CAT Mock Test - 4 (New Pattern)


75 Questions MCQ Test CAT Mock Test Series | CAT Mock Test - 4 (New Pattern)


Description
This mock test of CAT Mock Test - 4 (New Pattern) for CAT helps you for every CAT entrance exam. This contains 75 Multiple Choice Questions for CAT CAT Mock Test - 4 (New Pattern) (mcq) to study with solutions a complete question bank. The solved questions answers in this CAT Mock Test - 4 (New Pattern) quiz give you a good mix of easy questions and tough questions. CAT students definitely take this CAT Mock Test - 4 (New Pattern) exercise for a better result in the exam. You can find other CAT Mock Test - 4 (New Pattern) extra questions, long questions & short questions for CAT on EduRev as well by searching above.
QUESTION: 1

DIRECTIONS for the question: Read the passage and answer the question based on it. 

The global climate change debate has gone badly wrong. Many mainstream environmentalists are arguing for the wrong actions and for the wrong reasons, and so long as they continue to do so they put all our futures in jeopardy. My diagnosis is a twofold ethical failure: of pragmatism and perspective (or, more eloquently, of ‘sense and sensibility’). Many environmentalists argue that climate change is fundamentally a values problem. And yet their interpretation of this has taken a narrow moralising form that systematically excludes consideration of such important ethical values as improving the lives of the 1 billion people presently living in unacceptable poverty or even protecting other aspects of the environment (such as wilderness areas). That narrowness also leads to self-defeating policy proposals founded almost entirely in the economy of nature rather than political economy. The result is a fixation on global CO2 levels alone as the problem and solution, at the cost of systematic and broad evaluation of the feasible policy space. These foundational errors have induced a kind of millenarian meltdown in many otherwise sensible people, to the extent that to be an environmentalist these days is to fear the oncoming storm and know that all hope is lost. To put it mildly, people in this state of mind are not well placed to contribute helpfully to the political debate about what we should do about the fact of climate change. In their reconciliation with despair environmentalists are not only mistaken, but display a disturbing symmetry with those opponents of action who are mistakenly complacent about the status quo. My recommended treatment, to reinvigorate their confidence as well as their ethics, is a dose of economic reasoning.
It is clearly a scientific fact that the world's regional climates are changing substantially and at unprecedented speed as a result of the global warming  produced by the greenhouse gases emitted by human activity (in particular by the industrialisation of the West). But 'science' does not have the legitimacy or resources to tell us what we should do about climate change. We have to work out for ourselves, through public reasoning and politics, the implications of scientific facts for what we have reason to value, and what to do about them. As well as incorporating the full range of our ethical concerns and values (sensibility) such a debate requires further facts about how our socio-economic institutions interact with the environmental mechanisms (sense). Relying on the natural scientific account alone leads us to fixate on the minutiae of greenhouse gas emissions levels and climate sensitivity, while drastically simplifying the human side.
It is often said, and very plausibly, that climate change is difficult for human minds and political institutions to grasp and act on because it’s global scale and long-term (inter-generational) and complex causal mechanisms present a 'perfect moral storm' (e.g. Stephen Gardiner). One way of dealing with such difficult problems is to moralise them, and this seems to be the strategy currently favoured by mainstream environmentalists. Climate change is thus simplified and personalised as a simple ‘values’ choice: Are you for the planet or against it? Morality in this sense concerns strict but simple universal rules that everyone should follow without regard to personal situations or consequences - on the model of laws. On this model, one's carbon footprint is a moral crime (against the planet presumably) which one should feel guilty about and strive to reduce. As of course are other people's carbon emissions: they deserve to be shamed or otherwise forced into submission by the righteous ones. 
In trying to tackle climate change by directly dealing with the causal mechanism of CO2 levels we have framed the situation as an enormous collective action problem - how to persuade 7 billion people to adopt the new morality of carbon rationing (and prevent free-riding). Everyone who thinks this through recognises that it is impossible to realise without enormous government coercion (severe rationing along the lines of China's one-child policy). That requirement explains many climate change warriors' antipathy to democratic principles on this point - it seems easier to persuade all 200 governments to be adopt carbon authoritarianism than to persuade all those people individually (e.g. James Lovelock). However even the government coercion approach fails - see the failures of every inter-governmental treaty, from Kyoto to Copenhagen - and the reasons are obvious.
The moralisation approach undermines itself since it frames climate change narrowly in terms of righteousness. Inevitably deliberation about action gets bogged down in an interminable blame-game about what justice requires - who had their industrial revolution first, etc. Furthermore, the moral duties of different actors do not all point the same way: poor country governments have a clear and over-riding moral duty to help their citizens achieve the high quality of life which the West takes for granted, and which is inevitably energy (carbon) intensive. And then there is the practical economics: the world still has lots of coal, especially in the poor world, that can produce electricity at 3c per kwh (which renewables cannot possibly compete with without radical technological breakthroughs, even with the strongest moral rhetoric). No comprehensive global political solution to greenhouse gases is possible. We need to go back and think again.

Q. What does the author refer to when he mentions pragmatism and perspective?

Solution:

The answer to this question can be derived from the two extracts derived from the passage: The global climate change debate has gone badly wrong. Many mainstream environmentalists are arguing for the wrong actions and for the wrong reasons, and so long as they continue to do so they put all our futures in jeopardy. My diagnosis is a twofold ethical failure: of pragmatism and perspective (or, more eloquently, of ‘sense and sensibility’).

Many environmentalists argue that climate change is fundamentally a values problem. And yet their interpretation of this has taken a narrow moralising form that systematically excludes consideration of such important ethical values as improving the lives of the 1 billion people presently living in unacceptable poverty or even protecting other aspects of the environment (such as wilderness areas) As well as incorporating the full range of our ethical concerns and values (sensibility) such a debate requires further facts about how our socio-economic institutions interact with the environmental mechanisms (sense).

QUESTION: 2

DIRECTIONS for the question: Read the passage and answer the question based on it. 

The global climate change debate has gone badly wrong. Many mainstream environmentalists are arguing for the wrong actions and for the wrong reasons, and so long as they continue to do so they put all our futures in jeopardy. My diagnosis is a twofold ethical failure: of pragmatism and perspective (or, more eloquently, of ‘sense and sensibility’). Many environmentalists argue that climate change is fundamentally a values problem. And yet their interpretation of this has taken a narrow moralising form that systematically excludes consideration of such important ethical values as improving the lives of the 1 billion people presently living in unacceptable poverty or even protecting other aspects of the environment (such as wilderness areas). That narrowness also leads to self-defeating policy proposals founded almost entirely in the economy of nature rather than political economy. The result is a fixation on global CO2 levels alone as the problem and solution, at the cost of systematic and broad evaluation of the feasible policy space. These foundational errors have induced a kind of millenarian meltdown in many otherwise sensible people, to the extent that to be an environmentalist these days is to fear the oncoming storm and know that all hope is lost. To put it mildly, people in this state of mind are not well placed to contribute helpfully to the political debate about what we should do about the fact of climate change. In their reconciliation with despair environmentalists are not only mistaken, but display a disturbing symmetry with those opponents of action who are mistakenly complacent about the status quo. My recommended treatment, to reinvigorate their confidence as well as their ethics, is a dose of economic reasoning.
It is clearly a scientific fact that the world's regional climates are changing substantially and at unprecedented speed as a result of the global warming  produced by the greenhouse gases emitted by human activity (in particular by the industrialisation of the West). But 'science' does not have the legitimacy or resources to tell us what we should do about climate change. We have to work out for ourselves, through public reasoning and politics, the implications of scientific facts for what we have reason to value, and what to do about them. As well as incorporating the full range of our ethical concerns and values (sensibility) such a debate requires further facts about how our socio-economic institutions interact with the environmental mechanisms (sense). Relying on the natural scientific account alone leads us to fixate on the minutiae of greenhouse gas emissions levels and climate sensitivity, while drastically simplifying the human side.
It is often said, and very plausibly, that climate change is difficult for human minds and political institutions to grasp and act on because it’s global scale and long-term (inter-generational) and complex causal mechanisms present a 'perfect moral storm' (e.g. Stephen Gardiner). One way of dealing with such difficult problems is to moralise them, and this seems to be the strategy currently favoured by mainstream environmentalists. Climate change is thus simplified and personalised as a simple ‘values’ choice: Are you for the planet or against it? Morality in this sense concerns strict but simple universal rules that everyone should follow without regard to personal situations or consequences - on the model of laws. On this model, one's carbon footprint is a moral crime (against the planet presumably) which one should feel guilty about and strive to reduce. As of course are other people's carbon emissions: they deserve to be shamed or otherwise forced into submission by the righteous ones. 
In trying to tackle climate change by directly dealing with the causal mechanism of CO2 levels we have framed the situation as an enormous collective action problem - how to persuade 7 billion people to adopt the new morality of carbon rationing (and prevent free-riding). Everyone who thinks this through recognises that it is impossible to realise without enormous government coercion (severe rationing along the lines of China's one-child policy). That requirement explains many climate change warriors' antipathy to democratic principles on this point - it seems easier to persuade all 200 governments to be adopt carbon authoritarianism than to persuade all those people individually (e.g. James Lovelock). However even the government coercion approach fails - see the failures of every inter-governmental treaty, from Kyoto to Copenhagen - and the reasons are obvious.
The moralisation approach undermines itself since it frames climate change narrowly in terms of righteousness. Inevitably deliberation about action gets bogged down in an interminable blame-game about what justice requires - who had their industrial revolution first, etc. Furthermore, the moral duties of different actors do not all point the same way: poor country governments have a clear and over-riding moral duty to help their citizens achieve the high quality of life which the West takes for granted, and which is inevitably energy (carbon) intensive. And then there is the practical economics: the world still has lots of coal, especially in the poor world, that can produce electricity at 3c per kwh (which renewables cannot possibly compete with without radical technological breakthroughs, even with the strongest moral rhetoric). No comprehensive global political solution to greenhouse gases is possible. We need to go back and think again.

Q. The author would agree with which of the following statements:
I. The speed at which the climate change is being witnessed presently has not been seen before.
II. Climate change arguments are often dumbed down to the simplistic levels of a yes or no question.
III. Climate change cannot be confined to a narrow framework based on righteousness.

Solution:

Statement I can be inferred from the lines: It is clearly a scientific fact that the world's regional climates are changing substantially and at unprecedented speed as a result of the global warming  produced by the greenhouse gases emitted by human activity (in particular by the industrialisation of the West). But 'science' does not have the legitimacy or resources to tell us what we should do about climate change.

Statement II can be inferred from the lines: Climate change is thus simplified and personalised as a simple ‘values’ choice: Are you for the planet or against it?

Statement III can be derived from the lines: The moralisation approach undermines itself since it frames climate change narrowly in terms of righteousness.

QUESTION: 3

DIRECTIONS for the question: Read the passage and answer the question based on it. 

The global climate change debate has gone badly wrong. Many mainstream environmentalists are arguing for the wrong actions and for the wrong reasons, and so long as they continue to do so they put all our futures in jeopardy. My diagnosis is a twofold ethical failure: of pragmatism and perspective (or, more eloquently, of ‘sense and sensibility’). Many environmentalists argue that climate change is fundamentally a values problem. And yet their interpretation of this has taken a narrow moralising form that systematically excludes consideration of such important ethical values as improving the lives of the 1 billion people presently living in unacceptable poverty or even protecting other aspects of the environment (such as wilderness areas). That narrowness also leads to self-defeating policy proposals founded almost entirely in the economy of nature rather than political economy. The result is a fixation on global CO2 levels alone as the problem and solution, at the cost of systematic and broad evaluation of the feasible policy space. These foundational errors have induced a kind of millenarian meltdown in many otherwise sensible people, to the extent that to be an environmentalist these days is to fear the oncoming storm and know that all hope is lost. To put it mildly, people in this state of mind are not well placed to contribute helpfully to the political debate about what we should do about the fact of climate change. In their reconciliation with despair environmentalists are not only mistaken, but display a disturbing symmetry with those opponents of action who are mistakenly complacent about the status quo. My recommended treatment, to reinvigorate their confidence as well as their ethics, is a dose of economic reasoning.
It is clearly a scientific fact that the world's regional climates are changing substantially and at unprecedented speed as a result of the global warming  produced by the greenhouse gases emitted by human activity (in particular by the industrialisation of the West). But 'science' does not have the legitimacy or resources to tell us what we should do about climate change. We have to work out for ourselves, through public reasoning and politics, the implications of scientific facts for what we have reason to value, and what to do about them. As well as incorporating the full range of our ethical concerns and values (sensibility) such a debate requires further facts about how our socio-economic institutions interact with the environmental mechanisms (sense). Relying on the natural scientific account alone leads us to fixate on the minutiae of greenhouse gas emissions levels and climate sensitivity, while drastically simplifying the human side.
It is often said, and very plausibly, that climate change is difficult for human minds and political institutions to grasp and act on because it’s global scale and long-term (inter-generational) and complex causal mechanisms present a 'perfect moral storm' (e.g. Stephen Gardiner). One way of dealing with such difficult problems is to moralise them, and this seems to be the strategy currently favoured by mainstream environmentalists. Climate change is thus simplified and personalised as a simple ‘values’ choice: Are you for the planet or against it? Morality in this sense concerns strict but simple universal rules that everyone should follow without regard to personal situations or consequences - on the model of laws. On this model, one's carbon footprint is a moral crime (against the planet presumably) which one should feel guilty about and strive to reduce. As of course are other people's carbon emissions: they deserve to be shamed or otherwise forced into submission by the righteous ones. 
In trying to tackle climate change by directly dealing with the causal mechanism of CO2 levels we have framed the situation as an enormous collective action problem - how to persuade 7 billion people to adopt the new morality of carbon rationing (and prevent free-riding). Everyone who thinks this through recognises that it is impossible to realise without enormous government coercion (severe rationing along the lines of China's one-child policy). That requirement explains many climate change warriors' antipathy to democratic principles on this point - it seems easier to persuade all 200 governments to be adopt carbon authoritarianism than to persuade all those people individually (e.g. James Lovelock). However even the government coercion approach fails - see the failures of every inter-governmental treaty, from Kyoto to Copenhagen - and the reasons are obvious.
The moralisation approach undermines itself since it frames climate change narrowly in terms of righteousness. Inevitably deliberation about action gets bogged down in an interminable blame-game about what justice requires - who had their industrial revolution first, etc. Furthermore, the moral duties of different actors do not all point the same way: poor country governments have a clear and over-riding moral duty to help their citizens achieve the high quality of life which the West takes for granted, and which is inevitably energy (carbon) intensive. And then there is the practical economics: the world still has lots of coal, especially in the poor world, that can produce electricity at 3c per kwh (which renewables cannot possibly compete with without radical technological breakthroughs, even with the strongest moral rhetoric). No comprehensive global political solution to greenhouse gases is possible. We need to go back and think again.

Q. Para phrase the line: Relying on the natural scientific account alone leads us to fixate on the minutiae of greenhouse gas emissions levels and climate sensitivity, while drastically simplifying the human side.

Solution:

► Remember, the author does not say which side is bigger or smaller. He simply states that by focusing on one side of the problem, we miss out on the other. This makes option 4 the best answer in the given case.

QUESTION: 4

DIRECTIONS for the question: Read the passage and answer the question based on it. 

The global climate change debate has gone badly wrong. Many mainstream environmentalists are arguing for the wrong actions and for the wrong reasons, and so long as they continue to do so they put all our futures in jeopardy. My diagnosis is a twofold ethical failure: of pragmatism and perspective (or, more eloquently, of ‘sense and sensibility’). Many environmentalists argue that climate change is fundamentally a values problem. And yet their interpretation of this has taken a narrow moralising form that systematically excludes consideration of such important ethical values as improving the lives of the 1 billion people presently living in unacceptable poverty or even protecting other aspects of the environment (such as wilderness areas). That narrowness also leads to self-defeating policy proposals founded almost entirely in the economy of nature rather than political economy. The result is a fixation on global CO2 levels alone as the problem and solution, at the cost of systematic and broad evaluation of the feasible policy space. These foundational errors have induced a kind of millenarian meltdown in many otherwise sensible people, to the extent that to be an environmentalist these days is to fear the oncoming storm and know that all hope is lost. To put it mildly, people in this state of mind are not well placed to contribute helpfully to the political debate about what we should do about the fact of climate change. In their reconciliation with despair environmentalists are not only mistaken, but display a disturbing symmetry with those opponents of action who are mistakenly complacent about the status quo. My recommended treatment, to reinvigorate their confidence as well as their ethics, is a dose of economic reasoning.
It is clearly a scientific fact that the world's regional climates are changing substantially and at unprecedented speed as a result of the global warming  produced by the greenhouse gases emitted by human activity (in particular by the industrialisation of the West). But 'science' does not have the legitimacy or resources to tell us what we should do about climate change. We have to work out for ourselves, through public reasoning and politics, the implications of scientific facts for what we have reason to value, and what to do about them. As well as incorporating the full range of our ethical concerns and values (sensibility) such a debate requires further facts about how our socio-economic institutions interact with the environmental mechanisms (sense). Relying on the natural scientific account alone leads us to fixate on the minutiae of greenhouse gas emissions levels and climate sensitivity, while drastically simplifying the human side.
It is often said, and very plausibly, that climate change is difficult for human minds and political institutions to grasp and act on because it’s global scale and long-term (inter-generational) and complex causal mechanisms present a 'perfect moral storm' (e.g. Stephen Gardiner). One way of dealing with such difficult problems is to moralise them, and this seems to be the strategy currently favoured by mainstream environmentalists. Climate change is thus simplified and personalised as a simple ‘values’ choice: Are you for the planet or against it? Morality in this sense concerns strict but simple universal rules that everyone should follow without regard to personal situations or consequences - on the model of laws. On this model, one's carbon footprint is a moral crime (against the planet presumably) which one should feel guilty about and strive to reduce. As of course are other people's carbon emissions: they deserve to be shamed or otherwise forced into submission by the righteous ones. 
In trying to tackle climate change by directly dealing with the causal mechanism of CO2 levels we have framed the situation as an enormous collective action problem - how to persuade 7 billion people to adopt the new morality of carbon rationing (and prevent free-riding). Everyone who thinks this through recognises that it is impossible to realise without enormous government coercion (severe rationing along the lines of China's one-child policy). That requirement explains many climate change warriors' antipathy to democratic principles on this point - it seems easier to persuade all 200 governments to be adopt carbon authoritarianism than to persuade all those people individually (e.g. James Lovelock). However even the government coercion approach fails - see the failures of every inter-governmental treaty, from Kyoto to Copenhagen - and the reasons are obvious.
The moralisation approach undermines itself since it frames climate change narrowly in terms of righteousness. Inevitably deliberation about action gets bogged down in an interminable blame-game about what justice requires - who had their industrial revolution first, etc. Furthermore, the moral duties of different actors do not all point the same way: poor country governments have a clear and over-riding moral duty to help their citizens achieve the high quality of life which the West takes for granted, and which is inevitably energy (carbon) intensive. And then there is the practical economics: the world still has lots of coal, especially in the poor world, that can produce electricity at 3c per kwh (which renewables cannot possibly compete with without radical technological breakthroughs, even with the strongest moral rhetoric). No comprehensive global political solution to greenhouse gases is possible. We need to go back and think again.

Q. When the author says, ‘one's carbon footprint is a moral crime’, he is highlighting:​

Solution:

Refer to the lines: One way of dealing with such difficult problems is to moralise them, and this seems to be the strategy currently favoured by mainstream environmentalists. Climate change is thus simplified and personalised as a simple ‘values’ choice: Are you for the planet or against it? Morality in this sense concerns strict but simple universal rules that everyone should follow without regard to personal situations or consequences - on the model of laws. On this model, one's carbon footprint is a moral crime (against the planet presumably) which one should feel guilty about and strive to reduce. As of course are other people's carbon emissions: they deserve to be shamed or otherwise forced into submission by the righteous ones.

Remember, in this case, you need to highlight the view of the author of the passage and why does he use this particular exam. The answer to this question is found in option 1.

QUESTION: 5

DIRECTIONS for the questionRead the passage and answer the question based on it.

It is assumed that the aim of education is to enable individuals to continue their education—or that the object and reward of learning is continued capacity for growth. Now this idea cannot be applied to all the members of a society except where intercourse of man with man is mutual, and except where there is adequate provision for the reconstruction of social habits and institutions by means of wide stimulation arising from equitably distributed interests. And this means a democratic society. In our search for aims in education, we are not concerned, therefore, with finding an end outside of the educative process to which education is subordinate. Our whole conception forbids. We are rather concerned with the contrast which exists when aims belong within the process in which they operate and when they are set up from without. And the latter state of affairs must obtain when social relationships are not equitably balanced.
Our first question is to define the nature of an aim so far as it falls within an activity, instead of being furnished from without. Any exhibition of energy has results. The wind blows about the sands of the desert; the position of the grains is changed. Here is a result, an effect, but not an end. There is mere spatial redistribution. One state of affairs is just as good as any other. Consequently there is no basis upon which to select an earlier state of affairs as a beginning, a later as an end, and to consider what intervenes as a process of transformation and realization.
Consider for example the activities of bees in contrast with the changes in the sands when the wind blows them about. The results of the bees' actions may be called ends not because they are designed or consciously intended, but because they are true terminations or completions of what has preceded. When the bees gather pollen and make wax and build cells, each step prepares the way for the next. When cells are built, the queen lays eggs in them; when eggs are laid, they are sealed and bees brood them and keep them at a temperature required to hatch them. When they are hatched, bees feed the young till they can take care of themselves. Now we are so familiar with such facts, that we are apt to dismiss them on the ground that life and instinct are a kind of miraculous thing anyway. Since aims relate always to results, the first thing to look to when it is a question of aims, is whether the work assigned possesses intrinsic continuity. Or is it a mere serial aggregate of acts, first doing one thing and then another? To talk about an educational aim when approximately each act of a pupil is dictated by the teacher, when the only order in the sequence of his acts is that which comes from the assignment of lessons and the giving of directions by another, is to talk nonsense. It is equally fatal to an aim to permit capricious or discontinuous action in the name of spontaneous self-expression. An aim implies an orderly and ordered activity, one in which the order consists in the progressive completing of a process. Given an activity having a time span and cumulative growth within the time succession, an aim means foresight in advance of the end or possible termination. If bees anticipated the consequences of their activity, if they perceived their end in imaginative foresight, they would have the primary element in an aim. Hence it is nonsense to talk about the aim of education—or any other undertaking—where conditions do not permit of foresight of results, and do not stimulate a person to look ahead to see what the outcome of a given activity is to be.

Q. The writing style adopted by the author of the passage can be labeled as:

Solution:

The writing style of the author in this case is analogical. Why so? Have a look at the meanings of the four words:

Allegorical: An expressive style that uses fictional characters and events to describe some subject by suggestive resemblances; an extended metaphor
Analogical: Drawing a comparison in order to show a similarity in some respect
Symbolic: Serving as a visible symbol for something abstract
Figurative: Not literal; using figures of speech

In this case, the author clearly uses examples to prove his points, and thus option 2 is the correct choice in this case.

QUESTION: 6

DIRECTIONS for the questionRead the passage and answer the question based on it.

It is assumed that the aim of education is to enable individuals to continue their education—or that the object and reward of learning is continued capacity for growth. Now this idea cannot be applied to all the members of a society except where intercourse of man with man is mutual, and except where there is adequate provision for the reconstruction of social habits and institutions by means of wide stimulation arising from equitably distributed interests. And this means a democratic society. In our search for aims in education, we are not concerned, therefore, with finding an end outside of the educative process to which education is subordinate. Our whole conception forbids. We are rather concerned with the contrast which exists when aims belong within the process in which they operate and when they are set up from without. And the latter state of affairs must obtain when social relationships are not equitably balanced.
Our first question is to define the nature of an aim so far as it falls within an activity, instead of being furnished from without. Any exhibition of energy has results. The wind blows about the sands of the desert; the position of the grains is changed. Here is a result, an effect, but not an end. There is mere spatial redistribution. One state of affairs is just as good as any other. Consequently there is no basis upon which to select an earlier state of affairs as a beginning, a later as an end, and to consider what intervenes as a process of transformation and realization.
Consider for example the activities of bees in contrast with the changes in the sands when the wind blows them about. The results of the bees' actions may be called ends not because they are designed or consciously intended, but because they are true terminations or completions of what has preceded. When the bees gather pollen and make wax and build cells, each step prepares the way for the next. When cells are built, the queen lays eggs in them; when eggs are laid, they are sealed and bees brood them and keep them at a temperature required to hatch them. When they are hatched, bees feed the young till they can take care of themselves. Now we are so familiar with such facts, that we are apt to dismiss them on the ground that life and instinct are a kind of miraculous thing anyway. Since aims relate always to results, the first thing to look to when it is a question of aims, is whether the work assigned possesses intrinsic continuity. Or is it a mere serial aggregate of acts, first doing one thing and then another? To talk about an educational aim when approximately each act of a pupil is dictated by the teacher, when the only order in the sequence of his acts is that which comes from the assignment of lessons and the giving of directions by another, is to talk nonsense. It is equally fatal to an aim to permit capricious or discontinuous action in the name of spontaneous self-expression. An aim implies an orderly and ordered activity, one in which the order consists in the progressive completing of a process. Given an activity having a time span and cumulative growth within the time succession, an aim means foresight in advance of the end or possible termination. If bees anticipated the consequences of their activity, if they perceived their end in imaginative foresight, they would have the primary element in an aim. Hence it is nonsense to talk about the aim of education—or any other undertaking—where conditions do not permit of foresight of results, and do not stimulate a person to look ahead to see what the outcome of a given activity is to be.

Q. According to the author of the passage, in order achieve the true aim of education:

Solution:

►The answer to this question can be derived from the following: An aim implies an orderly and ordered activity, one in which the order consists in the progressive completing of a process. Given an activity having a time span and cumulative growth within the time succession, an aim means foresight in advance of the end or possible termination. If bees anticipated the consequences of their activity, if they perceived their end in imaginative foresight, they would have the primary element in an aim.

►Hence, it is nonsense to talk about the aim of education—or any other undertaking—where conditions do not permit of foresight of results, and do not stimulate a person to look ahead to see what the outcome of a given activity is to be. Option 4 is a synthesis of the above parts of the which have been highlighted.

QUESTION: 7

DIRECTIONS for the questionRead the passage and answer the question based on it.

It is assumed that the aim of education is to enable individuals to continue their education—or that the object and reward of learning is continued capacity for growth. Now this idea cannot be applied to all the members of a society except where intercourse of man with man is mutual, and except where there is adequate provision for the reconstruction of social habits and institutions by means of wide stimulation arising from equitably distributed interests. And this means a democratic society. In our search for aims in education, we are not concerned, therefore, with finding an end outside of the educative process to which education is subordinate. Our whole conception forbids. We are rather concerned with the contrast which exists when aims belong within the process in which they operate and when they are set up from without. And the latter state of affairs must obtain when social relationships are not equitably balanced.
Our first question is to define the nature of an aim so far as it falls within an activity, instead of being furnished from without. Any exhibition of energy has results. The wind blows about the sands of the desert; the position of the grains is changed. Here is a result, an effect, but not an end. There is mere spatial redistribution. One state of affairs is just as good as any other. Consequently there is no basis upon which to select an earlier state of affairs as a beginning, a later as an end, and to consider what intervenes as a process of transformation and realization.
Consider for example the activities of bees in contrast with the changes in the sands when the wind blows them about. The results of the bees' actions may be called ends not because they are designed or consciously intended, but because they are true terminations or completions of what has preceded. When the bees gather pollen and make wax and build cells, each step prepares the way for the next. When cells are built, the queen lays eggs in them; when eggs are laid, they are sealed and bees brood them and keep them at a temperature required to hatch them. When they are hatched, bees feed the young till they can take care of themselves. Now we are so familiar with such facts, that we are apt to dismiss them on the ground that life and instinct are a kind of miraculous thing anyway. Since aims relate always to results, the first thing to look to when it is a question of aims, is whether the work assigned possesses intrinsic continuity. Or is it a mere serial aggregate of acts, first doing one thing and then another? To talk about an educational aim when approximately each act of a pupil is dictated by the teacher, when the only order in the sequence of his acts is that which comes from the assignment of lessons and the giving of directions by another, is to talk nonsense. It is equally fatal to an aim to permit capricious or discontinuous action in the name of spontaneous self-expression. An aim implies an orderly and ordered activity, one in which the order consists in the progressive completing of a process. Given an activity having a time span and cumulative growth within the time succession, an aim means foresight in advance of the end or possible termination. If bees anticipated the consequences of their activity, if they perceived their end in imaginative foresight, they would have the primary element in an aim. Hence it is nonsense to talk about the aim of education—or any other undertaking—where conditions do not permit of foresight of results, and do not stimulate a person to look ahead to see what the outcome of a given activity is to be.

Q. According to information provided in the passage, which one of the following activities can be labeled as one without an aim?​

Solution:

In this question, you need to keep the bee and sand examples in mind. The bee example highlights how having a definitive result in mind constitutes an activity with an aim.

On the other hand, the sand example just implies a special re-adjustment without a change in actual status. The one activity in this case which just implies a spatial change without implying any real outcome is option 4.

The rest of the options yield a final result; in option 4, there is just a change in ownership, the dog remains a dog.

QUESTION: 8

DIRECTIONS for the question: Read the passage and answer the question based on it.

Around a wastewater reservoir on the outskirts of China’s fourth largest city, Tianjin, tower blocks built to one of the most stringent green building codes in the world rise in “eco-cells” bound by broad roads while, in strips of green space around the Yincheng Reservoir, wind farms have been planted. This is Tianjin Eco-city, a joint venture of China and Singapore, and designed to be “A thriving city which socially harmonious, environmentally-friendly and resource efficient—a model of sustainable development.” According to MIT Technology Review, $6.5 billion has been invested by the two governments as of 2012. Unfortunately, as both a city and as a model of sustainable development, Tianjin Eco-city has all the hallmarks of failure. One doesn’t even need to read the articles about how difficult it’s been to convince people to move there, or the inconveniences they face when they do, to see why. A glance through the  city images reveals everything: grandiose buildings on huge setbacks, wide roads clearly designed for speed, green space—not parks—forming buffers on sidewalks and highway medians and all overseen by the aforementioned apartment towers.
It’s Le Corbusier with solar panels. That sort of city, built from scratch and at such a scale to crush the human life out of a city, designed around the car at highway speeds and the misguided belief that mere open space (inevitably converted into parking sooner or later) was better than any place could be, comprises the heart of decades of urban failure in the West. It was the guiding ideology behind the planning of the infamous “projects”—St. Louis’ Pruitt-Igoe, Chicago’s Cabrini-Green and the depressing march of cheerless gray building after cheerless gray building through the Bronx—and the basic design’s hostility to human life is one of the reasons they’re remembered for poverty, drugs, violence and social collapse and not the visionary and progressive examples of architecture, housing policy and urban planning they were hailed as.
For Le Corbusier and his followers, the goal was not to work within a living tradition or build upon what had come before, but to completely obliterate the past. In a city or neighborhood he designed, there would be nothing left to remind anyone of what had gone before. The street itself would be abolished and everyone would live and work in gigantic, identical, concrete towers. It’s unclear if there was room in his utopia for churches or even farms and factories. Not for nothing has Theodore Dalrymple compared Le Corbusier to Pol Pot, “he wanted to start from Year Zero: Before me, nothing; After me, everything.”
Being built around a polluted reservoir, Tianjin Eco-city is less disruptive than American projects that “renewed” whole neighborhoods at a time. Nevertheless, in being built from scratch it will suffer from many similar problems. It’s unclear how many people have moved in yet. While planned for 350,000 residents, MIT Technology Review reports a population of 20,000; The Guardian reports 6,000 and the BBC 12,000. Renting in new construction is more expensive than existing and while the government has been offering subsidized rent and kindergarten, apartments are still empty. For those who have moved in, the eco-city lacks both conveniences and amenities, so residents must drive to work, shop or do anything else.
The master-plan talks about promoting walking, cycling and public transit, but there does not appear to be a transit connection to central Tianjin, about 20 miles away. The references to driving alternatives in the Master Plan all talk about trips within the city. In any event, the wide, multi-lane roads and lack of anywhere within the eco-city to walk to will just encourage driving.

Q. According to the author of the passage, Tianjin Eco-city lacks:
I. Conveniences and amenities
II. Affordable renting options
III. Transport options

Solution:

Statement I can be derived from the lines: For those who have moved in, the eco-city lacks both conveniences and amenities, so residents must drive to work, shop or do anything else.

Statement II can be derived from the lines: Renting in new construction is more expensive than existing and while the government has been offering subsidized rent and kindergarten, apartments are still empty.

Statement III can be derived from the lines: The master-plan talks about promoting walking, cycling and public transit, but there does not appear to be a transit connection to central Tianjin, about 20 miles away.

QUESTION: 9

DIRECTIONS for the question: Read the passage and answer the question based on it.

Around a wastewater reservoir on the outskirts of China’s fourth largest city, Tianjin, tower blocks built to one of the most stringent green building codes in the world rise in “eco-cells” bound by broad roads while, in strips of green space around the Yincheng Reservoir, wind farms have been planted. This is Tianjin Eco-city, a joint venture of China and Singapore, and designed to be “A thriving city which socially harmonious, environmentally-friendly and resource efficient—a model of sustainable development.” According to MIT Technology Review, $6.5 billion has been invested by the two governments as of 2012. Unfortunately, as both a city and as a model of sustainable development, Tianjin Eco-city has all the hallmarks of failure. One doesn’t even need to read the articles about how difficult it’s been to convince people to move there, or the inconveniences they face when they do, to see why. A glance through the  city images reveals everything: grandiose buildings on huge setbacks, wide roads clearly designed for speed, green space—not parks—forming buffers on sidewalks and highway medians and all overseen by the aforementioned apartment towers.
It’s Le Corbusier with solar panels. That sort of city, built from scratch and at such a scale to crush the human life out of a city, designed around the car at highway speeds and the misguided belief that mere open space (inevitably converted into parking sooner or later) was better than any place could be, comprises the heart of decades of urban failure in the West. It was the guiding ideology behind the planning of the infamous “projects”—St. Louis’ Pruitt-Igoe, Chicago’s Cabrini-Green and the depressing march of cheerless gray building after cheerless gray building through the Bronx—and the basic design’s hostility to human life is one of the reasons they’re remembered for poverty, drugs, violence and social collapse and not the visionary and progressive examples of architecture, housing policy and urban planning they were hailed as.
For Le Corbusier and his followers, the goal was not to work within a living tradition or build upon what had come before, but to completely obliterate the past. In a city or neighborhood he designed, there would be nothing left to remind anyone of what had gone before. The street itself would be abolished and everyone would live and work in gigantic, identical, concrete towers. It’s unclear if there was room in his utopia for churches or even farms and factories. Not for nothing has Theodore Dalrymple compared Le Corbusier to Pol Pot, “he wanted to start from Year Zero: Before me, nothing; After me, everything.”
Being built around a polluted reservoir, Tianjin Eco-city is less disruptive than American projects that “renewed” whole neighborhoods at a time. Nevertheless, in being built from scratch it will suffer from many similar problems. It’s unclear how many people have moved in yet. While planned for 350,000 residents, MIT Technology Review reports a population of 20,000; The Guardian reports 6,000 and the BBC 12,000. Renting in new construction is more expensive than existing and while the government has been offering subsidized rent and kindergarten, apartments are still empty. For those who have moved in, the eco-city lacks both conveniences and amenities, so residents must drive to work, shop or do anything else.
The master-plan talks about promoting walking, cycling and public transit, but there does not appear to be a transit connection to central Tianjin, about 20 miles away. The references to driving alternatives in the Master Plan all talk about trips within the city. In any event, the wide, multi-lane roads and lack of anywhere within the eco-city to walk to will just encourage driving.

Q. All of the following can be deduced from the passage except:

Solution:

All of the options except 2 can be derived from the passage.

Option 1 can be derived from the lines: It’s Le Corbusier with solar panels. That sort of city, built from scratch and at such a scale to crush the human life out of a city, designed around the car at highway speeds and the misguided belief that mere open space (inevitably converted into parking sooner or later) was better than any place could be, comprises the heart of decades of urban failure in the West.

Option 3 can be derived from the lines: The street itself would be abolished and everyone would live and work in gigantic, identical, concrete towers.

Option 4 can be derived from the lines: For Le Corbusier and his followers, the goal was not to work within a living tradition or build upon what had come before, but to completely obliterate the past.

Option 2 is ruled out as there is a mention to utopia but that is a comment of the author. The passage does not state that Le Corbusier wished to create utopian existence for mankind.

QUESTION: 10

DIRECTIONS for the question: Read the passage and answer the question based on it.

Around a wastewater reservoir on the outskirts of China’s fourth largest city, Tianjin, tower blocks built to one of the most stringent green building codes in the world rise in “eco-cells” bound by broad roads while, in strips of green space around the Yincheng Reservoir, wind farms have been planted. This is Tianjin Eco-city, a joint venture of China and Singapore, and designed to be “A thriving city which socially harmonious, environmentally-friendly and resource efficient—a model of sustainable development.” According to MIT Technology Review, $6.5 billion has been invested by the two governments as of 2012. Unfortunately, as both a city and as a model of sustainable development, Tianjin Eco-city has all the hallmarks of failure. One doesn’t even need to read the articles about how difficult it’s been to convince people to move there, or the inconveniences they face when they do, to see why. A glance through the  city images reveals everything: grandiose buildings on huge setbacks, wide roads clearly designed for speed, green space—not parks—forming buffers on sidewalks and highway medians and all overseen by the aforementioned apartment towers.
It’s Le Corbusier with solar panels. That sort of city, built from scratch and at such a scale to crush the human life out of a city, designed around the car at highway speeds and the misguided belief that mere open space (inevitably converted into parking sooner or later) was better than any place could be, comprises the heart of decades of urban failure in the West. It was the guiding ideology behind the planning of the infamous “projects”—St. Louis’ Pruitt-Igoe, Chicago’s Cabrini-Green and the depressing march of cheerless gray building after cheerless gray building through the Bronx—and the basic design’s hostility to human life is one of the reasons they’re remembered for poverty, drugs, violence and social collapse and not the visionary and progressive examples of architecture, housing policy and urban planning they were hailed as.
For Le Corbusier and his followers, the goal was not to work within a living tradition or build upon what had come before, but to completely obliterate the past. In a city or neighborhood he designed, there would be nothing left to remind anyone of what had gone before. The street itself would be abolished and everyone would live and work in gigantic, identical, concrete towers. It’s unclear if there was room in his utopia for churches or even farms and factories. Not for nothing has Theodore Dalrymple compared Le Corbusier to Pol Pot, “he wanted to start from Year Zero: Before me, nothing; After me, everything.”
Being built around a polluted reservoir, Tianjin Eco-city is less disruptive than American projects that “renewed” whole neighborhoods at a time. Nevertheless, in being built from scratch it will suffer from many similar problems. It’s unclear how many people have moved in yet. While planned for 350,000 residents, MIT Technology Review reports a population of 20,000; The Guardian reports 6,000 and the BBC 12,000. Renting in new construction is more expensive than existing and while the government has been offering subsidized rent and kindergarten, apartments are still empty. For those who have moved in, the eco-city lacks both conveniences and amenities, so residents must drive to work, shop or do anything else.
The master-plan talks about promoting walking, cycling and public transit, but there does not appear to be a transit connection to central Tianjin, about 20 miles away. The references to driving alternatives in the Master Plan all talk about trips within the city. In any event, the wide, multi-lane roads and lack of anywhere within the eco-city to walk to will just encourage driving.

Q. The author of the passage adopt a tone of ________ towards Le Corbusier. 

(Fill in the blank with the apt option.)

Solution:

►In the given case, the author of the passage adopts an extremely negative approach towards Le Corbusier and criticizes his work severely. This means that the positive option 1 can be safely out.

►Out of the three negative options, we select option 2 as the author does not display vituperation (abusive or venomous language used to express blame or censure or bitter deep-seated ill will) or sarcasm  (witty language used to convey insults or scorn) towards Le Corbusier.

QUESTION: 11

DIRECTIONS for the question: Read the passage and answer the question based on it.

According to AmeNaess's own criteria, eco-feminism is not shallow insofar as it is anti-anthropocentric and acknowledges the moral value of non-human entities, apart from their usefulness to humans. Although eco-feminists emphasize the role of patriarchy in creating and propagating ecological oppression, patriarchal thinking is not necessarily considered the root cause of anything. In fact, patriarchal attitudes and practices interact with other systems and logics of domination and oppression, such as racism, anthropocentrism, classism, and heterosexism to form a de-centered matrix of oppressive attitudes, theories, and practices. Every aspect of this matrix has been constructed within a complex network of historical, economic, political, and environmental factors.
Those eco-feminist writers who have explored the complexity of the connections and relationships among various oppressions and social constructions, do not claim that 'woman's perspective' provides the perfect vantage point to determine the causes of ecological destruction because they realize, and in fact assert, that no such unitary perspective exists. The arguments of many prominent eco-feminists rest on the fact that the perspectives of females, colored people and other historically disenfranchised groups are virtually missing from the history of academic thought, and also that certain theoretical and ethical insights may be gained with attention to these perspectives. Although Naess asserts that a theory is deep insofar as it refuses to ignore ‘'troubling evidence" about the roots of ecological destruction, Deep Ecologists tend to ignore the troubling fact that anthropo-centrism and other oppressive attitudes towards the non-human realm actually feed and are fed by human oppression and subjugation. Deep Ecologists ignore a significant facet of the matrix of oppression and domination by ignoring the extent to which mutual human interactions determine and are determined by human interactions with the non-human realm.
Given the complexities of an eco-feminist analysis of the population problem, of practical solutions and an ethics, that addresses the many facets of the problem, will be equally 'complex and multifaceted’. One emerging imperative is the recognition of the ethical necessity of ‘women's empowerment'. Such an imperative cannot emerge from a one-dimensional Deep Ecology analysis which views anthropo-centrism as the sole root of environmental destruction and which posits humans as an undifferentiated species. Women must be empowered with regard to their own bodies, their role as creators of culture, about their role and power in sexuality their self-creation of identities other than as mother. An ethic that addresses the complexities of the population problem will include an acknowledgment and analysis of women’s empowerment and the need for economic empowerment of the poor, and will offer a thorough critique of genocidal and racist programmes and policies. A medical ethic which addresses the need for safe, practical, non-paternalistic health care options for women and the poor is a necessary aspect of any theory which addresses the population issue.
Some Deep Ecologists and even some eco-feminists, have argued that Deep Ecology and eco-feminism are theoretically similar, share common goals, and are in agreement concerning the positive programme of radical ecology. But the differences between the two are not superficial, and they mark serious disagreement concerning the basis of ethics, contextualization of ethical issues, and the interrelationship of ethical issues seemingly confined to the human sphere with those that obviously involve ‘non-human entities.'

Q. The last paragraph is written by the author with a view to

Solution:

Refer to the line- But the differences between the two are not superficial, and they mark serious disagreement concerning.The last paragraph addresses a different aspect, rather than try to summarize the previous discussion.

Option 4:  There is no myth regarding the interrelationships between deep ecology and eco-feminism in the context of ethical issues being part of the differences, and not being central to this debate.

Option 1: Not supported by the paragraph as it discusses the real differences between the two schools of thought.

QUESTION: 12

DIRECTIONS for the question: Read the passage and answer the question based on it.

According to AmeNaess's own criteria, eco-feminism is not shallow insofar as it is anti-anthropocentric and acknowledges the moral value of non-human entities, apart from their usefulness to humans. Although eco-feminists emphasize the role of patriarchy in creating and propagating ecological oppression, patriarchal thinking is not necessarily considered the root cause of anything. In fact, patriarchal attitudes and practices interact with other systems and logics of domination and oppression, such as racism, anthropocentrism, classism, and heterosexism to form a de-centered matrix of oppressive attitudes, theories, and practices. Every aspect of this matrix has been constructed within a complex network of historical, economic, political, and environmental factors.
Those eco-feminist writers who have explored the complexity of the connections and relationships among various oppressions and social constructions, do not claim that 'woman's perspective' provides the perfect vantage point to determine the causes of ecological destruction because they realize, and in fact assert, that no such unitary perspective exists. The arguments of many prominent eco-feminists rest on the fact that the perspectives of females, colored people and other historically disenfranchised groups are virtually missing from the history of academic thought, and also that certain theoretical and ethical insights may be gained with attention to these perspectives. Although Naess asserts that a theory is deep insofar as it refuses to ignore ‘'troubling evidence" about the roots of ecological destruction, Deep Ecologists tend to ignore the troubling fact that anthropo-centrism and other oppressive attitudes towards the non-human realm actually feed and are fed by human oppression and subjugation. Deep Ecologists ignore a significant facet of the matrix of oppression and domination by ignoring the extent to which mutual human interactions determine and are determined by human interactions with the non-human realm.
Given the complexities of an eco-feminist analysis of the population problem, of practical solutions and an ethics, that addresses the many facets of the problem, will be equally 'complex and multifaceted’. One emerging imperative is the recognition of the ethical necessity of ‘women's empowerment'. Such an imperative cannot emerge from a one-dimensional Deep Ecology analysis which views anthropo-centrism as the sole root of environmental destruction and which posits humans as an undifferentiated species. Women must be empowered with regard to their own bodies, their role as creators of culture, about their role and power in sexuality their self-creation of identities other than as mother. An ethic that addresses the complexities of the population problem will include an acknowledgment and analysis of women’s empowerment and the need for economic empowerment of the poor, and will offer a thorough critique of genocidal and racist programmes and policies. A medical ethic which addresses the need for safe, practical, non-paternalistic health care options for women and the poor is a necessary aspect of any theory which addresses the population issue.
Some Deep Ecologists and even some eco-feminists, have argued that Deep Ecology and eco-feminism are theoretically similar, share common goals, and are in agreement concerning the positive programme of radical ecology. But the differences between the two are not superficial, and they mark serious disagreement concerning the basis of ethics, contextualization of ethical issues, and the interrelationship of ethical issues seemingly confined to the human sphere with those that obviously involve ‘non-human entities.'

Q. According to the author, empowering women being an ethical imperative, it should be

Solution:

The line and the following ones in

Paragraph 2: One emerging imperative is the recognition of the ethical necessity of ‘women's empowerment'. Such an imperative cannot emerge from a one-dimensional Deep Ecology analysis which views anthropo-centrism as the sole root of environmental destruction and which posits humans as an undifferentiated species.

The passage clearly states that Deep ecology cannot fulfill this imperative, and thus, this rules out all the options.

QUESTION: 13

DIRECTIONS for the question: Read the passage and answer the question based on it.

Citizens of the United States are quite taken with the vocabulary of liberal democracy, with words such as ‘freedom’ and ‘democracy’, which conjure key democratic values and distance the nation from the Old World taint of oligarchy and aristocracy. It is much less clear, however, that Americans are guided by democratic ideals. Or that ideology and propaganda play a crucial role in concealing the large gap between rhetoric and reality.
In truth, the Old World systems have proved extremely difficult to shrug off. In their 2014 paper, Martin Gilens and Benjamin Page argue that, as in an oligarchy, ordinary US citizens have no ‘substantial power over policy decisions [and] little or no independent influence on policy at all’.
Moreover, the US regularly subscribes to a form of managerial aristocracy. In the current presidential race, Hillary Clinton advertises her managerial expertise via the language of policy, while Donald Trump parades his via the language of business. Neither language is democratic. Neither invites self-governance.
Why is there no outcry about these oligarchical and aristocratic methods? Is it because plutocrats have power over the mechanisms of representation and repression? Is it, in short, about power? In my view, power can’t explain why voters are so enthusiastically voting for the very people who promise the least democratic outcomes. Nor are Americans knowingly rejecting democratic ideals. Instead, I see an anti-democratic ideology at work, inverting the meaning of democratic vocabulary and transforming it into propaganda.
Consider the example of mass incarceration in the US. Black Americans make up around 13 per cent of the population, but around 40 per cent of country’s ballooning prison population. Even if we assume, falsely, that black American crime rates justify this disparity, why is the state so punitive? Shouldn’t citizens instead be motivated to address the underlying socio-economic conditions that lead to such dramatic differences in behaviour between equals?
In The New Jim Crow (2010), Michelle Alexander argues that a national rhetoric of law and order has long justified mass incarceration. President Richard Nixon used it to crack down on black Americans under the cover of an epidemic of heroin use; this continued in the 1980s, as a merciless ‘war on drugs’ whose victims were all too often black men. In the US, the ideology of anti-black racism takes the view that blacks are violent and lazy, thereby masking the misapplication of the ideals of law and order.
Compare the ‘war on drugs’ to the current heroin crisis among middle-class white Americans, which has led to a national discussion of the socio-economic distress facing this class. Law and order doesn’t come into it. ‘The new face of heroin’ is new because, unlike the old face, it calls out for an empathetic response, rather than a punitive one.
But what is the flawed ideology masking the misapplication of democratic ideals? Let’s bring it out by exploring the most cherished US democratic ideal, the ideal of freedom – popularly embodied in attacks on ‘big government’. Voters are repeatedly told that ‘big government’ is the primary source of coercion that limits freedom, which it certainly sometimes does, as the Patriot Act reminds us. But corporations also limit civic freedom in significant ways.
For example, corporations are leading direct attacks on the freedom to collectively bargain. Via outsourcing, free trade agreements allow corporations to move jobs to countries where labour is cheap; meanwhile, as a result of pressure from the conservative non-profit Citizens United, corporations can fund political candidates, thereby increasing corporate control of government. The weaker a government is, the more power corporations have over it.
Voters concerned about government – as opposed to corporate – constraints on freedom are under the grip of what I will call a free market ideology. According to that ideology, the world of capital is by its nature free. All other substantial freedoms, including political freedom and personal freedom, are made possible by the freedom of markets.
Why do citizens who cherish freedom as an ideal vote to constrain their own freedoms by increasing the power of corporations? It’s because free market ideology masks the ways in which corporations deploy undemocratic modes of coercion. When a corporation bans employees from expressing, outside of work, opinions it disapproves of, this is seen as a legitimate protection of its economic interests. If workers have to sign non-disclosure contracts that silence them after they are employed elsewhere, it’s accepted as the cost of doing business.
The contradictions here are telling. If our most basic freedoms are self-expression and choiceful action, then corporations frequently limit our most basic freedoms. In liberal democratic theory, it is government that is regarded as the protector of such rights. But it’s precisely because government is attacked in the name of freedom that corporations have vastly greater power to constrain and shape it.

Q. A suitable title for the passage is:

Solution:

The meanings of these two words:

Pervert: Change the inherent purpose or function of something/Practice sophistry; change the meaning of or be vague about in order to mislead or deceive

Adjunct: Something added to another thing but not an essential part of it

We can clearly see that pervert fits the given negative context of the passage.

Also, the primary subject of the passage is free market and how it is impacting democracy.

This makes option 1 the correct answer.

QUESTION: 14

DIRECTIONS for the question: Read the passage and answer the question based on it.

Citizens of the United States are quite taken with the vocabulary of liberal democracy, with words such as ‘freedom’ and ‘democracy’, which conjure key democratic values and distance the nation from the Old World taint of oligarchy and aristocracy. It is much less clear, however, that Americans are guided by democratic ideals. Or that ideology and propaganda play a crucial role in concealing the large gap between rhetoric and reality.
In truth, the Old World systems have proved extremely difficult to shrug off. In their 2014 paper, Martin Gilens and Benjamin Page argue that, as in an oligarchy, ordinary US citizens have no ‘substantial power over policy decisions [and] little or no independent influence on policy at all’.
Moreover, the US regularly subscribes to a form of managerial aristocracy. In the current presidential race, Hillary Clinton advertises her managerial expertise via the language of policy, while Donald Trump parades his via the language of business. Neither language is democratic. Neither invites self-governance.
Why is there no outcry about these oligarchical and aristocratic methods? Is it because plutocrats have power over the mechanisms of representation and repression? Is it, in short, about power? In my view, power can’t explain why voters are so enthusiastically voting for the very people who promise the least democratic outcomes. Nor are Americans knowingly rejecting democratic ideals. Instead, I see an anti-democratic ideology at work, inverting the meaning of democratic vocabulary and transforming it into propaganda.
Consider the example of mass incarceration in the US. Black Americans make up around 13 per cent of the population, but around 40 per cent of country’s ballooning prison population. Even if we assume, falsely, that black American crime rates justify this disparity, why is the state so punitive? Shouldn’t citizens instead be motivated to address the underlying socio-economic conditions that lead to such dramatic differences in behaviour between equals?
In The New Jim Crow (2010), Michelle Alexander argues that a national rhetoric of law and order has long justified mass incarceration. President Richard Nixon used it to crack down on black Americans under the cover of an epidemic of heroin use; this continued in the 1980s, as a merciless ‘war on drugs’ whose victims were all too often black men. In the US, the ideology of anti-black racism takes the view that blacks are violent and lazy, thereby masking the misapplication of the ideals of law and order.
Compare the ‘war on drugs’ to the current heroin crisis among middle-class white Americans, which has led to a national discussion of the socio-economic distress facing this class. Law and order doesn’t come into it. ‘The new face of heroin’ is new because, unlike the old face, it calls out for an empathetic response, rather than a punitive one.
But what is the flawed ideology masking the misapplication of democratic ideals? Let’s bring it out by exploring the most cherished US democratic ideal, the ideal of freedom – popularly embodied in attacks on ‘big government’. Voters are repeatedly told that ‘big government’ is the primary source of coercion that limits freedom, which it certainly sometimes does, as the Patriot Act reminds us. But corporations also limit civic freedom in significant ways.
For example, corporations are leading direct attacks on the freedom to collectively bargain. Via outsourcing, free trade agreements allow corporations to move jobs to countries where labour is cheap; meanwhile, as a result of pressure from the conservative non-profit Citizens United, corporations can fund political candidates, thereby increasing corporate control of government. The weaker a government is, the more power corporations have over it.
Voters concerned about government – as opposed to corporate – constraints on freedom are under the grip of what I will call a free market ideology. According to that ideology, the world of capital is by its nature free. All other substantial freedoms, including political freedom and personal freedom, are made possible by the freedom of markets.
Why do citizens who cherish freedom as an ideal vote to constrain their own freedoms by increasing the power of corporations? It’s because free market ideology masks the ways in which corporations deploy undemocratic modes of coercion. When a corporation bans employees from expressing, outside of work, opinions it disapproves of, this is seen as a legitimate protection of its economic interests. If workers have to sign non-disclosure contracts that silence them after they are employed elsewhere, it’s accepted as the cost of doing business.
The contradictions here are telling. If our most basic freedoms are self-expression and choiceful action, then corporations frequently limit our most basic freedoms. In liberal democratic theory, it is government that is regarded as the protector of such rights. But it’s precisely because government is attacked in the name of freedom that corporations have vastly greater power to constrain and shape it.

Q. The author of the passage, at some point or the other in the passage, has been critical of:
I. Governments
II. Corporations
III. Political leaders

Solution:

The author of the passage criticizes all of the above stakeholders in the passage. Remember, the question quotes: at some point or the other. This essentially means that there has to be at least one point of criticism in the passage. One point of criticism for each of the above can be easily found. 

Criticizing political leaders:

  • "In the current presidential race, Hillary Clinton advertises her managerial expertise via the language of policy, while Donald Trump parades his via the language of business. Neither language is democratic."
  • "President Richard Nixon used it to crack down on black Americans under the cover of an epidemic of heroin use; this continued in the 1980s, as a merciless ‘war on drugs’ whose victims were all too often black men. In the US, the ideology of anti-black racism takes the view that blacks are violent and lazy, thereby masking the misapplication of the ideals of law and order."
  • Criticizing govt "Voters are repeatedly told that ‘big government’ is the primary source of coercion that limits freedom, which it certainly sometimes does, as the Patriot Act reminds us"
  • Criticizing corporations "But corporations also limit civic freedom in significant ways. 
  • For example, corporations are leading direct attacks on the freedom to collectively bargain. Via outsourcing, free trade agreements allow corporations to move jobs to countries where labour is cheap; meanwhile, as a result of pressure from the conservative non-profit Citizens United, corporations can fund political candidates, thereby increasing corporate control of government. The weaker a government is, the more power corporations have over it."
QUESTION: 15

DIRECTIONS for the question: Read the passage and answer the question based on it.

Citizens of the United States are quite taken with the vocabulary of liberal democracy, with words such as ‘freedom’ and ‘democracy’, which conjure key democratic values and distance the nation from the Old World taint of oligarchy and aristocracy. It is much less clear, however, that Americans are guided by democratic ideals. Or that ideology and propaganda play a crucial role in concealing the large gap between rhetoric and reality.
In truth, the Old World systems have proved extremely difficult to shrug off. In their 2014 paper, Martin Gilens and Benjamin Page argue that, as in an oligarchy, ordinary US citizens have no ‘substantial power over policy decisions [and] little or no independent influence on policy at all’.
Moreover, the US regularly subscribes to a form of managerial aristocracy. In the current presidential race, Hillary Clinton advertises her managerial expertise via the language of policy, while Donald Trump parades his via the language of business. Neither language is democratic. Neither invites self-governance.
Why is there no outcry about these oligarchical and aristocratic methods? Is it because plutocrats have power over the mechanisms of representation and repression? Is it, in short, about power? In my view, power can’t explain why voters are so enthusiastically voting for the very people who promise the least democratic outcomes. Nor are Americans knowingly rejecting democratic ideals. Instead, I see an anti-democratic ideology at work, inverting the meaning of democratic vocabulary and transforming it into propaganda.
Consider the example of mass incarceration in the US. Black Americans make up around 13 per cent of the population, but around 40 per cent of country’s ballooning prison population. Even if we assume, falsely, that black American crime rates justify this disparity, why is the state so punitive? Shouldn’t citizens instead be motivated to address the underlying socio-economic conditions that lead to such dramatic differences in behaviour between equals?
In The New Jim Crow (2010), Michelle Alexander argues that a national rhetoric of law and order has long justified mass incarceration. President Richard Nixon used it to crack down on black Americans under the cover of an epidemic of heroin use; this continued in the 1980s, as a merciless ‘war on drugs’ whose victims were all too often black men. In the US, the ideology of anti-black racism takes the view that blacks are violent and lazy, thereby masking the misapplication of the ideals of law and order.
Compare the ‘war on drugs’ to the current heroin crisis among middle-class white Americans, which has led to a national discussion of the socio-economic distress facing this class. Law and order doesn’t come into it. ‘The new face of heroin’ is new because, unlike the old face, it calls out for an empathetic response, rather than a punitive one.
But what is the flawed ideology masking the misapplication of democratic ideals? Let’s bring it out by exploring the most cherished US democratic ideal, the ideal of freedom – popularly embodied in attacks on ‘big government’. Voters are repeatedly told that ‘big government’ is the primary source of coercion that limits freedom, which it certainly sometimes does, as the Patriot Act reminds us. But corporations also limit civic freedom in significant ways.
For example, corporations are leading direct attacks on the freedom to collectively bargain. Via outsourcing, free trade agreements allow corporations to move jobs to countries where labour is cheap; meanwhile, as a result of pressure from the conservative non-profit Citizens United, corporations can fund political candidates, thereby increasing corporate control of government. The weaker a government is, the more power corporations have over it.
Voters concerned about government – as opposed to corporate – constraints on freedom are under the grip of what I will call a free market ideology. According to that ideology, the world of capital is by its nature free. All other substantial freedoms, including political freedom and personal freedom, are made possible by the freedom of markets.
Why do citizens who cherish freedom as an ideal vote to constrain their own freedoms by increasing the power of corporations? It’s because free market ideology masks the ways in which corporations deploy undemocratic modes of coercion. When a corporation bans employees from expressing, outside of work, opinions it disapproves of, this is seen as a legitimate protection of its economic interests. If workers have to sign non-disclosure contracts that silence them after they are employed elsewhere, it’s accepted as the cost of doing business.
The contradictions here are telling. If our most basic freedoms are self-expression and choiceful action, then corporations frequently limit our most basic freedoms. In liberal democratic theory, it is government that is regarded as the protector of such rights. But it’s precisely because government is attacked in the name of freedom that corporations have vastly greater power to constrain and shape it.

Q. The words 'rhetoric' and 'punitive' mean (in the respective order given):​

Solution:

►In the given case, the options are synonymous with the given words but the issue is that you need to identify the meaning in the given context.

►Here, rhetoric refers to the language designed to have a persuasive or impressive effect, but which is often regarded as lacking in sincerity or meaningful content.
Punitive refers to unfair punishment.
Keeping these sentiments in mind, option B is the best answer in the given case.

►Penal in option B is better than burdensome in option A and crippling in option C is in context "Black Americans make up around 13 per cent of the population, but around 40 per cent of country’s ballooning prison population. Even if we assume, falsely, that black American crime rates justify this disparity, why is the state so punitive?"

QUESTION: 16

DIRECTIONS for the question: Read the passage and answer the question based on it.

Citizens of the United States are quite taken with the vocabulary of liberal democracy, with words such as ‘freedom’ and ‘democracy’, which conjure key democratic values and distance the nation from the Old World taint of oligarchy and aristocracy. It is much less clear, however, that Americans are guided by democratic ideals. Or that ideology and propaganda play a crucial role in concealing the large gap between rhetoric and reality.
In truth, the Old World systems have proved extremely difficult to shrug off. In their 2014 paper, Martin Gilens and Benjamin Page argue that, as in an oligarchy, ordinary US citizens have no ‘substantial power over policy decisions [and] little or no independent influence on policy at all’.
Moreover, the US regularly subscribes to a form of managerial aristocracy. In the current presidential race, Hillary Clinton advertises her managerial expertise via the language of policy, while Donald Trump parades his via the language of business. Neither language is democratic. Neither invites self-governance.
Why is there no outcry about these oligarchical and aristocratic methods? Is it because plutocrats have power over the mechanisms of representation and repression? Is it, in short, about power? In my view, power can’t explain why voters are so enthusiastically voting for the very people who promise the least democratic outcomes. Nor are Americans knowingly rejecting democratic ideals. Instead, I see an anti-democratic ideology at work, inverting the meaning of democratic vocabulary and transforming it into propaganda.
Consider the example of mass incarceration in the US. Black Americans make up around 13 per cent of the population, but around 40 per cent of country’s ballooning prison population. Even if we assume, falsely, that black American crime rates justify this disparity, why is the state so punitive? Shouldn’t citizens instead be motivated to address the underlying socio-economic conditions that lead to such dramatic differences in behaviour between equals?
In The New Jim Crow (2010), Michelle Alexander argues that a national rhetoric of law and order has long justified mass incarceration. President Richard Nixon used it to crack down on black Americans under the cover of an epidemic of heroin use; this continued in the 1980s, as a merciless ‘war on drugs’ whose victims were all too often black men. In the US, the ideology of anti-black racism takes the view that blacks are violent and lazy, thereby masking the misapplication of the ideals of law and order.
Compare the ‘war on drugs’ to the current heroin crisis among middle-class white Americans, which has led to a national discussion of the socio-economic distress facing this class. Law and order doesn’t come into it. ‘The new face of heroin’ is new because, unlike the old face, it calls out for an empathetic response, rather than a punitive one.
But what is the flawed ideology masking the misapplication of democratic ideals? Let’s bring it out by exploring the most cherished US democratic ideal, the ideal of freedom – popularly embodied in attacks on ‘big government’. Voters are repeatedly told that ‘big government’ is the primary source of coercion that limits freedom, which it certainly sometimes does, as the Patriot Act reminds us. But corporations also limit civic freedom in significant ways.
For example, corporations are leading direct attacks on the freedom to collectively bargain. Via outsourcing, free trade agreements allow corporations to move jobs to countries where labour is cheap; meanwhile, as a result of pressure from the conservative non-profit Citizens United, corporations can fund political candidates, thereby increasing corporate control of government. The weaker a government is, the more power corporations have over it.
Voters concerned about government – as opposed to corporate – constraints on freedom are under the grip of what I will call a free market ideology. According to that ideology, the world of capital is by its nature free. All other substantial freedoms, including political freedom and personal freedom, are made possible by the freedom of markets.
Why do citizens who cherish freedom as an ideal vote to constrain their own freedoms by increasing the power of corporations? It’s because free market ideology masks the ways in which corporations deploy undemocratic modes of coercion. When a corporation bans employees from expressing, outside of work, opinions it disapproves of, this is seen as a legitimate protection of its economic interests. If workers have to sign non-disclosure contracts that silence them after they are employed elsewhere, it’s accepted as the cost of doing business.
The contradictions here are telling. If our most basic freedoms are self-expression and choiceful action, then corporations frequently limit our most basic freedoms. In liberal democratic theory, it is government that is regarded as the protector of such rights. But it’s precisely because government is attacked in the name of freedom that corporations have vastly greater power to constrain and shape it.

Q. According to the author of the passage, the relationship between the strength of corporations and governments is:

Solution:

The answer can be derived from the lines: The weaker a government is, the more power corporations have over it.

QUESTION: 17

DIRECTIONS for the question: Read the passage and answer the question based on it.

Citizens of the United States are quite taken with the vocabulary of liberal democracy, with words such as ‘freedom’ and ‘democracy’, which conjure key democratic values and distance the nation from the Old World taint of oligarchy and aristocracy. It is much less clear, however, that Americans are guided by democratic ideals. Or that ideology and propaganda play a crucial role in concealing the large gap between rhetoric and reality.
In truth, the Old World systems have proved extremely difficult to shrug off. In their 2014 paper, Martin Gilens and Benjamin Page argue that, as in an oligarchy, ordinary US citizens have no ‘substantial power over policy decisions [and] little or no independent influence on policy at all’.
Moreover, the US regularly subscribes to a form of managerial aristocracy. In the current presidential race, Hillary Clinton advertises her managerial expertise via the language of policy, while Donald Trump parades his via the language of business. Neither language is democratic. Neither invites self-governance.
Why is there no outcry about these oligarchical and aristocratic methods? Is it because plutocrats have power over the mechanisms of representation and repression? Is it, in short, about power? In my view, power can’t explain why voters are so enthusiastically voting for the very people who promise the least democratic outcomes. Nor are Americans knowingly rejecting democratic ideals. Instead, I see an anti-democratic ideology at work, inverting the meaning of democratic vocabulary and transforming it into propaganda.
Consider the example of mass incarceration in the US. Black Americans make up around 13 per cent of the population, but around 40 per cent of country’s ballooning prison population. Even if we assume, falsely, that black American crime rates justify this disparity, why is the state so punitive? Shouldn’t citizens instead be motivated to address the underlying socio-economic conditions that lead to such dramatic differences in behaviour between equals?
In The New Jim Crow (2010), Michelle Alexander argues that a national rhetoric of law and order has long justified mass incarceration. President Richard Nixon used it to crack down on black Americans under the cover of an epidemic of heroin use; this continued in the 1980s, as a merciless ‘war on drugs’ whose victims were all too often black men. In the US, the ideology of anti-black racism takes the view that blacks are violent and lazy, thereby masking the misapplication of the ideals of law and order.
Compare the ‘war on drugs’ to the current heroin crisis among middle-class white Americans, which has led to a national discussion of the socio-economic distress facing this class. Law and order doesn’t come into it. ‘The new face of heroin’ is new because, unlike the old face, it calls out for an empathetic response, rather than a punitive one.
But what is the flawed ideology masking the misapplication of democratic ideals? Let’s bring it out by exploring the most cherished US democratic ideal, the ideal of freedom – popularly embodied in attacks on ‘big government’. Voters are repeatedly told that ‘big government’ is the primary source of coercion that limits freedom, which it certainly sometimes does, as the Patriot Act reminds us. But corporations also limit civic freedom in significant ways.
For example, corporations are leading direct attacks on the freedom to collectively bargain. Via outsourcing, free trade agreements allow corporations to move jobs to countries where labour is cheap; meanwhile, as a result of pressure from the conservative non-profit Citizens United, corporations can fund political candidates, thereby increasing corporate control of government. The weaker a government is, the more power corporations have over it.
Voters concerned about government – as opposed to corporate – constraints on freedom are under the grip of what I will call a free market ideology. According to that ideology, the world of capital is by its nature free. All other substantial freedoms, including political freedom and personal freedom, are made possible by the freedom of markets.
Why do citizens who cherish freedom as an ideal vote to constrain their own freedoms by increasing the power of corporations? It’s because free market ideology masks the ways in which corporations deploy undemocratic modes of coercion. When a corporation bans employees from expressing, outside of work, opinions it disapproves of, this is seen as a legitimate protection of its economic interests. If workers have to sign non-disclosure contracts that silence them after they are employed elsewhere, it’s accepted as the cost of doing business.
The contradictions here are telling. If our most basic freedoms are self-expression and choiceful action, then corporations frequently limit our most basic freedoms. In liberal democratic theory, it is government that is regarded as the protector of such rights. But it’s precisely because government is attacked in the name of freedom that corporations have vastly greater power to constrain and shape it.

Q. According to the author of the passage:

Solution:

In this case, you just need to understand the meanings of the given options.

Refer to the lines: Voters concerned about government – as opposed to corporate – constraints on freedom are under the grip of what I will call a free market ideology. According to that ideology, the world of capital is by its nature free. All other substantial freedoms, including political freedom and personal freedom, are made possible by the freedom of markets.

The author clearly points out how the free markets are actually impacting personal freedom.

This makes option 2 the correct answer in the given case.

QUESTION: 18

DIRECTIONS for the question: Read the passage and answer the question based on it.

Citizens of the United States are quite taken with the vocabulary of liberal democracy, with words such as ‘freedom’ and ‘democracy’, which conjure key democratic values and distance the nation from the Old World taint of oligarchy and aristocracy. It is much less clear, however, that Americans are guided by democratic ideals. Or that ideology and propaganda play a crucial role in concealing the large gap between rhetoric and reality.
In truth, the Old World systems have proved extremely difficult to shrug off. In their 2014 paper, Martin Gilens and Benjamin Page argue that, as in an oligarchy, ordinary US citizens have no ‘substantial power over policy decisions [and] little or no independent influence on policy at all’.
Moreover, the US regularly subscribes to a form of managerial aristocracy. In the current presidential race, Hillary Clinton advertises her managerial expertise via the language of policy, while Donald Trump parades his via the language of business. Neither language is democratic. Neither invites self-governance.
Why is there no outcry about these oligarchical and aristocratic methods? Is it because plutocrats have power over the mechanisms of representation and repression? Is it, in short, about power? In my view, power can’t explain why voters are so enthusiastically voting for the very people who promise the least democratic outcomes. Nor are Americans knowingly rejecting democratic ideals. Instead, I see an anti-democratic ideology at work, inverting the meaning of democratic vocabulary and transforming it into propaganda.
Consider the example of mass incarceration in the US. Black Americans make up around 13 per cent of the population, but around 40 per cent of country’s ballooning prison population. Even if we assume, falsely, that black American crime rates justify this disparity, why is the state so punitive? Shouldn’t citizens instead be motivated to address the underlying socio-economic conditions that lead to such dramatic differences in behaviour between equals?
In The New Jim Crow (2010), Michelle Alexander argues that a national rhetoric of law and order has long justified mass incarceration. President Richard Nixon used it to crack down on black Americans under the cover of an epidemic of heroin use; this continued in the 1980s, as a merciless ‘war on drugs’ whose victims were all too often black men. In the US, the ideology of anti-black racism takes the view that blacks are violent and lazy, thereby masking the misapplication of the ideals of law and order.
Compare the ‘war on drugs’ to the current heroin crisis among middle-class white Americans, which has led to a national discussion of the socio-economic distress facing this class. Law and order doesn’t come into it. ‘The new face of heroin’ is new because, unlike the old face, it calls out for an empathetic response, rather than a punitive one.
But what is the flawed ideology masking the misapplication of democratic ideals? Let’s bring it out by exploring the most cherished US democratic ideal, the ideal of freedom – popularly embodied in attacks on ‘big government’. Voters are repeatedly told that ‘big government’ is the primary source of coercion that limits freedom, which it certainly sometimes does, as the Patriot Act reminds us. But corporations also limit civic freedom in significant ways.
For example, corporations are leading direct attacks on the freedom to collectively bargain. Via outsourcing, free trade agreements allow corporations to move jobs to countries where labour is cheap; meanwhile, as a result of pressure from the conservative non-profit Citizens United, corporations can fund political candidates, thereby increasing corporate control of government. The weaker a government is, the more power corporations have over it.
Voters concerned about government – as opposed to corporate – constraints on freedom are under the grip of what I will call a free market ideology. According to that ideology, the world of capital is by its nature free. All other substantial freedoms, including political freedom and personal freedom, are made possible by the freedom of markets.
Why do citizens who cherish freedom as an ideal vote to constrain their own freedoms by increasing the power of corporations? It’s because free market ideology masks the ways in which corporations deploy undemocratic modes of coercion. When a corporation bans employees from expressing, outside of work, opinions it disapproves of, this is seen as a legitimate protection of its economic interests. If workers have to sign non-disclosure contracts that silence them after they are employed elsewhere, it’s accepted as the cost of doing business.
The contradictions here are telling. If our most basic freedoms are self-expression and choiceful action, then corporations frequently limit our most basic freedoms. In liberal democratic theory, it is government that is regarded as the protector of such rights. But it’s precisely because government is attacked in the name of freedom that corporations have vastly greater power to constrain and shape it.

Q. According to the author of the passage:
I. Americans are knowingly shunning democratic ideals to gain control over other races.
II. Americans do not understand the true meaning of democracy.
III. There is subtle manipulation by corporations which hands them significant control over the government.​

Solution:

Statement I can be rejected from the lines from para 4: "Nor are Americans knowingly rejecting democratic ideals. Instead, I see an anti-democratic ideology at work, inverting the meaning of democratic vocabulary and transforming it into propaganda. 
Consider the example of mass incarceration in the US...."

Statement II does not find a mention in the passage.

Statement III can be derived from the last four paragraphs of the passage.

*Answer can only contain numeric values
QUESTION: 19

DIRECTIONS for the question: The five sentences (labelled 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5) given in this question, when properly sequenced, form a coherent paragraph. Decide on the proper order for the sentence and write this sequence of five numbers as your answer.

1. There is no right answer

2. In the creative world, there can't be a 'right' answer, because that implies that the answer is correct and exclusive.

3. But there are plenty of wrong ones.

4. In arithmetic, there's a right answer. And everything else is wrong.

5. But in the work we do, there are, in fact, plenty of creative, useful, generous answers, answers good enough to embrace and celebrate.


Solution:

If you read the statements 1 & 3 and 2, 5, & 4 (not necessarily in that order), you’ll realise that the 1 &3 are general statements and statements 2, 4, & 5 are referenced to some particular field. So obviously the concept flows from General to Specific. The sequence must begin with 1 followed by 3. 

Also the word ''but'' in sentence 3 gives contradiction to what is said in 1. After statement 3, 4 follows as it suggests the binary functionality of right and wrong in arithmetic.

And then the concept moves to creative world where objective categorization of right and wrong is not possible. 

*Answer can only contain numeric values
QUESTION: 20

DIRECTIONS for the question: The five sentences (labelled 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5) given in this question, when properly sequenced, form a coherent paragraph. Decide on the proper order for the sentence and key in this sequence of five numbers as your answer.

1. The accepted wisdom is that we shouldn’t worry our little heads about that, because the incentives are there for business to build new production and refining capacity, which will effortlessly bring demand and supply back into balance and bring crude prices back to $25 a barrel.

2. Spare a moment to take stock of what’s been happening in the past few months.

3. Let’s start with the oil price, which has rocketed to more than $65 a barrel, more than double its level 18 months ago.

4. Then there is the result of the French referendum on the European Constitution

5. As Tommy Copper used to say, ‘just like that’


Solution:

Statement 2 sets the chronological tone to the passage. Also its is an introductory statement as it is initiating the topic. Which is followed by statement 3, which is a flash back of the condition that was 18 months ago of the barrel price hitting $65.

Statement 1 brings out the humorous irony that the ‘the crude prices will drop back to $25. Which resonates in statement 5.

Statement 4 starts with “then” which hints at taking the concept to the another example.

*Answer can only contain numeric values
QUESTION: 21

DIRECTIONS for the question: The five sentences (labelled 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5) given in this question, when properly sequenced, form a coherent paragraph. Decide on the proper order for the sentence and write this sequence of five numbers as your answer.

1. To cope with its chronic water shortages, India employs electric groundwater pumps, diesel-powered water tankers and coal-fed power plants. If the country increasingly relies on these energy-intensive short-term fixes, the whole planet's climate will bear the consequences.

2. What India does with its water will be a test of whether that combination is possible.

3. If a country fails to keep up with the water needs of its growing cities, those cities will be unable to sustain the robust economic growth that has become a magnet for global investment.

4. Without sensible water policies, political agitation — like the recent controversies over Coca-Cola's use of groundwater in rural communities in southern and western India — will become more frequent and river-sharing negotiations with India's neighbors Pakistan and Bangladesh more tense.

5. India is under enormous pressure to develop its economic potential while also protecting its environment — something few, if any, countries have accomplished.


Solution:

Two sentences can mark the opening of the paragraph. Sentence 3 and sentence 5. Now, the best way to handle this question is to make pairs and then arrange them together. 

Look at the key words in sentence 3 ‘economic growth + magnet + global investment’ and ‘sensible+ policies+ Coca- Cola’ in sentence 4. Since these two sentences are sharing the same line of thoughts, 34 becomes a pair.

Sentence 1 talks about, ''what we are trying to overcome water shortage i.e. ‘planet’s climate+ consequences’ and this will put huge pressure on the evironment.Sentence 5 talks about ‘while+ protecting environment’ i.e. the effect of cause shown in sentence 1.‘That combination’ in 2 is used for the task of developing economic potential and protecting environment.

Thus 152 is a trio. Well this makes the task easy as 5 can’t mark the opening of the paragraph ,therefore 3 will begin the paragraph . And the answer will be 34152.

QUESTION: 22

DIRECTIONS for the question: Identify the most appropriate summary for the paragraph.

Acknowledging that the Ganges is polluted means believing that it can be polluted, an idea many devout Hindus once refused to accept. Now people strictly observe the rule against bathing with soap in the river, and there are no longer plastic bags full of marigold offerings floating on its surface. And all along the river, there is a new mantra, "minimum dry-weather flow," as engineers and policymakers have begun to realize that quantity is as important as quality to the river's health. Not even the devout deny the plight of the Ganges now. Water may be a renewable resource, but it is not boundless. As rivers and springs are depleted, Indians increasingly rely on groundwater for their household needs; it is already the largest user of groundwater in the world, consuming more than 25% of the global total.

Solution:

Option 1 is out of scope as corruption was nowhere mentioned.

Option 2 is also ruled out as water table is a new concept and not stated anywhere in the paragraph.

Now, we have two options 3 and 4 and both look correct. Read the second line of option 4, the use of “world’s most polluted” makes this option incorrect. Best answer, that captures the essence of the paragraph is option 3.

*Answer can only contain numeric values
QUESTION: 23

DIRECTIONS for question: Four sentences related to a topic are given below. Three of them can be put together  to form a meaningful and coherent short paragraph. Identify the odd one out. Write its number as your answer.

1. The United Kingdom is often vociferous in its criticism of the court’s decisions; the Economist magazine once noted that British critics of the European court regard it as “an unguarded back door through which national sovereignty was being carted away.”

2. In reality, however, the UK’s record of compliance with court rulings on treaty obligations over the past five years is better than that of many other nations.

3. It’s hardly surprising that the growing supremacy of EU law gets grudging acceptance at best from the government of many member states, who do not always eagerly embrace the court’s rulings.

4. A way of determining how well EU rules are implemented by a member state is to see how many times infringement proceedings are slapped on that country by the European Court of Justice.


Solution:

Statement 3 brings to the fore the concept of EU law and how the member countries have misgivings about the court’s rulings. An example in the of UK’s criticism follows 3.

Statement 2 talks about the contradiction between how UK acts in accordance with the Court’s ruling and how UK reacts to it.

Statement 4, is a generic statement about gauging which member countries toe in line with EU law vis-a-vis infringement proceedings slapped on them.

*Answer can only contain numeric values
QUESTION: 24

DIRECTIONS for question: Four sentences related to a topic are given below. Three of them can be put together  to form a meaningful and coherent short paragraph. Identify the odd one out. Choose its number as your answer and key it in.

1. Benedict was the quintessential insider, a long-time senior Curia prelate, a brilliant theologian, less so as an administrator, and Eurocentric in outlook.

2. The disconcerting resignation of Pope Benedict XVI, almost without precedent in church history, confused and upset many Catholics.

3. The German-born pope had left mountains of unfinished business ranging from the pedophile priest scandals to corruption in the Vatican bank, and a general feeling of malaise throughout the administration of the church.

4. To clean up the mess, the cardinals elected Francis, a total outsider with no Curia experience and coming from what many Vatican clerics would regard as the boondocks.


Solution:

►The passage centres around Pope Benedict and how he functioned and 1, 2 and 3 relate to Pope Benedict. Quite obviously, the discussion would begin with Statement 2 as it introduces Pope Benedict XVI.

►Followed by statement 3; Statement 2 talks about the resignation of Pope Benedict, which gets clarified in 3, where we get to know that he was ineffective or showed lack of initiative in tackling the issues.

►Followed by 1 (subtle hint follows in 1 about Benedict being has had the experience of working in-sync with Vatican system) 1 curia is an official body that governs a particular Church in Roman Catholicism. Link between 1 and 3 is Curia.

Though, Statement 4 relates with the passage, but in the given scheme of things, it would be an odd one out

QUESTION: 25

DIRECTIONS for the question: Identify the most appropriate summary for the paragraph.

It is to the social factors that we must chiefly attribute the periodic variations of criminality. For even the variations which can be detected in certain anthropological factors, like the influences of age and sex upon crime, and the more or less marked outbreak of anti-social and pathological tendencies, depend in their turn upon social factors, such as the protection accorded to abandoned infants, the participation of women in non-domestic, commercial and industrial life, preventive and repressive measures, and the like. And again, since the social factors have special import in occasional crime, and crime by acquired habit, and since these are the most numerous sections of crime as a whole, it is clear that the periodic movement of crime must be attributed in the main to the social factors.

Solution:

In the given context, we can clearly see that the author attributes the periodic movement of crime mainly to social factors.

Refer to the last line: And again, since the social factors have special import in occasional crime, and crime by acquired habit, and since these are the most numerous sections of crime as a whole, it is clear that the periodic movement of crime must be attributed in the main to the social factors.

This clearly means that option 4 is the correct answer here.

QUESTION: 26

DIRECTIONS for the question: Analyse the graph/s given below and answer the question that follows.

Ten students of a Khalsa college either liked (LIK) or did not like (DNL) a movie each one of them Watched in December 2011. The movies watched by these ten students in December 2011 are P, Q, R, S, T, U, V and W. 
The given table provides details about the number of movies not liked by each of these ten students. The following bar chart provides details about the number of students (out of the 10 given students) who liked the movies P, Q, R, S, T, U and V.


 

Q. What is the total number of students who did not like the movie W?

Solution:


Aggregate number of students who liked the movies P, Q, R, S, T, U and V is 10 + 9 + 1 + 4 + 6 + 3 + 8 = 41

So, the number of students who liked the movie W = 43 – 41 = 2.

Therefore, the number of students who did not like the movie W = 10 – 2 = 8.

QUESTION: 27

DIRECTIONS for the question: Analyse the graph/s given below and answer the question that follows.

Ten students of a Khalsa college either liked (LIK) or did not like (DNL) a movie each one of them Watched in December 2011. The movies watched by these ten students in December 2011 are P, Q, R, S, T, U, V and W. 
The given table provides details about the number of movies not liked by each of these ten students. The following bar chart provides details about the number of students (out of the 10 given students) who liked the movies P, Q, R, S, T, U and V.

Q. Which of the following movies is not liked by Sunita?

Solution:

  • Since, every student liked the movie P and Dharendra liked only one movie, therefore Dharendra definitely liked P.
  • Nine students liked the movie Q and hence everyone except Dharendra liked the movie Q.
  • Sheela liked only 2 movies and they have to be P and Q.
  • Hence, every student except both Dharendra and Sheela liked the movie V.
  • It is also known that R is liked by only one student. So, it has to be Pappu as he likes all the movies.
  • Hence, Ashu likes all the movies except R.
  • Following the similar logic, we can get the list of the students who did not like each of the given eight movies.

The following is the list of all the students who did not like each of the given eight movies

Sunita did not like R

QUESTION: 28

DIRECTIONS for the question: Analyse the graph/s given below and answer the question that follows.

Ten students of a Khalsa college either liked (LIK) or did not like (DNL) a movie each one of them Watched in December 2011. The movies watched by these ten students in December 2011 are P, Q, R, S, T, U, V and W. 
The given table provides details about the number of movies not liked by each of these ten students. The following bar chart provides details about the number of students (out of the 10 given students) who liked the movies P, Q, R, S, T, U and V.

Q. Which of the following movies is liked by Appu?

Solution:

  • Since, every student liked the movie P and Dharendra liked only one movie, therefore Dharendra definitely liked P.
  • Nine students liked the movie Q and hence everyone except Dharendra liked the movie Q.
  • Sheela liked only 2 movies and they have to be P and Q.
  • Hence, every student except both Dharendra and Sheela liked the movie V.
  • It is also known that R is liked by only one student. So, it has to be Pappu as he likes all the movies.
  • Hence, Ashu likes all the movies except R.
  • Following the similar logic, we can get the list of the students who did not like each of the given eight movies.

The following is the list of all the students who did not like each of the given eight movies

Appu dislikes R, but likes U.

QUESTION: 29

DIRECTIONS for the question: Analyse the graph/s given below and answer the question that follows.

Ten students of a Khalsa college either liked (LIK) or did not like (DNL) a movie each one of them Watched in December 2011. The movies watched by these ten students in December 2011 are P. Q. R. S. T. U. V and W. 
The given table provides details about the number of movies not liked by each of these ten students. The following bar chart provides details about the number of students (out of the 10 given students) who liked the movies P. Q. R. S. T. U and V.

Q. Out of the given eight movies, how many movies are not liked by Ria but are liked by Nitu?

Solution:

  • Since, every student liked the movie P and Dharendra liked only one movie, therefore Dharendra definitely liked P.
  • Nine students liked the movie Q and hence everyone except Dharendra liked the movie Q.
  • Sheela liked only 2 movies and they have to be P and Q.
  • Hence, every student except both Dharendra and Sheela liked the movie V.
  • It is also known that R is liked by only one student. So, it has to be Pappu as he likes all the movies.
  • Hence, Ashu likes all the movies except R.
  • Following the similar logic, we can get the list of the students who did not like each of the given eight movies.

The following is the list of all the students who did not like each of the given eight movies

Out of the given eight movies, there is only one movie, i.e. T, which is not liked by Ria but is liked by Nitu.

QUESTION: 30

DIRECTIONS for the question: Read the information given below and answer the question that follows.

P, Q, R, S, T, W and Z are seven students studying in three different institutes A, B and C. There are three girls students among the seven students. The three girls students are in three different institutes. Two of the seven students study BCA, two study medicine and one each studies Aviation Technology, Journalism and MBA. R studies in the same college as P who studies MBA in college B. No girl studies journalism or MBA. T studies BCA in college A and his brother W studies Aviation Technology in college C. S studies journalism in the same college as Q. Neither R nor Z study BCA. The girl who studies BCA does not study in college C.

Q. Which of the following pairs of students study medicine?

Solution:

From the given information, we can make the following table regarding the seven students P, Q, R, S, T, W and Z :

Therefore, we find that R & Z study medicine.
So, correct answer is option D.

QUESTION: 31

DIRECTIONS for the question: Read the information given below and answer the question that follows.

P, Q, R, S, T, W and Z are seven students studying in three different institutes – A, B and C. There are three girls students among the seven students. The three girls students are in three different institutes. Two of the seven students study BCA, two study medicine and one each studies Aviation Technology, Journalism and MBA. R studies in the same college as P who studies MBA in college B. No girl studies journalism or MBA. T studies BCA in college A and his brother W studies Aviation Technology in college C. S studies journalism in the same college as Q. Neither R nor Z study BCA. The girl who studies BCA does not study in college C.

Q. In which college does Q study?

Solution:

From the given information, we can make the following table regarding the seven students P, Q, R, S, T, W and Z :

From the table above, we see that Q studies in college A.

QUESTION: 32

DIRECTIONS for the question: Read the information given below and answer the question that follows.

P, Q, R, S, T, W and Z are seven students studying in three different institutes " A, B and C. There are three girls students among the seven students. The three girls students are in three different institutes. Two of the seven students study BCA, two study medicine and one each studies Aviation Technology, Journalism and MBA. R studies in the same college as P who studies MBA in college B. No girl studies journalism or MBA. T studies BCA in college A and his brother W studies Aviation Technology in college C. S studies journalism in the same college as Q. Neither R nor Z study BCA. The girl who studies BCA does not study in college C.

Q. In which of the colleges do three of the students study?

Solution:

From the given information, we can make the following table regarding the seven students P, Q, R, S, T, W and Z:

Three students study in college A.

QUESTION: 33

DIRECTIONS for the question: Read the information given below and answer the question that follows.

Last month, five friends – two men named Anton and Dean, and three women named Bess, Erika and Laurel – vacationed together at a mountain resort named Shiver Me Timbers. Although they had been planning this getaway for months, things got off to a rocky start when each realised that he or she had forgotten to bring a crucial item of winter wear! Luckily, the lodge saved the day by supplying these items, leaving the friends free to enjoy the many hibernal activities offered. Each friend took part in three of the five activities – cross-country skiing, downhill skiing, ice-skating, snowboarding and snowshoeing – available at the lodge.

1. Anton isn’t the one who forgot to bring earmuffs, who isn’t surnamed Nguyen.
2. Erika and the one named Pearce both went downhill skiing, but that was the only activity they did together.
3. Bess, Laurel, and the one who forgot to bring mittens were the only three to take part in one of the activities.
4. Dean and the ones who forgot to bring earmuffs and a scarf were the only three who went ice-skating.
5. The only two who didn’t go cross-country skiing are Ms. Nguyen and the one named Richter.
6. The five friends are Laurel, the one named Olivera, the ones who forgot to bring the balaclava and the scarf, and the one who went ice-skating, snowboarding, and snowshoeing.
7. The one who forgot to bring earmuffs isn't named Mishler or Pearce.
8. Bess didn’t go snowboarding.
9. The one who forgot to bring boots isn’t the one named Mishler.

Q. Who participated in cross-country skiing, downhill skiing and snowshoeing?

Solution:

From clues 1 to 9, we know the following:

1. The one who forgot the earmuffs is neither Anton nor Nguyen.

2. Erika is not Pearce and the only activity that they have in common is downhill skiing. This means that if one of them has participated in a particular activity, the other one would not have participated in the same activity.

3. Neither Bess not Laurel are the ones who have forgotten the mittens and they share 1 common activity.

4. Dean is not the one who has forgotten either the earmuffs or the scarf and he shares iceskating with the ones who have forgotten the earmuffs and the scarf.

5. Nguyen and Richter are the only ones who do not go crosscountry skiing. This meant that the ones who went crosscountry skiing are Olivera, Mishler and Pearce. Also, Ms. Nguyen could only be Bess, Erika or Laurel (females).

6. Laurel is not Olivera, nor is she the one who forgot the balaclava mask or the scarf and she is not the one who went ice skating, snowboarding and snowshoeing. Also, Olivera is neither the one who forgot the balaclava mask or the scarf nor is she the one who went ice skating, snowboarding and snowshoeing.

7. Neither Mishler nor Pearce are the ones who forgot the earmuffs.

8. Bess did not go snowboarding.

9. Mishler is not the one who forgot the boots.

►Combining 2 and 5, since Erika and Pearce have only downhill skiing in common and Pearce went crosscountry skiing, we know that Erika did not go crosscountry skiing.

►Combining 1 and 7, we can conclude that the one who forgot the earmuffs could be either Olivera or Richter.

►Combining 7 and 9, we can conclude that Mishler forgot the balaclava mask, the scarf or the mittens.

►Consider the person who went ice skating, snowboarding as well as snowshoeing. We know that this cannot be Laurel or Olivera. We know that each person participates in 3 activities. So, this person cannot be Erika or Pearce or Mishler (as they already have one activity, downhill skiing, downhill skiing and crosscountry skiing respectively). This person cannot be Bess as we know that she did not participate in snowboarding. From this, we can infer that the person who went ice skating, snowboarding as well as snowshoeing is either Anton or Dean and has last name Nguyen or Richter. Since we know that Nguyen is a girl, we can conclude that the person who went ice skating, snowboarding and snowshoeing is either Anton Richter or Dean Richter. We know that this person is not the one who forgot the balaclava mask or the scarf. So, this person could have forgotten the mittens, the boots or the earmuffs. Since neither Anton nor Dean forgot the earmuffs, we can conclude that Olivera forgot the earmuffs.

►So, the 3 persons who went ice skating are Dean, the person who forgot the scarf and Olivera. We can therefore conclude that the person who went ice skating, snowboarding and snowshoeing must be Dean Richter.

►We know that Erika did not go crosscountry skiing. So, the 3 activities that she participated in could be downhill skiing, ice skating and snowboarding or downhill skiing, ice skating and snowshoeing or downhill skiing, snowboarding and snowshoeing. Corresponding to these, the 3 activities that Pearce participated in could be downhill skiing, crosscountry skiing and snowshoeing or downhill skiing, crosscountry skiing and snowboarding or downhill skiing, crosscountry skiing and ice skating.

►Since Laurel is not the one who forgot the balaclava mask, the scarf or the mittens, we know that she forgot either the earmuffs or the boots. If Laurel forgot the earmuffs, then she must be Olivera. However, clue 6 states that Laurel is not Olivera. So, Laurel must be the one who forgot the boots. Also, since we know that Richter is the one who forgot either the boots or the mittens, we can now conclude that Dean Richter forgot the mittens.

►Bess, Laurel and Dean have only 1 activity in common. If this activity is ice skating, then we have a contradiction as clue 4 states that the ones who went ice skating are Dean and the ones who forgot the scarf and the earmuffs. So, the common activity must be either snowboarding or snowshoeing. Since Bess did not go snowboarding, we can conclude that Bess, Laurel and Dean went snowshoeing.

►From this, we know that Erika did not go snowshoeing and must have participated in downhill skiing, ice skating and snowboarding and therefore, Pearce must have participated in downhill skiing, crosscountry skiing and snowshoeing. Also, since Erika went ice skating, she must be the one who forgot the scarf or she must be Olivera.

►We kow that Pearce participated in crosscountry skiing, downhill skiing and showshoeing, Olivera participated in crosscountry skiing and ice skating and Mishler participated in crosscountry skiing. Since Erika and Pearce share only downhill skiing as a common activity, we can infer that Nguyen is the one who participated in downhill skiing. We now know that Erika is Nguyen and she participated in downhill skiing, ice skating and snowboarding. Since Erika is not Olivera, we can conclude that Erika forgot the scarf and therefore Pearce forgot the boots and Mishler forgot the balaclava mask. Since Laurel forgot the boots, we know that Laurel is Pearce.

►Since Olivera forgot the earmuffs and Anton is not the one who forgot the earmuffs, we can conclude that Bess is Olivera nad Anton is Mishler.

We have now matched the information as follows:

  • Anton Mishler forgot the balaclava mask and participated in crosscountry skiing, downhill skiing and snowboarding.
  • Bess Olivera forgot the earmuffs and participated in crosscountry skiing, ice skating and snowshoeing.
  • Dean Richter forgot the mittens and participated in ice skating, snowboarding and snowshoeing.
  • Erika Nguyen forgot the scarf and participated in downhill skiing, ice skating and snowboarding.
  • Laurel Pearce forgot the boots and participated in crosscountry skiing, downhill skiing and snowshoeing.

Thus, the person who participated in cross-country skiing, downhill skiing and snowshoeing is Laurel Pearce.

QUESTION: 34

DIRECTIONS for the question: Read the information given below and answer the question that follows.

Last month, five friends – two men named Anton and Dean, and three women named Bess, Erika and Laurel – vacationed together at a mountain resort named Shiver Me Timbers. Although they had been planning this getaway for months, things got off to a rocky start when each realised that he or she had forgotten to bring a crucial item of winter wear! Luckily, the lodge saved the day by supplying these items, leaving the friends free to enjoy the many hibernal activities offered. Each friend took part in three of the five activities – cross-country skiing, downhill skiing, ice-skating, snowboarding and snowshoeing – available at the lodge.

1. Anton isn’t the one who forgot to bring earmuffs, who isn’t surnamed Nguyen.
2. Erika and the one named Pearce both went downhill skiing, but that was the only activity they did together.
3. Bess, Laurael and the one who forgot to bring mittens were the only three to take part in one of the activities.
4. Dean and the ones who forgot to bring earmuffs and a scarf were the only three who went ice-skating.
5. The only two who didn’t go cross-country skiing are Ms. Nguyen and the one named Richter.
6. The five friends are Laurel, the one named Olivera, the ones who forgot to bring the balaclava and the scarf, and the one who went ice-skating, snowboarding, and snowshoeing.
7. The one who forgot to bring earmuffs isn't named Mishler or Pearce.
8. Bess didn’t go snowboarding.
9. The one who forgot to bring boots isn’t the one named Mishler.

Q. Who are the two friends who did not participate in ice-skating?

Solution:

From clues 1 to 9, we know the following:
1. The one who forgot the earmuffs is neither Anton nor Nguyen.
2. Erika is not Pearce and the only activity that they have in common is downhill skiing. This means that if one of them has participated in a particular activity, the other one would not have participated in the same activity.
3. Neither Bess not Laurel are the ones who have forgotten the mittens and they share 1 common activity.
4. Dean is not the one who has forgotten either the earmuffs or the scarf and he shares iceskating with the ones who have forgotten the earmuffs and the scarf.
5. Nguyen and Richter are the only ones who do not go crosscountry skiing. This meant that the ones who went crosscountry skiing are Olivera, Mishler and Pearce. Also, Ms. Nguyen could only be Bess, Erika or Laurel (females).
6. Laurel is not Olivera, nor is she the one who forgot the balaclava mask or the scarf and she is not the one who went ice skating, snowboarding and snowshoeing. Also, Olivera is neither the one who forgot the balaclava mask or the scarf nor is she the one who went ice skating, snowboarding and snowshoeing.
7. Neither Mishler not Pearce are the ones who forgot the earmuffs.
8. Bess did not go snowboarding.
9. Mishler is not the one who forgot the boots.

►Combining 2 and 5, since Erika and Pearce have only downhill skiing in common and Pearce went crosscountry skiing, we know that Erika did not go crosscountry skiing.

►Combining 1 and 7, we can conclude that the one who forgot the earmuffs could be either Olivera or Richter.

►Combining 7 and 9, we can conclude that Mishler forgot the balaclava mask, the scarf or the mittens.

►Consider the person who went ice skating, snowboarding as well as snowshoeing. We know that this cannot be Laurel or Olivera. We know that each person participates in 3 activities. So, this person cannot be Erika or Pearce or Mishler (as they already have one activity, downhill skiing, downhill skiing and crosscountry skiing respectively). This person cannot be Bess as we know that she did not participate in snowboarding. From this, we can infer that the person who went ice skating, snowboarding as well as snowshoeing is either Anton or Dean and has last name Nguyen or Richter. Since we know that Nguyen is a girl, we can conclude that the person who went ice skating, snowboarding and snowshoeing is either Anton Richter or Dean Richter. We know that this person is not the one who forgot the balaclava mask or the scarf. So, this person could have forgotten the mittens, the boots or the earmuffs. Since neither Anton nor Dean forgot the earmuffs, we can conclude that Olivera forgot the earmuffs.

►So, the 3 persons who went ice skating are Dean, the person who forgot the scarf and Olivera. We can therefore conclude that the person who went ice skating, snowboarding and snowshoeing must be Dean Richter.

►We know that Erika did not go crosscountry skiing. So, the 3 activities that she participated in could be downhill skiing, ice skating and snowboarding or downhill skiing, ice skating and snowshoeing or downhill skiing, snowboarding and snowshoeing. Corresponding to these, the 3 activities that Pearce participated in could be downhill skiing, crosscountry skiing and snowshoeing or downhill skiing, crosscountry skiing and snowboarding or downhill skiing, crosscountry skiing and ice skating.

►Since Laurel is not the one who forgot the balaclava mask, the scarf or the mittens, we know that she forgot either the earmuffs or the boots. If Laurel forgot the earmuffs, then she must be Olivera. However, clue 6 states that Laurel is not Olivera. So, Laurel must be the one who forgot the boots. Also, since we know that Richter is the one who forgot either the boots or the mittens, we can now conclude that Dean Richter forgot the mittens.

►Bess, Laurel and Dean have only 1 activity in common. If this activity is ice skating, then we have a contradiction as clue 4 states that the ones who went ice skating are Dean and the ones who forgot the scarf and the earmuffs. So, the common activity must be either snowboarding or snowshoeing. Since Bess did not go snowboarding, we can conclude that Bess, Laurel and Dean went snowshoeing.

►From this, we know that Erika did not go snowshoeing and must have participated in downhill skiing, ice skating and snowboarding and therefore, Pearce must have participated in downhill skiing, crosscountry skiing and snowshoeing. Also, since Erika went ice skating, she must be the one who forgot the scarf or she must be Olivera.

►We kow that Pearce participated in crosscountry skiing, downhill skiing and showshoeing, Olivera participated in crosscountry skiing and ice skating and Mishler participated in crosscountry skiing. Since Erika and Pearce share only downhill skiing as a common activity, we can infer that Nguyen is the one who participated in downhill skiing. We now know that Erika is Nguyen and she participated in downhill skiing, ice skating and snowboarding. Since Erika is not Olivera, we can conclude that Erika forgot the scarf and therefore Pearce forgot the boots and Mishler forgot the balaclava mask. Since Laurel forgot the boots, we know that Laurel is Pearce.

►Since Olivera forgot the earmuffs and Anton is not the one who forgot the earmuffs, we can conclude that Bess is Olivera nad Anton is Mishler.

We have now matched the information as follows:

  • Anton Mishler forgot the balaclava mask and participated in crosscountry skiing, downhill skiing and snowboarding.
  • Bess Olivera forgot the earmuffs and participated in crosscountry skiing, ice skating and snowshoeing.
  • Dean Richter forgot the mittens and participated in ice skating, snowboarding and snowshoeing.
  • Erika Nguyen forgot the scarf and participated in downhill skiing, ice skating and snowboarding.
  • Laurel Pearce forgot the boots and participated in crosscountry skiing, downhill skiing and snowshoeing.

Thus, the two friends who did not participate in ice-skating are Anton and Pearce.

QUESTION: 35

DIRECTIONS for the question: Read the information given below and answer the question that follows.

Last month, five friends – two men named Anton and Dean, and three women named Bess, Erika and Laurel – vacationed together at a mountain resort named Shiver Me Timbers. Although they had been planning this getaway for months, things got off to a rocky start when each realised that he or she had forgotten to bring a crucial item of winter wear! Luckily, the lodge saved the day by supplying these items, leaving the friends free to enjoy the many hibernal activities offered. Each friend took part in three of the five activities – cross-country skiing, downhill skiing, ice-skating, snowboarding and snowshoeing – available at the lodge.

1. Anton isn’t the one who forgot to bring earmuffs, who isn’t surnamed Nguyen.
2. Erika and the one named Pearce both went downhill skiing, but that was the only activity they did together.
3. Bess, Laurel, and the one who forgot to bring mittens were the only three to take part in one of the activities.
4. Dean and the ones who forgot to bring earmuffs and a scarf were the only three who went ice-skating.
5. The only two who didn’t go cross-country skiing are Ms. Nguyen and the one named Richter.
6. The five friends are Laurel, the one named Olivera, the ones who forgot to bring the balaclava and the scarf, and the one who went ice-skating, snowboarding, and snowshoeing.
7. The one who forgot to bring earmuffs isn't named Mishler or Pearce.
8. Bess didn’t go snowboarding.
9. The one who forgot to bring boots isn’t the one named Mishler.

Q. Who of the following participated in both snowboarding and snowshoeing?

Solution:

From clues 1 to 9, we know the following:
1. The one who forgot the earmuffs is neither Anton nor Nguyen.
2. Erika is not Pearce and the only activity that they have in common is downhill skiing. This means that if one of them has participated in a particular activity, the other one would not have participated in the same activity.
3. Neither Bess not Laurel are the ones who have forgotten the mittens and they share 1 common activity.
4. Dean is not the one who has forgotten either the earmuffs or the scarf and he shares iceskating with the ones who have forgotten the earmuffs and the scarf.
5. Nguyen and Richter are the only ones who do not go crosscountry skiing. This meant that the ones who went crosscountry skiing are Olivera, Mishler and Pearce. Also, Ms. Nguyen could only be Bess, Erika or Laurel (females).
6. Laurel is not Olivera, nor is she the one who forgot the balaclava mask or the scarf and she is not the one who went ice skating, snowboarding and snowshoeing. Also, Olivera is neither the one who forgot the balaclava mask or the scarf nor is she the one who went ice skating, snowboarding and snowshoeing.
7. Neither Mishler not Pearce are the ones who forgot the earmuffs.
8. Bess did not go snowboarding.
9. Mishler is not the one who forgot the boots.

►Combining 2 and 5, since Erika and Pearce have only downhill skiing in common and Pearce went crosscountry skiing, we know that Erika did not go crosscountry skiing.
Combining 1 and 7, we can conclude that the one who forgot the earmuffs could be either Olivera or Richter.

►Combining 7 and 9, we can conclude that Mishler forgot the balaclava mask, the scarf or the mittens.

►Consider the person who went ice skating, snowboarding as well as snowshoeing. We know that this cannot be Laurel or Olivera. We know that each person participates in 3 activities. So, this person cannot be Erika or Pearce or Mishler (as they already have one activity, downhill skiing, downhill skiing and crosscountry skiing respectively). This person cannot be Bess as we know that she did not participate in snowboarding. From this, we can infer that the person who went ice skating, snowboarding as well as snowshoeing is either Anton or Dean and has last name Nguyen or Richter. Since we know that Nguyen is a girl, we can conclude that the person who went ice skating, snowboarding and snowshoeing is either Anton Richter or Dean Richter. We know that this person is not the one who forgot the balaclava mask or the scarf. So, this person could have forgotten the mittens, the boots or the earmuffs. Since neither Anton nor Dean forgot the earmuffs, we can conclude that Olivera forgot the earmuffs.

►So, the 3 persons who went ice skating are Dean, the person who forgot the scarf and Olivera. We can therefore conclude that the person who went ice skating, snowboarding and snowshoeing must be Dean Richter.

►We know that Erika did not go crosscountry skiing. So, the 3 activities that she participated in could be downhill skiing, ice skating and snowboarding or downhill skiing, ice skating and snowshoeing or downhill skiing, snowboarding and snowshoeing. Corresponding to these, the 3 activities that Pearce participated in could be downhill skiing, crosscountry skiing and snowshoeing or downhill skiing, crosscountry skiing and snowboarding or downhill skiing, crosscountry skiing and ice skating.

►Since Laurel is not the one who forgot the balaclava mask, the scarf or the mittens, we know that she forgot either the earmuffs or the boots. If Laurel forgot the earmuffs, then she must be Olivera. However, clue 6 states that Laurel is not Olivera. So, Laurel must be the one who forgot the boots. Also, since we know that Richter is the one who forgot either the boots or the mittens, we can now conclude that Dean Richter forgot the mittens.

►Bess, Laurel and Dean have only 1 activity in common. If this activity is ice skating, then we have a contradiction as clue 4 states that the ones who went ice skating are Dean and the ones who forgot the scarf and the earmuffs. So, the common activity must be either snowboarding or snowshoeing. Since Bess did not go snowboarding, we can conclude that Bess, Laurel and Dean went snowshoeing.

►From this, we know that Erika did not go snowshoeing and must have participated in downhill skiing, ice skating and snowboarding and therefore, Pearce must have participated in downhill skiing, crosscountry skiing and snowshoeing. Also, since Erika went ice skating, she must be the one who forgot the scarf or she must be Olivera.

►We kow that Pearce participated in crosscountry skiing, downhill skiing and showshoeing, Olivera participated in crosscountry skiing and ice skating and Mishler participated in crosscountry skiing. Since Erika and Pearce share only downhill skiing as a common activity, we can infer that Nguyen is the one who participated in downhill skiing. We now know that Erika is Nguyen and she participated in downhill skiing, ice skating and snowboarding. Since Erika is not Olivera, we can conclude that Erika forgot the scarf and therefore Pearce forgot the boots and Mishler forgot the balaclava mask. Since Laurel forgot the boots, we know that Laurel is Pearce.

►Since Olivera forgot the earmuffs and Anton is not the one who forgot the earmuffs, we can conclude that Bess is Olivera nad Anton is Mishler.

We have now matched the information as follows:

  • Anton Mishler forgot the balaclava mask and participated in crosscountry skiing, downhill skiing and snowboarding.
  • Bess Olivera forgot the earmuffs and participated in crosscountry skiing, ice skating and snowshoeing.
  • Dean Richter forgot the mittens and participated in ice skating, snowboarding and snowshoeing.
  • Erika Nguyen forgot the scarf and participated in downhill skiing, ice skating and snowboarding.
  • Laurel Pearce forgot the boots and participated in crosscountry skiing, downhill skiing and snowshoeing.

Thus, out of the given options, Dean Richter participated in both snowboarding and snowshoeing.

QUESTION: 36

DIRECTIONS for the question: Read the information given below and answer the question that follows.

Last month, five friends – two men named Anton and Dean, and three women named Bess, Erika and Laurel – vacationed together at a mountain resort named Shiver Me Timbers. Although they had been planning this getaway for months, things got off to a rocky start when each realised that he or she had forgotten to bring a crucial item of winter wear! Luckily, the lodge saved the day by supplying these items, leaving the friends free to enjoy the many hibernal activities offered. Each friend took part in three of the five activities – cross-country skiing, downhill skiing, ice-skating, snowboarding and snowshoeing – available at the lodge.

1. Anton isn’t the one who forgot to bring earmuffs, who isn’t surnamed Nguyen.
2. Erika and the one named Pearce both went downhill skiing, but that was the only activity they did together.
3. Bess, Laurel, and the one who forgot to bring mittens were the only three to take part in one of the activities.
4. Dean and the ones who forgot to bring earmuffs and a scarf were the only three who went ice-skating.
5. The only two who didn’t go cross-country skiing are Ms. Nguyen and the one named Richter.
6. The five friends are Laurel, the one named Olivera, the ones who forgot to bring the balaclava and the scarf, and the one who went ice-skating, snowboarding, and snowshoeing.
7. The one who forgot to bring earmuffs isn't named Mishler or Pearce.
8. Bess didn’t go snowboarding.
9. The one who forgot to bring boots isn’t the one named Mishler.

Q. Who of the following participated in neither cross-country skiing nor downhill skiing?

Solution:

From clues 1 to 9, we know the following:
1. The one who forgot the earmuffs is neither Anton nor Nguyen.
2. Erika is not Pearce and the only activity that they have in common is downhill skiing. This means that if one of them has participated in a particular activity, the other one would not have participated in the same activity.
3. Neither Bess not Laurel are the ones who have forgotten the mittens and they share 1 common activity.
4. Dean is not the one who has forgotten either the earmuffs or the scarf and he shares iceskating with the ones who have forgotten the earmuffs and the scarf.
5. Nguyen and Richter are the only ones who do not go crosscountry skiing. This meant that the ones who went crosscountry skiing are Olivera, Mishler and Pearce. Also, Ms. Nguyen could only be Bess, Erika or Laurel (females).
6. Laurel is not Olivera, nor is she the one who forgot the balaclava mask or the scarf and she is not the one who went ice skating, snowboarding and snowshoeing. Also, Olivera is neither the one who forgot the balaclava mask or the scarf nor is she the one who went ice skating, snowboarding and snowshoeing.
7. Neither Mishler not Pearce are the ones who forgot the earmuffs.
8. Bess did not go snowboarding.
9. Mishler is not the one who forgot the boots.

►Combining 2 and 5, since Erika and Pearce have only downhill skiing in common and Pearce went crosscountry skiing, we know that Erika did not go crosscountry skiing.
Combining 1 and 7, we can conclude that the one who forgot the earmuffs could be either Olivera or Richter.

►Combining 7 and 9, we can conclude that Mishler forgot the balaclava mask, the scarf or the mittens.

►Consider the person who went ice skating, snowboarding as well as snowshoeing. We know that this cannot be Laurel or Olivera. We know that each person participates in 3 activities. So, this person cannot be Erika or Pearce or Mishler (as they already have one activity, downhill skiing, downhill skiing and crosscountry skiing respectively). This person cannot be Bess as we know that she did not participate in snowboarding. From this, we can infer that the person who went ice skating, snowboarding as well as snowshoeing is either Anton or Dean and has last name Nguyen or Richter. Since we know that Nguyen is a girl, we can conclude that the person who went ice skating, snowboarding and snowshoeing is either Anton Richter or Dean Richter. We know that this person is not the one who forgot the balaclava mask or the scarf. So, this person could have forgotten the mittens, the boots or the earmuffs. Since neither Anton nor Dean forgot the earmuffs, we can conclude that Olivera forgot the earmuffs.

►So, the 3 persons who went ice skating are Dean, the person who forgot the scarf and Olivera. We can therefore conclude that the person who went ice skating, snowboarding and snowshoeing must be Dean Richter.

►We know that Erika did not go crosscountry skiing. So, the 3 activities that she participated in could be downhill skiing, ice skating and snowboarding or downhill skiing, ice skating and snowshoeing or downhill skiing, snowboarding and snowshoeing. Corresponding to these, the 3 activities that Pearce participated in could be downhill skiing, crosscountry skiing and snowshoeing or downhill skiing, crosscountry skiing and snowboarding or downhill skiing, crosscountry skiing and ice skating.

►Since Laurel is not the one who forgot the balaclava mask, the scarf or the mittens, we know that she forgot either the earmuffs or the boots. If Laurel forgot the earmuffs, then she must be Olivera. However, clue 6 states that Laurel is not Olivera. So, Laurel must be the one who forgot the boots. Also, since we know that Richter is the one who forgot either the boots or the mittens, we can now conclude that Dean Richter forgot the mittens.

►Bess, Laurel and Dean have only 1 activity in common. If this activity is ice skating, then we have a contradiction as clue 4 states that the ones who went ice skating are Dean and the ones who forgot the scarf and the earmuffs. So, the common activity must be either snowboarding or snowshoeing. Since Bess did not go snowboarding, we can conclude that Bess, Laurel and Dean went snowshoeing.

►From this, we know that Erika did not go snowshoeing and must have participated in downhill skiing, ice skating and snowboarding and therefore, Pearce must have participated in downhill skiing, crosscountry skiing and snowshoeing. Also, since Erika went ice skating, she must be the one who forgot the scarf or she must be Olivera.

►We kow that Pearce participated in crosscountry skiing, downhill skiing and showshoeing, Olivera participated in crosscountry skiing and ice skating and Mishler participated in crosscountry skiing. Since Erika and Pearce share only downhill skiing as a common activity, we can infer that Nguyen is the one who participated in downhill skiing. We now know that Erika is Nguyen and she participated in downhill skiing, ice skating and snowboarding. Since Erika is not Olivera, we can conclude that Erika forgot the scarf and therefore Pearce forgot the boots and Mishler forgot the balaclava mask. Since Laurel forgot the boots, we know that Laurel is Pearce.

►Since Olivera forgot the earmuffs and Anton is not the one who forgot the earmuffs, we can conclude that Bess is Olivera nad Anton is Mishler.

We have now matched the information as follows:

  • Anton Mishler forgot the balaclava mask and participated in crosscountry skiing, downhill skiing and snowboarding.
  • Bess Olivera forgot the earmuffs and participated in crosscountry skiing, ice skating and snowshoeing.
  • Dean Richter forgot the mittens and participated in ice skating, snowboarding and snowshoeing.
  • Erika Nguyen forgot the scarf and participated in downhill skiing, ice skating and snowboarding.
  • Laurel Pearce forgot the boots and participated in crosscountry skiing, downhill skiing and snowshoeing.

Thus, the person who participated in neither cross-country skiing nor downhill skiing is the one who forgot the mittens.

QUESTION: 37

DIRECTIONS for the question: Study the following Graph & table given below and answer the question that follows.

The following table provides financial details of 4 companies, A, B, C and D from the same industry. Profitability is defined as profit expressed as a percentage of sales.

Q. If profitability is calculated on the basis of estimated values, which company has the highest profitability?

Solution:

QUESTION: 38

DIRECTIONS for the question: Study the following Graph & table given below and answer the question that follows.

The following table provides financial details of 4 companies, A, B, C and D from the same industry. Profitability is defined as profit expressed as a percentage of sales.

Q. The actual sales of company A were 10% higher than reported while the actual profits of company C were 10% higher than reported. If profitability is calculated on the basis of actual values, what is the approximate difference between the profitability for companies A and C?

Solution:

Hence, the correct answer is option C.

QUESTION: 39

DIRECTIONS for the question: Study the following Graph & table given below and answer the question that follows.

The following table provides financial details of 4 companies, A, B, C and D from the same industry. Profitability is defined as profit expressed as a percentage of sales.

Q. Which company has the highest absolute difference between the profitability calculated on the basis of estimated as well as actual values?

Solution:

Based on estimated values, 
Profitability of A is 
Profitability of B is 
Profitability of C is 
Profitability of D is 
Based on actual values,
Profitability of A is 
Profitability of B is 
Profitability of C is 
Profitability of D is 
Absolute difference between the estimated and actual profitability for company A is 38.75 – 29.87 = 8.88%;
Absolute difference between the estimated and actual profitability for company B is 31.22 – 26.76 = 4.46%;
Absolute difference between the estimated and actual profitability for company C is 14.74 – 13.18 = 1.63%;
Absolute difference between the estimated and actual profitability for company D is 36.50 – 31.01 = 5.49%.
Thus the absolute difference between the estimated and actual profitability is maximum for company A. 

QUESTION: 40

DIRECTIONS for the question: Study the following Graph & table given below and answer the question that follows.

From colleges X, Y and Z, 1800, 1700 and 1500 students respectively took exams in Maths and Physics. The table below shows how many of the number of students who took the exam passed in it. For example, the table shows that of the 900 boys who took the Maths test from College Y, 500 passed in the test.

Q. a and b are the proportions of the number of boys passing in Maths and the number of boys passing in Physics respectively and x and y are the proportions of the number of girls passing in Maths and the number of girls passing in Physics respectively. Which of the following is true?

Solution:

►The total number of boys is 1000 + 900 + 900 = 2800 and the total number of girls is 800 + 800 + 600 = 2200.
►The number of boys passing in Maths is 600 + 500 + 600 = 1700 and the number of boys passing in Physics is 400 + 500 + 400 = 1300. So, a = 17/28 and b = 13/28.
►The number of girls passing in Maths is 500 + 300 + 400 = 1200 and the number of girls passing in Physics is 400 + 500 + 400 = 1300. So, x = 12/22 and y = 13/22.
►In comparing a and x, we have to compare 17/28 with 12/22. Since 17 × 22 = 374 > 12 × 28 = 336, we know that a > x.
►In comparing b and y, we have to compare 13/28 with 13/22. Since the numerators are equal and the lower denominator will give a higher value, we know that b < y.
Hence option 3.

QUESTION: 41

DIRECTIONS for the question: Study the following Graph & table given below and answer the question that follows.

From colleges X, Y and Z, 1800, 1700 and 1500 students respectively took exams in Maths and Physics. The table below shows how many of the number of students who took the exam passed in it. For example, the table shows that of the 900 boys who took the Maths test from College Y, 500 passed in the test.

Q. x is the proportion of the number of boys and girls passing in both Maths and Physics in College X, y is the proportion of the number of boys and girls passing in both Maths and Physics in College Y and z is the proportion of the number of boys and girls passing in Maths and Physics in College Z. Then,

Solution:

►The number of boys and girls passing in both Maths and Physics from College X is 150 + 200 = 350; so, x = 350/1800 = 3.5/18.
►The number of boys and girls passing in both Maths and Physics from College Y is 200 + 100 = 300; so, y = 300/1700 = 3/17.
►The number of boys and girls passing in both Maths and Physics from College Z is 300 + 250 = 550; so, z = 550/1500 = 5.5/15.
►Comparing these fractions, we get 5.5/15 > 3.5/18 > 3/17.
Thus, z > x > y.

QUESTION: 42

DIRECTIONS for the question: Study the following Graph & table given below and answer the question that follows.

From colleges X, Y and Z, 1800, 1700 and 1500 students respectively took exams in Maths and Physics. The table below shows how many of the number of students who took the exam passed in it. For example, the table shows that of the 900 boys who took the Maths test from College Y, 500 passed in the test.

Q. a is the proportion of the number of boys and girls failing in both Maths and Physics in College X, b is the proportion of the number of boys and girls failing in both Maths and Physics in College Y and c is the proportion of the number of boys and girls failing in both Maths and Physics in College Z. Then,

Solution:

►From College X, the number of boys passing in either Maths or Physics or both is 1000 – (600 + 400 – 150) = 150 and the number of girls passing in either Maths or Physics or both is 800 – (500 + 400 – 200) = 100.
►So, a total of 150 + 100 = 250 of the 1800 students in College X have failed in both Maths and Physics and a = 250/1800 = 2.5/18.
►From College Y, the number of boys passing in either Maths or Physics or both is 900 – (500 + 500 – 200) = 100 and the number of girls passing in either Maths or Physics or both is 800 – (300 + 500 – 100) = 100.
►So, a total of 100 + 100 = 200 of the 1700 students in College Y have failed in both Maths and Physics and b = 200/1700 = 2/17.
►From College Z, the number of boys passing in either Maths or Physics or both is 900 – (600 + 400 – 300) = 200 and the number of girls passing in either Maths or Physics or both is 600 – (400 + 400 – 250) = 50.
►So, a total of 200 + 50 = 250 of the 1500 students in College Z have failed in both Maths and Physics and c = 250/1500 = 2.5/15.
►Comparing these fractions we get 2.5/15 > 2.5/18 > 2/17.
Thus c > a > b.

QUESTION: 43

DIRECTIONS for the question: Study the following Graph & table given below and answer the question that follows.

From colleges X, Y and Z, 1800, 1700 and 1500 students respectively took exams in Maths and Physics. The table below shows how many of the number of students who took the exam passed in it. For example, the table shows that of the 900 boys who took the Maths test from College Y, 500 passed in the test.

Q. a is the proportion of boys from College X failing in Maths only and Physics only, b is the proportion of boys from College Y failing in Maths only and Physics only and c is the proportion of boys from College Z failing in Maths only and Physics only. x is the proportion of girls from College X failing in Maths only and Physics only, y is the proportion of girls from College Y failing in Maths only and Physics only and z is the proportion of girls from College Z failing in Maths only and Physics only. Then,

Solution:

►The number of boys passing Math only is the same as the number of boys failing in Physics only and the number of boys passing Physics only is the same as the number of boys failing Math only. So, the number of boys failing in Math only and Physics only is the same as the number of boys passing in Math only and Physics only. The same logic will apply to the girls failing in Math only and Physics only.
►The number of boys from College X passing in Maths only and Physics only is 600 – 150 + 400 – 150 = 700. So, a = 700/1000 = 7/10.
►The number of boys from College Y passing in Maths only and Physics only is 500 – 200 + 500 – 200 = 600. So, b = 600/900 = 6/9.
►The number of boys from College Z passing in Maths only and Physics only is 600 – 300 + 400 – 300 = 400. So, c = 400/900 = 4/9.
►The number of girls from College X passing in Maths only and Physics only is 500 – 200 + 400 – 200 = 500. So, x = 500/800 = 5/8.
►The number of girls from College Y passing in Maths only and Physics only is 300 – 100 + 500 – 100 = 600. So, y = 600/800 = 6/8.
►The number of girls from College Z passing in Maths only and Physics only is 400 – 250 + 400 – 250 = 300. So, z = 300/600 = 3/6.
►In comparing a and x, we have to compare 7/10 and 5/8. Since 7/10 > 5/8, we have a > x.
►In comparing b and y, we have to compare 6/9 and 6/8. Since 6/9 < 6/8, we have b < y.
►In comparing c and z, we have to compare 4/9 and 3/6. Since 4/9 < 3/6, we have c < z.
► Thus, a > x, b < y, c < z and the best answer is option 4.

*Answer can only contain numeric values
QUESTION: 44

DIRECTIONS for the question: Read the information given below and answer the question that follows.

A mobile software has been developed which consists of four switches, each of these switches can be in either the ON or the OFF positions. A switch when pressed will toggle its position i.e. if an ON switch is pressed it will become OFF and vice-versa.

The initial position of the four switches is ON OFF ON OFF. A software glitch allows you to press any two adjacent switches at a time.

Q. How many different configurations can you get by repeated pressing of any two adjacent switches?(numerical value)


Solution:

►Since each of the switches can have two different positions, ON or OFF, the total number of configurations will be 24 = 16. Now, it is easy to check that 8 of these configurations will each be made up of an even number of ON and an even number of OFF positions in some order. The remaining 8 configurations will be made up of an odd number of ON and an odd number of OFF positions in some order.

►Since we can only press any two adjacent switches, if the starting positions of the switches are made up of an even number of ONs and OFFs each, all resulting configurations will also be made up of an even number of ONs and OFFs each. Similarly, if the starting positions of the switches are made up of an odd number of ONs and an odd number of OFFs, all resulting configurations will also be made up of an odd number of ONs and an odd number of OFFs.

Thus, if we start with ON OFF ON OFF, we can have 8 different configurations.

QUESTION: 45

DIRECTIONS for the question: Read the information given below and answer the question that follows.

A mobile software has been developed which consists of four switches, each of these switches can be in either the ON or the OFF positions. A switch when pressed will toggle its position i.e. if an ON switch is pressed it will become OFF and vice-versa.

The initial position of the four switches is ON OFF ON OFF. A software glitch allows you to press any two adjacent switches at a time.

Q. Which of the following configurations can you not get by repeated pressing of any two adjacent switches?

Solution:

►Since each of the switches can have two different positions, ON or OFF, the total number of configurations will be 24 = 16. Now, it is easy to check that 8 of these configurations will each be made up of and even number of ON and an even number of OFF positions in some order. The remaining 8 configurations will be made up of an odd number of ON and an odd number of OFF positions in some order.
►Since we can only press any two adjacent switches, if the starting positions of the switches are made up of an even number of ONs and OFFs each, all resulting configurations will also be made up of an even number of ONs and OFFs each. Similarly, if the starting positions of the switches are made up of an odd number of ONs and an odd number of OFFs, all resulting configurations will also be made up of an odd number of ONs and an odd number of OFFs.

Thus, if we start with ON OFF ON OFF, we cannot get ON OFF OFF OFF.

*Answer can only contain numeric values
QUESTION: 46

DIRECTIONS for the question: Read the information given below and answer the question that follows.

A mobile software has been developed which consists of four switches, each of these switches can be in either the ON or the OFF positions. A switch when pressed will toggle its position i.e. if an ON switch is pressed it will become OFF and vice-versa.

Q. If the software glitch which allowed only adjacent switches to be pressed is not removed, and you start with ON OFF OFF OFF,  by repeated pressing of two switches. how many different configurations can you get?(numerical value)


Solution:

►Since each of the switches can have two different positions, ON or OFF, the total number of configurations will be 24 = 16. Now, it is easy to check that 8 of these configurations will each be made up of an even number of ON and an even number of OFF positions in some order. The remaining 8 configurations will be made up of an odd number of ON and an odd number of OFF positions in some order.
►Since we can only press any two adjacent switches, if the starting positions of the switches are made up of an even number of ONs and OFFs each, all resulting configurations will also be made up of an even number of ONs and OFFs each. Similarly, if the starting positions of the switches are made up of an odd number of ONs and an odd number of OFFs, all resulting configurations will also be made up of an odd number of ONs and an odd number of OFFs.

Thus, if we start with ON OFF OFF OFF, we can have 8 different configurations.

*Answer can only contain numeric values
QUESTION: 47

DIRECTIONS for the question: Read the information given below and answer the question that follows.

A mobile software has been developed which consists of four switches, each of these switches can be in either the ON or the OFF positions. A switch when pressed will toggle its position i.e. if an ON switch is pressed it will become OFF and vice-versa.

Q. If you can press any two switches, not necessarily adjacent, how many configurations are possible?(numerical value)


Solution:

►Since each of the switches can have two different positions, ON or OFF, the total number of configurations will be 24 = 16.

QUESTION: 48

DIRECTIONS for the question: Read the information given below and answer the question that follows.

Every day of the week, Charu has to conduct four sessions in her English class – Sentence Completion, Reading Comprehension, Sentence Correction and Critical Reasoning. She does not conduct these sessions in the same order every day. However, she always conducts Sentence Completion before Reading Comprehension and Sentence Correction before Critical Reasoning.

Q. One day, in addition to the four sessions, Charu had to conduct a session on Essay Writing. If she conducted the Essay Writing session immediately after the Sentence Completion session and immediately before the Critical Reasoning session, which of the following cannot be true?

Solution:

►Charu conducts Sentence Completion immediately followed by Essay Writing immediately followed by Critical Reasoning.

►Since Sentence Correction is conducted before Critical Reading and Reading Comprehension is conducted after Sentence Completion, the correct order of the sessions will be Sentence

►Correction, Sentence Completion, Essay Writing, Critical Reasoning and Reading Comprehension. Comparing this order of sessions with the options, Critical Reasoning cannot be the last session. Hence option 4.

QUESTION: 49

DIRECTIONS for the question: Read the information given below and answer the question that follows.
In the AGM (Annual General Meeting), of XYZ Pvt. Ltd, the GMs of various functions were to present their plan of action for the next year. The MD was the first to present the strategic plan along with the inaugral speech. GM - Marketing presented after GM-Sales but before GM-Systems. GM-Finance presented before GM-Administrations.

Q. Who presented second if GM-Operations presented immediately after GM-Sales and he was the fourth to present?

Solution:

We get the diagram as follows:
MD     GM Sales    GM Op.
1     2     3                   4            5    6     7
GM Marketing and GM systems will occupy two positions from 5, 6 and 7. Also, since G.M finance has to present before GM-Administration, GM-Administration will present at any of the three positions. Thus, GM-finance will present second.

QUESTION: 50

DIRECTIONS for the question: Read the information given below and answer the question that follows.

In the AGM (Annual General Meeting), of XYZ Pvt. Ltd, the GMs of various functions were to present their plan of action for the next year. The MD was the first to present the strategic plan along with the inaugral speech. GM - Marketing presented after GM-Sales but before GM-Systems. GM-Finance presented before GM-Administrations.

Q. If the MD, GM - Sales and GM - Administration presented in alternate successions, then who cannot present at the sixth position?

Solution:

Since GM-Finance has to present before GM-Administration, he cannot be present at the sixth position. Hence third option is the answer.

QUESTION: 51

DIRECTIONS for the question: Solve the following question and mark the best possible option.

The value of 1/6 + 1/12 + 1/20 + . . . . . . . . . .. + 1/90 is equal to:

Solution:

Consider 1/6 + 1/12 + 1/20 +….. 1/90

= 1/ (2 × 3) + 1/ (3 × 4) + 1/ (4 × 5) +…….. + 1/ (9 × 10)
= 1/2 – 1/3 + 1/3 – 1/4 + 1/4 – 1/5 + ……+ 1/9 –1/10
= 1/2 – 1/10 = 2/5

*Answer can only contain numeric values
QUESTION: 52

DIRECTIONS for the question: Solve the following question and write the answer (in numerical value).

A person gives 40% discount and still makes a profit of 20%. If he gives a discount of 25% only, what is his profit percentage?


Solution:

►Suppose MP = 100. Then SP = 60 and he makes a profit of 20%. So, CP = 50..
►After giving a discount of 25%, SP = 75.
►So the profit earned will be 75 – 50 = 25, which is 50% of CP.

Alternate solution: Suppose CP = 100 so that SP = 120.
This SP is 60% of the marked price.
This means MP = 200. If he gives a discount of 25%, then SP = 150, which leads to a 50% profit on the CP of 100.

QUESTION: 53

DIRECTIONS for the question: Solve the following question and mark the best possible option.

Three utensils contain equal mixtures of the milk and water in the ratio 6 : 1, 5 : 2, and 3 : 1 respectively. If all the solutions are mixed together, find the ratio of milk and water in the final mixture.

Solution:

Given that all utensils contain equal amount of mixture say 1 litre each.

►So in the first vessel -water : milk =1/7 : 6/7
►In the second bottle - 2/7 : 5/7
►In the third bottle - 1/4 : 3/4.
►Hence, the final ratio is=((6/7) + (5/7) + (3/4)) / ((1/7) + (2/7) + (1/4)) = 65/19

QUESTION: 54

DIRECTIONS for the question: Solve the following question and mark the best possible option.

P and Q run a race between points A and B 10 km apart. P starts at 8:00 am from A at a speed of 10 km/hr, reaches B and returns to A at the same speed. Q starts at 8:30 am from A at a speed of 14 km/ hr reaches B and comes back to A with the same speed. At what time will Q overtake P?

Solution:

Correct Answer :- b

Explanation : P starts from A at 8:00 am and Q starts at 8:30 am.

So in half hour P will cover 5 km.

This is the relative distance which Q will cover in order to overtake P and he will cover this distance in 5 / 4 = 1.25 hours i.e. 1 hour and 15 minutes.

So Q will overtake P at 9:45 am.

*Answer can only contain numeric values
QUESTION: 55

DIRECTIONS for the question: Solve the following question and write the answer (in numerical value).

Twelve men are employed to complete a job in 30 days. After 12 days 6 men leave. How many more days over and above the schedule will be required to complete the job if the remaining men increase their working rate by 50%? (in days)


Solution:

►Total work = 30 * 12 = 360 men days. Work done by 12 men in 12 days = 144 mandays.

►Work left = 360 - 144 = 216 mandays. Now as they have increased their efficiency by 50 % so now they will be doing the work of 9 men.

►Assuming that they will complete the work in X days.

►Then X * 9 = 216 mandays. X = 24 days.
Hence 6 more days will be taken.

QUESTION: 56

DIRECTIONS for the question: Solve the following question and mark the best possible option.

For how many different values of n will n2 + 31 be a perfect square (given 'n' is an integer)?

Solution:

►Suppose n2 + 31 = x2.

►Then, x2 – n2 = (x + n)(x – n) = 31.

►Obviously x and n are integers. Since 31 = 1 × 31, we know that (x + n) = 31 and (x – n) = 1.

►Solving these equations yield x = 16 and n = 15.

►Also, 31 = –1 × –31, which would yield x = –16 and n = –15.
Thus, there are 2 values of n for which n2 + 31 is a perfect square.

QUESTION: 57

DIRECTIONS for the question: Solve the following question and mark the best possible option.

If (3p + 6q + r + 2s) (6p + 3q – 2r – s) = (3p + 6q – r – 2s) (6p + 3q + 2r + s), which of the following is true?

Solution:

►On multiplying the expressions on the LHS, we get 18p2 + 18q2 – 2r2 – 2s2 + 45 pq + 9 ps – 9qr – 5rs.

►On multiplying the expressions on the RHS, we get 18p2 + 18q2 – 2r2 – 2s2 + 45 pq – 9 ps + 9qr – 5rs.

►The two expressions can be equated and simplified to 9ps – 9qr = 9qr – 9ps, which yields ps = qr.
This is the same as p : q :: r : s.

QUESTION: 58

DIRECTIONS for the question : Solve the following question and mark the best possible option.

If a3x – 2b3x = ax + 3b5x, what is the value of x log10 a/b?

Solution:

The given expression can be rewritten as a(3x – 2) – (x + 3) = b(5x – 3x) ⇒ a2x – 5 = b2x.

Taking log on both sides, we get log10 (a2x – 5) = log10 (b2x)
⇒ (2x – 5) log10 a = 2x log10 b
⇒ 2x log10 a – 5 log10 a = 2x log10 b
⇒ 2x log10 a – 2x log10 b = 5 log10 a

QUESTION: 59

DIRECTIONS for the question: Solve the following question and mark the best possible option.

The sum of the first n terms in arithmetic progression is n(n + 8) for all n > 1. What is the common difference?

Solution:

S2 = 2 × 10 = 20, S3 = 3 × 11 = 33, S4 = 4 × 12 = 48, S5 = 5 × 13 = 65.

►Now, S3 – S2 = T3 = 33 – 20 = 13, S4 –S3 = T4 = 48 – 33 = 15 and S5 – S4 = T4 = 65 – 48 = 17.

►Comparing terms, it is easy to see that the common difference is 2.
Hence option 3.

QUESTION: 60

DIRECTIONS for the question: Solve the following question and mark the best possible option.

The ratio of the ages of three brothers is 4 : 5 : 8. Two years later, the eldest brother will be nine times as old as the difference between the ages of the younger brothers. What is the sum of the ages of the three brothers?

Solution:

►Suppose the ages of the brothers are 4x, 5x and 8x.

►Two years later, their ages will be (4x + 2), (5x + 2) and (8x + 2) respectively.

►So, (8x + 2) = 9 * x, which on solving yields x = 2.
Thus the sum of the ages of the three brothers is 17x = 34.

QUESTION: 61

DIRECTIONS for the question: Solve the following question and mark the best possible option.

A foreman hired 1000 men to complete a certain job in a certain number of days. The first fourth of the job went as per schedule, after which, 100 men left. After 3/4th of the job had been completed, the foreman realised that another 100 men had left after 1/2 the job had been completed. How many more men should the foreman hire so that the job is completed on time?

Solution:

►Suppose the 1000 men were to complete the job in 4 days.

►In other words, the total work is 4000 units.

►The first 1000 units are completed in 1 day by the 1000 men.

►The second 1000 units are completed by 900 men in 1000/900 = 10/9 days and the third 1000 units are completed by 800 men in 1000/800 = 5/4 days.

►So, 3000 units of work are completed in 1 + 10/9 + 5/4 = 121/36 days.

►The remaining 1000 units should now be completed in 4 – 121/36 = 23/36 days.

►So, the number of men required to finish this work on time will be 1000 × (36/23) = 1565.2 ≈ 1566.

►Thus the foreman should hire 1566 – 800 = 766 more men.

QUESTION: 62

DIRECTIONS for the question: Solve the following question and mark the best possible option.

2 kids, John and Jim, are running on an escalator (a moving stairway). John is running three times as fast as Jim, and by the time they are off the escalator, John has stepped on 150 stairs while Jim has stepped on 100 stairs. What is the ratio of the elevator’s speed to Jim’s speed?

Solution:

Correct Answer :- a

Explanation : Assume A takes 1 step per unit time. Then B will take 3 steps per same unit time. Also, assume the the escalator is moving at E steps per unit time.

Let T be the total number of steps.

Let ta be time taken by A on the escalator, tb = time taken by B on the escalator.

Since A takes 50 steps - therefore we have:

50 = T/(1+E) units of time.

similarly,

75 /3= T/(3+E) units of time.

Solving for T, E we get E = 1 step per unit time; T = 100 steps

Jim has stepped on 100 stairs.

Elevator Speed : Jim

100 : 100

1 : 1

QUESTION: 63

DIRECTIONS for the question: Solve the following question and mark the best possible option.

A car travelled from city X to city Y in 1 hour while another car which started at the same time travelled from city Y to city X in 84 minutes. After how many minutes did the two cars meet?

Solution:

►The ratio of times taken by the two cars to complete their respective journeys is 60 : 84 = 5 : 7.

►So, the ratio of their speeds will be 7 : 5.

►Suppose the speeds of the cars are 70 kmph and 50 kmph respectively and the distance between cities X and Y is 70 km.

►The two cars would meet after 70/(70 + 50) = 7/12 hours = 35 minutes.

QUESTION: 64

DIRECTIONS for the question: Solve the following question and mark the best possible option.

The measure of the largest angle in a triangle is twice the sum of the measures of the other two angles. What is the largest value of the smallest angle of the triangle?

Solution:

►If the sum of the two smaller angles is x, then the largest angle will be 2x.

►Since the sum of all angles is 180°, we get x = 60°.

►The largest value of the smallest angle will make it equal to the other angle.
Thus the largest value of the smallest angle in the triangle will be 30° = π/6°.

QUESTION: 65

DIRECTIONS for the question: Answer the following question as per the best of your ability.

Task called ‘HELL IN WELL’ was going on in roadies. Rannvijay had to come out of well. Each time he tries to climb, he covers half the distance left and half a metre. If he comes out after 4 such climbings, the depth of well is

Solution:

►Stating from last we get, Distance remaining before 4th climbing = (0 + 1/2) × 2 = 1

►Before 3rd climbing = (1 + 1/2) × 2 = 3. 

►Before 2nd climbing = (3 + 1/2) × 2 = 7. 
►Before 1st climbing = (7 + 1/2) × 2 = 15

QUESTION: 66

DIRECTION for the question: Solve the following question and mark the best possible option.

If numerator of fraction is increased by 400% and the denominator is increased by 500% the resultant fraction is 15/22. What is fraction?

Solution:

►Let the original fraction be x/y.

►So as per the given condition,

►(x + 400%x)/(y + 500%y) = 15/22
►500%x / 600%y = 15 / 22
►∴ x / y = 9 / 11

QUESTION: 67

DIRECTIONS for the question: Solve the following question and mark the best possible option.

Two vessels have equal volumes of pure alcohol and Pepsi. A bartender is mixing the drinks. He takes half the volume of the first vessel containing alcohol and transfers it to the second vessel containing Pepsi. He now transfers ½ of the resultant solution from the second vessel to the first. He repeats the entire process once more transferring always ½ of the resultant solution to the other vessel.

Q. Find the fractional volume of alcohol in the first container?

Solution:

►Assume the volume in each container as 16 lts

►Amount of alcohol at the end of first process = 12 lt.

►Amount of alcohol at the end of second process = 11 lt.

►Volume of the 1st vessel at end of process 1 = 20 lt.

►Volume at the end of process 2 = 21 lt.
►The first container is 11/21 alcohol.

Hence the answer is option C.

QUESTION: 68

DIRECTIONS for the question: Solve the following question and mark the best possible option.

At Atharva Prakashan every book goes through 3 phases – typing, composing and binding. There are 16 typists, 10 composers and 15 binders. A typist can type 8 books in each hour, a composer can compose 12 books in each hour and a binder can bind 12 books in each hour. All the people at Atharva Prakashan work for 10 hours a day and each person is trained to do only one type of job.

Q. How many books can be prepared in each day?

Solution:

►Total man hours of typists, composers and binders in a day are 160 hrs, 100 hrs, & 150 hrs.

►So the total books which can be typed in a day are 160 × 8 = 1280.

►Total books that can be composed in day are 12 × 100 = 1200 and total books that can be bind in a day are 12 × 150 = 1800.

►Since, the composers can compose a maximum of 1200 books, so this is the number of books which can be published in a day.
So, the correct answer is option B.

QUESTION: 69

DIRECTION for the question: Answer the following question as per the best of your judgement.

In a rectangular coordinate system shown above, which quadrant, if any, contains, no point (x, y) that satisfies the inequality 2x - 3y ≤ -6?

Solution:

►Since in the 4th quadrant x is +ve and y is -ve, the inequality 2x - 3y ≤ -6 does not hold.

►As the expression (2x - 3y) will always be +ve in 4th quadrant.

QUESTION: 70

DIRECTIONS for the question: Solve the following question and mark the best possible option.

Two friends, Bagga and Dagga, start from the same end A of a linear track AB and keep running to and fro indefinitely. They meet for the first time at a point 20 m from B. If the track is 100 m long, where will they meet for the fourth time?

Solution:

►Let the speed of Bagga is more than the speed of Dagga. So the ratio of the speeds of Bagga and Dagga is 3 : 2.

►When they meet for the first time then both the friends have covered a total of 200 m out of which Bagga has covered 120 m and Dagga has covered 80 m.

►So when they will meet for the fourth time then they must have covered 800 m in total out of which Bagga has covered 480 m and Dagga has covered 320 m.

►Now take the case of one friend say of Bagga. He covered a total of 480 m. Now he starts from A and covers a distance of 200 m before returning to A.

►So after 400 m, he will again be at A and after 80 m he is moving towards B and is at a distance of 80 m from A.
Hence they will meet at 80 m from A.

QUESTION: 71

DIRECTIONS for the question: Solve the following question and mark the best possible option.

A, B and C complete a particular work in 80 days when A and C worked on all 80 days, whereas B worked on every alternate day. A and B can together complete the work in 90 days and A and C in 120 days. In how many days would C alone take to complete the work?

Solution:

►Let the units of work done by A, B and C in a single day be a, b and c respectively.

►We know that 90 (a + b) = 120 (a + c)

►Solving we get,  a + 4c = 3b  ----   (1)

►Also, 80 (a + c) + 40 b =  120 (a + c)
►So 40 (a + c) = 40 b
►Or a + c =  b     -----------   (2)

►Solving equation (1) and  (2) together,
►we get

3b - 4c = b - c
=> 2b =  3c
=> b = 3/2 c
=> a = 1/2 c

►Now, total work done = 90 (a + b) = 90 (3c/2 + c/2 ) = 90 (2c) = 180 c
So, working alone C will take 180 c / c = 180 days

QUESTION: 72

DIRECTIONS for the question: Solve the following question and mark the best possible option.

A train starts from Delhi at 9:30 am and reaches Agra at 12:30 pm. Another train starts from Agra at 11 am and reaches Delhi at 1 pm. At what time do they meet?

Solution:

►Let the distance between Delhi and Agra be ‘D’ km.

►The train starting from Delhi reaches Agra in 3 hrs and the train starting from Agra reaches Delhi in 2 hrs, hence their speeds will be D/3 kmph and D/2 kmph respectively.

►At 11:00 am the train starting from Delhi will be mid-way between Delhi and Agra.

►Hence the time after which both the trains will meet = (D/2)/[(D/3) + (D/2)] = 36 min.

►Thus the two trains will meet after 36 min from 11:00 am i.e. 11:36 am.
Hence, option 2.

QUESTION: 73

DIRECTIONS for the question: Solve the following question and mark the best possible option.

The average of a list of 25 numbers in ascending order is 1024. The average of the first 13 numbers is 982, that of the middle 13 numbers is 1036 and that of the last 13 is 1076. If the sixth, thirteenth and twentieth numbers in this list are in arithmetic progression, what is the average of the first 5 numbers, the last 5 numbers and the middle number?

Solution:

►Let the numbers in the list be a1, a2, a3, …a25.

►The sum of all 25 numbers is S1 = a1 + a2 + …+ a25 = 1024 x 25 = 25600.

►The sum of the first 13 numbers is S2 = a1 – a2+ ... + a13 = 982 x 13 = 12766.

►The sum of the middle 13 numbers is S3 = a7 + a8 + ... + a19 = 1036 x 13 = 13468.

►The sum of the last 13 numbers is S4 = a13 + a14... + a25= 1076 x 13 = 13988.

►Now, S2 + S4 will contain all 25 numbers, with the 13th number counted twice.

►So. the 13th number is

S2 - S4 – S1 = 12766 + 13988 - 25600
=> a13 = 1154. S1 - S3
= (a1 + a+ a25) – (a7 + a8 + .. +a19)
= (a1 + a2 + ... +a6) + (a20 + a21 +…+ a25)
= 25600 - 13468 = 12132.

Since a6, a13 and a20 are in AP
=> a6 a20 = 2a13.

►Since we want the sum (a1 + a2 + ... +a5) + a13 + (a21 + a22 + ... + a25),

►we have 12132

= (a1 + a+ .. + a5) + (a21 + a22 + ... + a25) + (a6 +a20)
=  (a1 + a2 + ... +a5) + a13 + (a21 + a22 + ... + a25) + 2a13 
= (a1 + a2 + ... +a5) + a13 + (a21 + a22 + ... + a25) + a13 
= 12132 - 1154 = 10978.

Thus the average of these 11 numbers is 10978 / 11 = 998.

QUESTION: 74

DIRECTIONS for the question: Solve the following question and mark the best possible option.

Let x, y, z be non-zero real numbers such that x/y + y/z + z/x = 7 and y/x + z/y + x/z = 9, then x3/y3 + y3/z3 + z3/x3 - 3 is equal to

Solution:

►Let x / y = u, y / z = v & z / x = w

►So given question can be arranged as u + v + w = 7; 1/u + 1/v + 1/w = 9; uvw = 1

►u + v + w = 7; uv + vw + wu = 9; uvw = 1

►Required value is u3 + v3 + w3 – 3uvw = (u + v + w) (u2 + v2 + w2 – uv – vw – wu)

►(u + v + w) [(u + v + w)2 – 3(uv + vw + wu)] = 7(72 – 3 × 9) = 7[49 – 27] = 7(22) = 154

QUESTION: 75

DIRECTIONS for the question: In the following questions, select a suitable replacement for the word.

M is a natural number (≠ 1). X and Y are single-digit natural numbers with X ≥ Y such that for any value of M, (X + Y) M has the same units digit as X + Y. It is also given that (X × Y) M has the same units digit as (X × Y). How many pairs of values X and Y exist satisfying these conditions?

Solution:

►Since X and Y are single-digit natural numbers. So, X ≤ 9 and Y ≤ 9. Hence X+Y ≤ 18

►As X + Y and (X + Y) M always have the same units digit, X+Y must end with 0 or 1 or 5 or 6.

►As (X × Y) and (X × Y) M always have the same units digit, X × Y must end with 0 or 1 or 5 or 6.

►As X + Y ≤ 18, X+Y can be 5 or 6 or 10 or 11 or 15 or 16 to satisfy the given conditions.(we will not take 1 because in that case Y will be zero).

►We have the following results for each of these values of X + Y.

1. X + Y = 5
Possible values of (X, Y) are (4, 1) and (3, 2). However, only when (X, Y) is (3, 2) then condition for X × Y is satisfied.
2. X + Y = 6
Possible values of (X, Y) are (5, 1), (4, 2) and (3, 3). Only when (A, B) is (5, 1) the condition for X × Y is satisfied.
3. X + Y = 10
Possible values of (X, Y) are (9, 1), (8, 2), (7,3), (6,4) and (5,5). Only when (X, Y) is (8, 2), (7, 3),(5, 5), the condition for X×Y  is satisfied.
4. X + Y = 11
Possible values of (X, Y) are (9, 2), (8, 3),(7, 4) and (6,5). Only when (X, Y) is (6, 5), the condition for X × Y is satisfied.
5. X + Y = 15
Possible values of (X, Y) are (9, 6) and (8, 7) . Only when (X, Y) is (8, 7) the condition for X×Y is satisfied.
6. X + Y = 16
Possible values of (X, Y) are (9, 7) and (8, 8). For neither of these possibilities is the condition for X × Y satisfied.

A total of 7 possibilities exist for (X, Y). Choice (4).

Similar Content

Related tests