Primary institutions in the same period, the statement is false.

Option (2):

Decrease = 23.41 - 22.93 = 0.48% 

Increase = 63.89 - 63.57 = 0.32% Since the decrease in percentage share of Upper primary institutions in 2004-05 is more than the increase in percentage share of Primary institutions in the same period, the statement is false.
Option (3):

From option (1), we have already seen that the year 2000-01 has also seen a decline in the percentage share of primary institutions, so the statement is false.
Option (4):

Since the decrease in percentage share of Junior colleges in total in the year 2003-04 over the previous years is less than the increase in percentage share of primary institutions in the same period, the statement is true.
Hence, option 4.

Option (1): The statement is false as the number of Primary institutions first decreased in 2000-01, then increased in 2001-02 and again decreased in 2002-03.
Options (2) and (3) are true.
Hence, option 4.

The total number of Upper primary schools and Junior colleges is less than half the number of Primary schools only in the year 1999- 00.
Hence, option 1.

In the solution to the 1st problem of this set, it is has been found that the highest percentage growth for Upper primary schools was 11.68% in 2002-03.
Hence, the number of Upper primary schools in 2005-06 = 264731 x 1.1168 = 295651.58 ⇒295652.

Hence, option 2. 

In 2005-2006, the domestic consumption is 351390 - 53936 = 297454 tonnes
Imports in that year = 135285 The imports as a percentage of domestic consumption.

As 7594 crores in local currency correspond to 324 million USD, Each unit of local currency in 2008-2009 .

Hence, option 2.

Consider option 1: Production per hectare in 2004-2005 

Hence, option 3.

The difference in costs of exports and imports = 307 - 172 = Rs. 135
Hence, option 1.

Consider option 1: Total number of hectares required in 2013 

Additional area needed = 910325 - 636970 = 273355 hectares or 2.73 lakh hectares.
Consider option 2: Total number of hectares required in 2013.

Additional area needed = 758604 - 636970 = 121634 hectares or 1.22 lakh hectares.
Consider option 3: Total number of hectares required in 2013.

Additional area needed = 834465 - 636970 = 197495 hectares or 1.98 lakh hectares.
Hence, option 3.