CAT Mock Test - 6 (New Pattern)


75 Questions MCQ Test CAT Mock Test Series | CAT Mock Test - 6 (New Pattern)


Description
This mock test of CAT Mock Test - 6 (New Pattern) for CAT helps you for every CAT entrance exam. This contains 75 Multiple Choice Questions for CAT CAT Mock Test - 6 (New Pattern) (mcq) to study with solutions a complete question bank. The solved questions answers in this CAT Mock Test - 6 (New Pattern) quiz give you a good mix of easy questions and tough questions. CAT students definitely take this CAT Mock Test - 6 (New Pattern) exercise for a better result in the exam. You can find other CAT Mock Test - 6 (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.

Wherever I turn, the popular media, scientists and even fellow philosophers are telling me that I’m a machine or a beast. My ethics can be illuminated by the behavior of termites. My brain is a sloppy computer with a flicker of consciousness and the illusion of free will. I’m anything but human. While it would take more time and space than I have here to refute these views, I’d like to suggest why I stubbornly continue to believe that I’m a human being — something more than other animals, and essentially more than any computer.
Let’s begin with ethics. Many organisms carry genes that promote behavior that benefits other organisms. The classic example is ants: every individual insect is ready to sacrifice itself for the colony. As Edward O. Wilson explained in a recent essay, some biologists account for self-sacrificing behavior by the theory of kin selection, while Wilson and others favor group selection. Selection also operates between individuals: “within groups selfish individuals beat altruistic individuals, but groups of altruists beat groups of selfish individuals. Or, risking oversimplification, individual selection promoted sin, while group selection promoted virtue.” Wilson is cautious here, but some “evolutionary ethicists” don’t hesitate to claim that all we need in order to understand human virtue is the right explanation — whatever it may be — of how altruistic behavior evolved.
I have no beef with entomology or evolution, but I refuse to admit that they teach me much about ethics. Consider the fact that human action ranges to the extremes. People can perform extraordinary acts of altruism, including kindness toward other species — or they can utterly fail to be altruistic, even toward their own children. So whatever tendencies we may have inherited leave ample room for variation; our choices will determine which end of the spectrum we approach. This is where ethical discourse comes in — not in explaining how we’re “built,” but in deliberating on our own future acts. Should I cheat on this test? Should I give this stranger a ride? Knowing how my selfish and altruistic feelings evolved doesn’t help me decide at all. Most, though not all, moral codes advise me to cultivate altruism. But since the human race has evolved to be capable of a wide range of both selfish and altruistic behavior, there is no reason to say that altruism is superior to selfishness in any biological sense.
In fact, the very idea of an “ought” is foreign to evolutionary theory. It makes no sense for a biologist to say that some particular animal should be more cooperative, much less to claim that an entire species ought to aim for some degree of altruism. If we decide that we should neither “dissolve society” through extreme selfishness, as Wilson puts it, nor become “angelic robots” like ants, we are making an ethical judgment, not a biological one. Likewise, from a biological perspective it has no significance to claim that I should be more generous than I usually am, or that a tyrant ought to be deposed and tried. In short, a purely evolutionary ethics makes ethical discourse meaningless.
Some might draw the self-contradictory conclusion that we ought to drop the word “ought.” I prefer to conclude that ants are anything but human. They may feel pain and pleasure, which are the first glimmerings of purpose, but they’re nowhere near human (much less angelic) goodness. Whether we’re talking about ants, wolves, or naked mole rats, cooperative animal behavior is not human virtue. Any understanding of human good and evil has to deal with phenomena that biology ignores or tries to explain away — such as decency, self-respect, integrity, honor, loyalty or justice. These matters are debatable and uncertain — maybe permanently so. But that’s a far cry from being meaningless.

Q. The author of the passage:

Solution:

In the given case, the author of the passage makes a very assertion: Biological explanations are not sufficient to explain human behavior. This explanation is mirrored by option 3.

► Option 1 is unclear as it refers to 'some biological theories'. The author makes no such distinction.

► Option 2 is clearly not related to the passage as the author does not such thing.

► Option 4 is incorrect as the author is not hoodwinking (deceiving) the reader.

QUESTION: 2

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

Wherever I turn, the popular media, scientists and even fellow philosophers are telling me that I’m a machine or a beast. My ethics can be illuminated by the behavior of termites. My brain is a sloppy computer with a flicker of consciousness and the illusion of free will. I’m anything but human. While it would take more time and space than I have here to refute these views, I’d like to suggest why I stubbornly continue to believe that I’m a human being — something more than other animals, and essentially more than any computer.
Let’s begin with ethics. Many organisms carry genes that promote behavior that benefits other organisms. The classic example is ants: every individual insect is ready to sacrifice itself for the colony. As Edward O. Wilson explained in a recent essay, some biologists account for self-sacrificing behavior by the theory of kin selection, while Wilson and others favor group selection. Selection also operates between individuals: “within groups selfish individuals beat altruistic individuals, but groups of altruists beat groups of selfish individuals. Or, risking oversimplification, individual selection promoted sin, while group selection promoted virtue.” Wilson is cautious here, but some “evolutionary ethicists” don’t hesitate to claim that all we need in order to understand human virtue is the right explanation — whatever it may be — of how altruistic behavior evolved.
I have no beef with entomology or evolution, but I refuse to admit that they teach me much about ethics. Consider the fact that human action ranges to the extremes. People can perform extraordinary acts of altruism, including kindness toward other species — or they can utterly fail to be altruistic, even toward their own children. So whatever tendencies we may have inherited leave ample room for variation; our choices will determine which end of the spectrum we approach. This is where ethical discourse comes in — not in explaining how we’re “built,” but in deliberating on our own future acts. Should I cheat on this test? Should I give this stranger a ride? Knowing how my selfish and altruistic feelings evolved doesn’t help me decide at all. Most, though not all, moral codes advise me to cultivate altruism. But since the human race has evolved to be capable of a wide range of both selfish and altruistic behavior, there is no reason to say that altruism is superior to selfishness in any biological sense.
In fact, the very idea of an “ought” is foreign to evolutionary theory. It makes no sense for a biologist to say that some particular animal should be more cooperative, much less to claim that an entire species ought to aim for some degree of altruism. If we decide that we should neither “dissolve society” through extreme selfishness, as Wilson puts it, nor become “angelic robots” like ants, we are making an ethical judgment, not a biological one. Likewise, from a biological perspective it has no significance to claim that I should be more generous than I usually am, or that a tyrant ought to be deposed and tried. In short, a purely evolutionary ethics makes ethical discourse meaningless.
Some might draw the self-contradictory conclusion that we ought to drop the word “ought.” I prefer to conclude that ants are anything but human. They may feel pain and pleasure, which are the first glimmerings of purpose, but they’re nowhere near human (much less angelic) goodness. Whether we’re talking about ants, wolves, or naked mole rats, cooperative animal behavior is not human virtue. Any understanding of human good and evil has to deal with phenomena that biology ignores or tries to explain away — such as decency, self-respect, integrity, honor, loyalty or justice. These matters are debatable and uncertain — maybe permanently so. But that’s a far cry from being meaningless.

Q. The author of the passage is most likely to agree with the statement:

Solution:

Answer to this question can be found in the lines: While it would take more time and space than I have here to refute these views, I’d like to suggest why I stubbornly continue to believe that I’m a human being — something more than other animals, and essentially more than any computer.

► These lines clearly indicate option 3 as the correct answer.

The idioms whole heap more means a great deal more.

QUESTION: 3

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

Wherever I turn, the popular media, scientists and even fellow philosophers are telling me that I’m a machine or a beast. My ethics can be illuminated by the behavior of termites. My brain is a sloppy computer with a flicker of consciousness and the illusion of free will. I’m anything but human. While it would take more time and space than I have here to refute these views, I’d like to suggest why I stubbornly continue to believe that I’m a human being — something more than other animals, and essentially more than any computer.
Let’s begin with ethics. Many organisms carry genes that promote behavior that benefits other organisms. The classic example is ants: every individual insect is ready to sacrifice itself for the colony. As Edward O. Wilson explained in a recent essay, some biologists account for self-sacrificing behavior by the theory of kin selection, while Wilson and others favor group selection. Selection also operates between individuals: “within groups selfish individuals beat altruistic individuals, but groups of altruists beat groups of selfish individuals. Or, risking oversimplification, individual selection promoted sin, while group selection promoted virtue.” Wilson is cautious here, but some “evolutionary ethicists” don’t hesitate to claim that all we need in order to understand human virtue is the right explanation — whatever it may be — of how altruistic behavior evolved.
I have no beef with entomology or evolution, but I refuse to admit that they teach me much about ethics. Consider the fact that human action ranges to the extremes. People can perform extraordinary acts of altruism, including kindness toward other species — or they can utterly fail to be altruistic, even toward their own children. So whatever tendencies we may have inherited leave ample room for variation; our choices will determine which end of the spectrum we approach. This is where ethical discourse comes in — not in explaining how we’re “built,” but in deliberating on our own future acts. Should I cheat on this test? Should I give this stranger a ride? Knowing how my selfish and altruistic feelings evolved doesn’t help me decide at all. Most, though not all, moral codes advise me to cultivate altruism. But since the human race has evolved to be capable of a wide range of both selfish and altruistic behavior, there is no reason to say that altruism is superior to selfishness in any biological sense.
In fact, the very idea of an “ought” is foreign to evolutionary theory. It makes no sense for a biologist to say that some particular animal should be more cooperative, much less to claim that an entire species ought to aim for some degree of altruism. If we decide that we should neither “dissolve society” through extreme selfishness, as Wilson puts it, nor become “angelic robots” like ants, we are making an ethical judgment, not a biological one. Likewise, from a biological perspective it has no significance to claim that I should be more generous than I usually am, or that a tyrant ought to be deposed and tried. In short, a purely evolutionary ethics makes ethical discourse meaningless.
Some might draw the self-contradictory conclusion that we ought to drop the word “ought.” I prefer to conclude that ants are anything but human. They may feel pain and pleasure, which are the first glimmerings of purpose, but they’re nowhere near human (much less angelic) goodness. Whether we’re talking about ants, wolves, or naked mole rats, cooperative animal behavior is not human virtue. Any understanding of human good and evil has to deal with phenomena that biology ignores or tries to explain away — such as decency, self-respect, integrity, honor, loyalty or justice. These matters are debatable and uncertain — maybe permanently so. But that’s a far cry from being meaningless.

Q. What does the author mean when he says that “a purely evolutionary ethics makes ethical discourse meaningless”?​

Solution:

Refer to the following lines to identify the answer: In fact, the very idea of an “ought” is foreign to evolutionary theory. It makes no sense for a biologist to say that some particular animal should be more cooperative, much less to claim that an entire species ought to aim for some degree of altruism. If we decide that we should neither “dissolve society” through extreme selfishness, as Wilson puts it, nor become “angelic robots” like ants, we are making an ethical judgment, not a biological one. Likewise, from a biological perspective it has no significance to claim that I should be more generous than I usually am, or that a tyrant ought to be deposed and tried. In short, a purely evolutionary ethics makes ethical discourse meaningless.

The author of the passage clearly expresses that evolution and ethics are not related to each other and evolution cannot be used to explain ethics and its principles.

QUESTION: 4

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

Wherever I turn, the popular media, scientists and even fellow philosophers are telling me that I’m a machine or a beast. My ethics can be illuminated by the behavior of termites. My brain is a sloppy computer with a flicker of consciousness and the illusion of free will. I’m anything but human. While it would take more time and space than I have here to refute these views, I’d like to suggest why I stubbornly continue to believe that I’m a human being — something more than other animals, and essentially more than any computer.
Let’s begin with ethics. Many organisms carry genes that promote behavior that benefits other organisms. The classic example is ants: every individual insect is ready to sacrifice itself for the colony. As Edward O. Wilson explained in a recent essay, some biologists account for self-sacrificing behavior by the theory of kin selection, while Wilson and others favor group selection. Selection also operates between individuals: “within groups selfish individuals beat altruistic individuals, but groups of altruists beat groups of selfish individuals. Or, risking oversimplification, individual selection promoted sin, while group selection promoted virtue.” Wilson is cautious here, but some “evolutionary ethicists” don’t hesitate to claim that all we need in order to understand human virtue is the right explanation — whatever it may be — of how altruistic behavior evolved.
I have no beef with entomology or evolution, but I refuse to admit that they teach me much about ethics. Consider the fact that human action ranges to the extremes. People can perform extraordinary acts of altruism, including kindness toward other species — or they can utterly fail to be altruistic, even toward their own children. So whatever tendencies we may have inherited leave ample room for variation; our choices will determine which end of the spectrum we approach. This is where ethical discourse comes in — not in explaining how we’re “built,” but in deliberating on our own future acts. Should I cheat on this test? Should I give this stranger a ride? Knowing how my selfish and altruistic feelings evolved doesn’t help me decide at all. Most, though not all, moral codes advise me to cultivate altruism. But since the human race has evolved to be capable of a wide range of both selfish and altruistic behavior, there is no reason to say that altruism is superior to selfishness in any biological sense.
In fact, the very idea of an “ought” is foreign to evolutionary theory. It makes no sense for a biologist to say that some particular animal should be more cooperative, much less to claim that an entire species ought to aim for some degree of altruism. If we decide that we should neither “dissolve society” through extreme selfishness, as Wilson puts it, nor become “angelic robots” like ants, we are making an ethical judgment, not a biological one. Likewise, from a biological perspective it has no significance to claim that I should be more generous than I usually am, or that a tyrant ought to be deposed and tried. In short, a purely evolutionary ethics makes ethical discourse meaningless.
Some might draw the self-contradictory conclusion that we ought to drop the word “ought.” I prefer to conclude that ants are anything but human. They may feel pain and pleasure, which are the first glimmerings of purpose, but they’re nowhere near human (much less angelic) goodness. Whether we’re talking about ants, wolves, or naked mole rats, cooperative animal behavior is not human virtue. Any understanding of human good and evil has to deal with phenomena that biology ignores or tries to explain away — such as decency, self-respect, integrity, honor, loyalty or justice. These matters are debatable and uncertain — maybe permanently so. But that’s a far cry from being meaningless.

Q. Identify the option that does not represent a tone or attitude maintained by the author of the passage.

Solution:

In the given case, option 3 is the odd one out.

Subjective refers to a tone where the author expresses his ideas and thoughts, something the author does.

Insightful refers to a tone where the author exhibits knowledge and perceptiveness.

Objective refers to a tone where the author only sticks to the facts. This is something that the author does not do.

Critical refers to a tendency to find and call attention to errors and flaws (this is again something that the author does by pointing to the flaws in evolutionary ethics).

QUESTION: 5

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

Leading innovation is not about creating a vision, and inspiring others to execute it. But what do we mean by innovation? An innovation is anything that is both new and useful. Many of you have seen a Pixar movie, but very few of you would recognize Ed Catmull, the founder and CEO of Pixar. It took Ed and his colleagues nearly 20 years to create the first full-length C.G. movie. In the 20 years hence, they've produced 14 movies. When many of us think about innovation, though, we think about an Einstein having an 'Aha!' moment. But innovation is not about solo genius, it's about collective genius. To make a Pixar movie takes about 250 people four to five years.
What we know is, at the heart of innovation is a paradox. You have to unleash the talents and passions of many people and you have to harness them into a work that is actually useful. Innovative organizations are communities that have three capabilities: creative abrasion, creative agility and creative resolution.
Creative abrasion is about being able to create a marketplace of ideas through debate and discourse. Individuals in innovative organizations learn how to inquire, they learn how to actively listen, they also learn how to advocate for their point of view.
Creative agility is about being able to test and refine that portfolio of ideas through quick pursuit, reflection and adjustment. It's about discovery-driven learning where you act, as opposed to plan, your way to the future. It's about running a series of experiments, and not a series of pilots. Experiments are usually about learning. When you get a negative outcome, you're still really learning. Pilots are often about being right. When they don't work, someone or something is to blame.
The final capability is creative resolution. This is about doing decision making in a way that you can actually combine even opposing ideas to reconfigure them in new combinations to produce a solution that is new and useful. When you look at innovative organizations, they never go along to get along. They have developed a rather patient and inclusive decision making process that allows for both/and solutions to arise and not simply either/or solutions.
The infrastructure group of Google is the group that has to keep the website up and running 24/7. When Google was about to introduce Gmail and YouTube, they knew that their data storage system wasn't adequate. Bill Coughran and his leadership team had to figure out what to do about this situation. Instead of creating a group to tackle this task, they decided to allow groups to emerge spontaneously around different alternatives. Two groups coalesced. Big Table proposed that they build on the current system. Build It From Scratch proposed that it was time for a whole new system.
Early on, the teams were encouraged to build prototypes so that they could "bump them up against reality and discover for themselves the strengths and weaknesses of their particular approach." One of the engineers went to Bill and said, "We're all too busy for this inefficient system of running parallel experiments." But as the process unfolded, he began to understand the wisdom He admitted, "If you had forced us to all be on one team, we might have focused on proving who was right, and winning, and not on learning and discovering what was the best answer for Google."
We studied a general counsel in a pharmaceutical company who had to figure out how to get the outside lawyers, 19 competitors, to collaborate and innovate. We also studied Vineet Nayar at HCL Technologies. At HCL technologies the leaders had learned to see their role as setting direction and making sure that no one deviated from it. Vineet inverted the pyramid so that he could unleash the power of the many by loosening the stranglehold of the few.

Q. Why does the author consider the process of innovation paradoxical?

Solution:

► A paradox is a seemingly absurd or contradictory statement or proposition which when investigated may prove to be well founded or true.

What we know is, at the heart of innovation is a paradox. You have to unleash the talents and passions of many people and you have to harness them into a work that is actually useful.
1 – Contradicts that stand of the article, that innovation is not about vision.

3 – A good leader is a good listener. This option is incorrect.

is a great point of view. It does represent a paradox. But probably will belong to a different article, since it does not touch upon the theme of bottom-up innovation.

QUESTION: 6

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

Leading innovation is not about creating a vision, and inspiring others to execute it. But what do we mean by innovation? An innovation is anything that is both new and useful. Many of you have seen a Pixar movie, but very few of you would recognize Ed Catmull, the founder and CEO of Pixar. It took Ed and his colleagues nearly 20 years to create the first full-length C.G. movie. In the 20 years hence, they've produced 14 movies. When many of us think about innovation, though, we think about an Einstein having an 'Aha!' moment. But innovation is not about solo genius, it's about collective genius. To make a Pixar movie takes about 250 people four to five years.
What we know is, at the heart of innovation is a paradox. You have to unleash the talents and passions of many people and you have to harness them into a work that is actually useful. Innovative organizations are communities that have three capabilities: creative abrasion, creative agility and creative resolution.
Creative abrasion is about being able to create a marketplace of ideas through debate and discourse. Individuals in innovative organizations learn how to inquire, they learn how to actively listen, they also learn how to advocate for their point of view.
Creative agility is about being able to test and refine that portfolio of ideas through quick pursuit, reflection and adjustment. It's about discovery-driven learning where you act, as opposed to plan, your way to the future. It's about running a series of experiments, and not a series of pilots. Experiments are usually about learning. When you get a negative outcome, you're still really learning. Pilots are often about being right. When they don't work, someone or something is to blame.
The final capability is creative resolution. This is about doing decision making in a way that you can actually combine even opposing ideas to reconfigure them in new combinations to produce a solution that is new and useful. When you look at innovative organizations, they never go along to get along. They have developed a rather patient and inclusive decision making process that allows for both/and solutions to arise and not simply either/or solutions.
The infrastructure group of Google is the group that has to keep the website up and running 24/7. When Google was about to introduce Gmail and YouTube, they knew that their data storage system wasn't adequate. Bill Coughran and his leadership team had to figure out what to do about this situation. Instead of creating a group to tackle this task, they decided to allow groups to emerge spontaneously around different alternatives. Two groups coalesced. Big Table proposed that they build on the current system. Build It From Scratch proposed that it was time for a whole new system.
Early on, the teams were encouraged to build prototypes so that they could "bump them up against reality and discover for themselves the strengths and weaknesses of their particular approach." One of the engineers went to Bill and said, "We're all too busy for this inefficient system of running parallel experiments." But as the process unfolded, he began to understand the wisdom He admitted, "If you had forced us to all be on one team, we might have focused on proving who was right, and winning, and not on learning and discovering what was the best answer for Google."
We studied a general counsel in a pharmaceutical company who had to figure out how to get the outside lawyers, 19 competitors, to collaborate and innovate. We also studied Vineet Nayar at HCL Technologies. At HCL technologies the leaders had learned to see their role as setting direction and making sure that no one deviated from it. Vineet inverted the pyramid so that he could unleash the power of the many by loosening the stranglehold of the few.

Q. What is the main difference between a pilot and an experiment​

Solution:

Experiments are usually about learning. When you get a negative outcome, you're still really learning something that you need to know. Pilots are often about being right.

The other 3 options would have all been true, if we had interchanged the positions of the words pilot and experiment.

QUESTION: 7

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

Leading innovation is not about creating a vision, and inspiring others to execute it. But what do we mean by innovation? An innovation is anything that is both new and useful. Many of you have seen a Pixar movie, but very few of you would recognize Ed Catmull, the founder and CEO of Pixar. It took Ed and his colleagues nearly 20 years to create the first full-length C.G. movie. In the 20 years hence, they've produced 14 movies. When many of us think about innovation, though, we think about an Einstein having an 'Aha!' moment. But innovation is not about solo genius, it's about collective genius. To make a Pixar movie takes about 250 people four to five years.
What we know is, at the heart of innovation is a paradox. You have to unleash the talents and passions of many people and you have to harness them into a work that is actually useful. Innovative organizations are communities that have three capabilities: creative abrasion, creative agility and creative resolution.
Creative abrasion is about being able to create a marketplace of ideas through debate and discourse. Individuals in innovative organizations learn how to inquire, they learn how to actively listen, they also learn how to advocate for their point of view.
Creative agility is about being able to test and refine that portfolio of ideas through quick pursuit, reflection and adjustment. It's about discovery-driven learning where you act, as opposed to plan, your way to the future. It's about running a series of experiments, and not a series of pilots. Experiments are usually about learning. When you get a negative outcome, you're still really learning. Pilots are often about being right. When they don't work, someone or something is to blame.
The final capability is creative resolution. This is about doing decision making in a way that you can actually combine even opposing ideas to reconfigure them in new combinations to produce a solution that is new and useful. When you look at innovative organizations, they never go along to get along. They have developed a rather patient and inclusive decision making process that allows for both/and solutions to arise and not simply either/or solutions.
The infrastructure group of Google is the group that has to keep the website up and running 24/7. When Google was about to introduce Gmail and YouTube, they knew that their data storage system wasn't adequate. Bill Coughran and his leadership team had to figure out what to do about this situation. Instead of creating a group to tackle this task, they decided to allow groups to emerge spontaneously around different alternatives. Two groups coalesced. Big Table proposed that they build on the current system. Build It From Scratch proposed that it was time for a whole new system.
Early on, the teams were encouraged to build prototypes so that they could "bump them up against reality and discover for themselves the strengths and weaknesses of their particular approach." One of the engineers went to Bill and said, "We're all too busy for this inefficient system of running parallel experiments." But as the process unfolded, he began to understand the wisdom He admitted, "If you had forced us to all be on one team, we might have focused on proving who was right, and winning, and not on learning and discovering what was the best answer for Google."
We studied a general counsel in a pharmaceutical company who had to figure out how to get the outside lawyers, 19 competitors, to collaborate and innovate. We also studied Vineet Nayar at HCL Technologies. At HCL technologies the leaders had learned to see their role as setting direction and making sure that no one deviated from it. Vineet inverted the pyramid so that he could unleash the power of the many by loosening the stranglehold of the few.

Q. According to the article, what role does vision play in innovation leadership?​

Solution:

Refer to passage: Leading innovation is not about creating a vision, and inspiring others to execute it.

The other options also represent viewpoints about vision, but do not sync in with the thoughts this article represents.

QUESTION: 8

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

Leading innovation is not about creating a vision, and inspiring others to execute it. But what do we mean by innovation? An innovation is anything that is both new and useful. Many of you have seen a Pixar movie, but very few of you would recognize Ed Catmull, the founder and CEO of Pixar. It took Ed and his colleagues nearly 20 years to create the first full-length C.G. movie. In the 20 years hence, they've produced 14 movies. When many of us think about innovation, though, we think about an Einstein having an 'Aha!' moment. But innovation is not about solo genius, it's about collective genius. To make a Pixar movie takes about 250 people four to five years.
What we know is, at the heart of innovation is a paradox. You have to unleash the talents and passions of many people and you have to harness them into a work that is actually useful. Innovative organizations are communities that have three capabilities: creative abrasion, creative agility and creative resolution.
Creative abrasion is about being able to create a marketplace of ideas through debate and discourse. Individuals in innovative organizations learn how to inquire, they learn how to actively listen, they also learn how to advocate for their point of view.
Creative agility is about being able to test and refine that portfolio of ideas through quick pursuit, reflection and adjustment. It's about discovery-driven learning where you act, as opposed to plan, your way to the future. It's about running a series of experiments, and not a series of pilots. Experiments are usually about learning. When you get a negative outcome, you're still really learning. Pilots are often about being right. When they don't work, someone or something is to blame.
The final capability is creative resolution. This is about doing decision making in a way that you can actually combine even opposing ideas to reconfigure them in new combinations to produce a solution that is new and useful. When you look at innovative organizations, they never go along to get along. They have developed a rather patient and inclusive decision making process that allows for both/and solutions to arise and not simply either/or solutions.
The infrastructure group of Google is the group that has to keep the website up and running 24/7. When Google was about to introduce Gmail and YouTube, they knew that their data storage system wasn't adequate. Bill Coughran and his leadership team had to figure out what to do about this situation. Instead of creating a group to tackle this task, they decided to allow groups to emerge spontaneously around different alternatives. Two groups coalesced. Big Table proposed that they build on the current system. Build It From Scratch proposed that it was time for a whole new system.
Early on, the teams were encouraged to build prototypes so that they could "bump them up against reality and discover for themselves the strengths and weaknesses of their particular approach." One of the engineers went to Bill and said, "We're all too busy for this inefficient system of running parallel experiments." But as the process unfolded, he began to understand the wisdom He admitted, "If you had forced us to all be on one team, we might have focused on proving who was right, and winning, and not on learning and discovering what was the best answer for Google."
We studied a general counsel in a pharmaceutical company who had to figure out how to get the outside lawyers, 19 competitors, to collaborate and innovate. We also studied Vineet Nayar at HCL Technologies. At HCL technologies the leaders had learned to see their role as setting direction and making sure that no one deviated from it. Vineet inverted the pyramid so that he could unleash the power of the many by loosening the stranglehold of the few.

Q. What best exemplifies the learning-from-your-mistakes approach?

Solution:

We are looking at two things here. One is a mistake – another is an improvement that follows after the mistake. Pixar is a good case in point. 20 years to make one movie – means that the company must have made a lot of mistakes. 14 movies in the next 20 years – means a significant improvement.

The other options, though about innovation, do not exemplify the learning-from-mistakes approach.

QUESTION: 9

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

Melancholy is a word that has fallen out of favor for describing the condition we now call depression. The fact that our language has changed, without the earlier word disappearing completely, indicates that we are still able to make use of both. Like most synonyms, melancholy and depression are not in fact synonymous, but slips of the tongue in a language we’re still learning. We keep trying to specify our experience of mental suffering, but all our new words constellate instead of consolidate meaning. In the essay collection Under the Sign of Saturn, Susan Sontag writes about her intellectual heroes, who all suffer solitude, ill temper, existential distress and creative block. They all breathe black air. According to her diagnostic model, they are all “melancholics.” Sontag doesn’t use the word depression in the company of her role models, but elsewhere she draws what seems like an easy distinction: “Depression is melancholy minus its charms.” But what are the charms of melancholy?
There is a long history in Western thought associating melancholy and genius. We have van Gogh with his severed ear. We have Montaigne confessing, “It was a melancholy humor … which first put into my head this raving concern with writing.” We have Nina Simone and Kurt Cobain, Thelonious Monk and David Foster Wallace. We have the stubborn conviction that all of these artists produced the work they did not in spite of, but somehow because of, their suffering. The charms of melancholy seem to be the charms of van Gogh’s quietly kaleidoscopic color palette: in one self-portrait, every color used on his face is echoed elsewhere in the surroundings. His white bandage complements the canvas in the corner, his yellow skin the wall, his blue hat the blue window. The charms of his work become the charms of his persona and his predicament.
But there’s another kind of portrait possible: the melancholic has not always and everywhere been cast as the romantic hero. In fact, Montaigne’s discussion of melancholy was meant as a kind of Neoplatonic corrective to the old medieval typology of the four humors which cast the “melancholic,” choking on an excess of black bile, as an unfortunate miser and sluggard, despised for his unsociability and general incompetence. That sounds more like it. Indeed, the medieval portrait of melancholy seems to have something in common with our understanding of depression today—or at least of the depressed person we see in pharmaceutical advertisements, whose disease seems to be lack of interest in the family barbecue. We do have our share of romantic geniuses—the suicide of David Foster Wallace is a dark lodestar over recent generations of writers. The pharmacological discourse of depression has not entirely replaced the romantic discourse of melancholy. But on the whole, contemporary American culture seems committed to a final solution.
Both stigmatization and sanctification come with real ethical dangers. On the one hand, there is the danger that hidden in the wish for the elimination of depressive symptoms is a wish for the elimination of other essential attributes of the depressed person—her posture of persistent critique, her intolerance for small talk. On the other hand there is the danger of taking pleasure in the pain of the melancholic, and of adding the expectation of insight to the already oppressive expectations the melancholic likely has for herself. But these ethical dangers are not simply imposed on the unfortunate person from the outside. It is not only the culture at large that oscillates between understanding psychological suffering as a sign of genius and a mark of shame. The language used in both discourses bears a striking resemblance to the language the depressed person uses in her own head.

Q. It can be inferred from the passage that artists such as Nina Simone and Kurt Cobain, Thelonious Monk and David Foster Wallace are attributed to:

Solution:

In this question, you need to connect the dots. Refer to the portions in bold: Sontag doesn’t use the word depression in the company of her role models, but elsewhere she draws what seems like an easy distinction:

“Depression is melancholy minus its charms.” But what are the charms of melancholy?

There is a long history in Western thought associating melancholy and genius. We have van Gogh with his severed ear. We have Montaigne confessing, “It was a melancholy humor which first put into my head this raving concern with writing.” We have Nina Simone and Kurt Cobain, Thelonious Monk and David Foster Wallace. We have the stubborn conviction that all of these artists produced the work they did not in spite of, but somehow because of, their suffering.

The portions in bold combine to give us option 2 as the correct answer.

QUESTION: 10

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

Melancholy is a word that has fallen out of favor for describing the condition we now call depression. The fact that our language has changed, without the earlier word disappearing completely, indicates that we are still able to make use of both. Like most synonyms, melancholy and depression are not in fact synonymous, but slips of the tongue in a language we’re still learning. We keep trying to specify our experience of mental suffering, but all our new words constellate instead of consolidate meaning. In the essay collection Under the Sign of Saturn, Susan Sontag writes about her intellectual heroes, who all suffer solitude, ill temper, existential distress and creative block. They all breathe black air. According to her diagnostic model, they are all “melancholics.” Sontag doesn’t use the word depression in the company of her role models, but elsewhere she draws what seems like an easy distinction: “Depression is melancholy minus its charms.” But what are the charms of melancholy?
There is a long history in Western thought associating melancholy and genius. We have van Gogh with his severed ear. We have Montaigne confessing, “It was a melancholy humor … which first put into my head this raving concern with writing.” We have Nina Simone and Kurt Cobain, Thelonious Monk and David Foster Wallace. We have the stubborn conviction that all of these artists produced the work they did not in spite of, but somehow because of, their suffering. The charms of melancholy seem to be the charms of van Gogh’s quietly kaleidoscopic color palette: in one self-portrait, every color used on his face is echoed elsewhere in the surroundings. His white bandage complements the canvas in the corner, his yellow skin the wall, his blue hat the blue window. The charms of his work become the charms of his persona and his predicament.
But there’s another kind of portrait possible: the melancholic has not always and everywhere been cast as the romantic hero. In fact, Montaigne’s discussion of melancholy was meant as a kind of Neoplatonic corrective to the old medieval typology of the four humors which cast the “melancholic,” choking on an excess of black bile, as an unfortunate miser and sluggard, despised for his unsociability and general incompetence. That sounds more like it. Indeed, the medieval portrait of melancholy seems to have something in common with our understanding of depression today—or at least of the depressed person we see in pharmaceutical advertisements, whose disease seems to be lack of interest in the family barbecue. We do have our share of romantic geniuses—the suicide of David Foster Wallace is a dark lodestar over recent generations of writers. The pharmacological discourse of depression has not entirely replaced the romantic discourse of melancholy. But on the whole, contemporary American culture seems committed to a final solution.
Both stigmatization and sanctification come with real ethical dangers. On the one hand, there is the danger that hidden in the wish for the elimination of depressive symptoms is a wish for the elimination of other essential attributes of the depressed person—her posture of persistent critique, her intolerance for small talk. On the other hand there is the danger of taking pleasure in the pain of the melancholic, and of adding the expectation of insight to the already oppressive expectations the melancholic likely has for herself. But these ethical dangers are not simply imposed on the unfortunate person from the outside. It is not only the culture at large that oscillates between understanding psychological suffering as a sign of genius and a mark of shame. The language used in both discourses bears a striking resemblance to the language the depressed person uses in her own head.

Q. The author of the passage :

Solution:

The answer to this question can be derived from the lines: Indeed, the medieval portrait of melancholy seems to have something in common with our understanding of depression today—or at least of the depressed person we see in pharmaceutical advertisements, whose disease seems to be lack of interest in the family barbecue.

QUESTION: 11

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

Melancholy is a word that has fallen out of favor for describing the condition we now call depression. The fact that our language has changed, without the earlier word disappearing completely, indicates that we are still able to make use of both. Like most synonyms, melancholy and depression are not in fact synonymous, but slips of the tongue in a language we’re still learning. We keep trying to specify our experience of mental suffering, but all our new words constellate instead of consolidate meaning. In the essay collection Under the Sign of Saturn, Susan Sontag writes about her intellectual heroes, who all suffer solitude, ill temper, existential distress and creative block. They all breathe black air. According to her diagnostic model, they are all “melancholics.” Sontag doesn’t use the word depression in the company of her role models, but elsewhere she draws what seems like an easy distinction: “Depression is melancholy minus its charms.” But what are the charms of melancholy?
There is a long history in Western thought associating melancholy and genius. We have van Gogh with his severed ear. We have Montaigne confessing, “It was a melancholy humor … which first put into my head this raving concern with writing.” We have Nina Simone and Kurt Cobain, Thelonious Monk and David Foster Wallace. We have the stubborn conviction that all of these artists produced the work they did not in spite of, but somehow because of, their suffering. The charms of melancholy seem to be the charms of van Gogh’s quietly kaleidoscopic color palette: in one self-portrait, every color used on his face is echoed elsewhere in the surroundings. His white bandage complements the canvas in the corner, his yellow skin the wall, his blue hat the blue window. The charms of his work become the charms of his persona and his predicament.
But there’s another kind of portrait possible: the melancholic has not always and everywhere been cast as the romantic hero. In fact, Montaigne’s discussion of melancholy was meant as a kind of Neoplatonic corrective to the old medieval typology of the four humors which cast the “melancholic,” choking on an excess of black bile, as an unfortunate miser and sluggard, despised for his unsociability and general incompetence. That sounds more like it. Indeed, the medieval portrait of melancholy seems to have something in common with our understanding of depression today—or at least of the depressed person we see in pharmaceutical advertisements, whose disease seems to be lack of interest in the family barbecue. We do have our share of romantic geniuses—the suicide of David Foster Wallace is a dark lodestar over recent generations of writers. The pharmacological discourse of depression has not entirely replaced the romantic discourse of melancholy. But on the whole, contemporary American culture seems committed to a final solution.
Both stigmatization and sanctification come with real ethical dangers. On the one hand, there is the danger that hidden in the wish for the elimination of depressive symptoms is a wish for the elimination of other essential attributes of the depressed person—her posture of persistent critique, her intolerance for small talk. On the other hand there is the danger of taking pleasure in the pain of the melancholic, and of adding the expectation of insight to the already oppressive expectations the melancholic likely has for herself. But these ethical dangers are not simply imposed on the unfortunate person from the outside. It is not only the culture at large that oscillates between understanding psychological suffering as a sign of genius and a mark of shame. The language used in both discourses bears a striking resemblance to the language the depressed person uses in her own head.

Q. The tone of the author of the passage can be identified as:

Solution:

In the given case, option 4 is the best fit. Let’s take up every option one at a time and understand the meanings of these options.

Conjectural means based primarily on surmise rather than adequate evidence. Fanciful means not based on fact; unreal. This is clearly not relevant in this case.

Illustrative means clarifying by use of examples and figurative means not literal; using figures of speech. Again, this is not valid in the given case.

Objective means undistorted by emotion or personal bias; based on observable phenomena. A factual tone is one where the author uses facts, data, statistics, etc. Again, this is something that the author of the passage does not do.
Let’s look at the words in option 4 now:
Discursive means: (philosophy) proceeding to a conclusion by reason or argument rather than intuition.

Descriptive means: Serving to describe, inform or characterized by description.

These are clearly generic words that fit in the given context and can be used to describe philosophical contexts like these.

QUESTION: 12

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

Melancholy is a word that has fallen out of favor for describing the condition we now call depression. The fact that our language has changed, without the earlier word disappearing completely, indicates that we are still able to make use of both. Like most synonyms, melancholy and depression are not in fact synonymous, but slips of the tongue in a language we’re still learning. We keep trying to specify our experience of mental suffering, but all our new words constellate instead of consolidate meaning. In the essay collection Under the Sign of Saturn, Susan Sontag writes about her intellectual heroes, who all suffer solitude, ill temper, existential distress and creative block. They all breathe black air. According to her diagnostic model, they are all “melancholics.” Sontag doesn’t use the word depression in the company of her role models, but elsewhere she draws what seems like an easy distinction: “Depression is melancholy minus its charms.” But what are the charms of melancholy?
There is a long history in Western thought associating melancholy and genius. We have van Gogh with his severed ear. We have Montaigne confessing, “It was a melancholy humor … which first put into my head this raving concern with writing.” We have Nina Simone and Kurt Cobain, Thelonious Monk and David Foster Wallace. We have the stubborn conviction that all of these artists produced the work they did not in spite of, but somehow because of, their suffering. The charms of melancholy seem to be the charms of van Gogh’s quietly kaleidoscopic color palette: in one self-portrait, every color used on his face is echoed elsewhere in the surroundings. His white bandage complements the canvas in the corner, his yellow skin the wall, his blue hat the blue window. The charms of his work become the charms of his persona and his predicament.
But there’s another kind of portrait possible: the melancholic has not always and everywhere been cast as the romantic hero. In fact, Montaigne’s discussion of melancholy was meant as a kind of Neoplatonic corrective to the old medieval typology of the four humors which cast the “melancholic,” choking on an excess of black bile, as an unfortunate miser and sluggard, despised for his unsociability and general incompetence. That sounds more like it. Indeed, the medieval portrait of melancholy seems to have something in common with our understanding of depression today—or at least of the depressed person we see in pharmaceutical advertisements, whose disease seems to be lack of interest in the family barbecue. We do have our share of romantic geniuses—the suicide of David Foster Wallace is a dark lodestar over recent generations of writers. The pharmacological discourse of depression has not entirely replaced the romantic discourse of melancholy. But on the whole, contemporary American culture seems committed to a final solution.
Both stigmatization and sanctification come with real ethical dangers. On the one hand, there is the danger that hidden in the wish for the elimination of depressive symptoms is a wish for the elimination of other essential attributes of the depressed person—her posture of persistent critique, her intolerance for small talk. On the other hand there is the danger of taking pleasure in the pain of the melancholic, and of adding the expectation of insight to the already oppressive expectations the melancholic likely has for herself. But these ethical dangers are not simply imposed on the unfortunate person from the outside. It is not only the culture at large that oscillates between understanding psychological suffering as a sign of genius and a mark of shame. The language used in both discourses bears a striking resemblance to the language the depressed person uses in her own head.

Q. According to the author of the passage and the information given in the passage:
I. We have arrived at a single consolidated dictionary of terms to define mental suffering.
II. Melancholy and depressed are not the same.
III. According to a certain stream of thought, melancholy is the source of artistic creation and endeavor and not the outcome of artistic processes.

Solution:

Statement I can be rejected from the following statement: We keep trying to specify our experience of mental suffering, but all our new words constellate instead of consolidate meaning.

Statement II can be derived from the following statement:Like most synonyms, melancholy and depression are not in fact synonymous, but slips of the tongue in a language we’re still learning.

Statement III is the tempting one. Refer to the lines: We have the stubborn conviction that all of these artists produced the work they did not in spite of, but somehow because of, their suffering.

The first part of statement III is correct but the second part of statement III is incorrect. The author does not imply the second part. The ‘in spite of’ does not imply that artistic endeavors cause mental illness.

QUESTION: 13

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

DISMAL may not be the most desirable of modifiers, but economists love it when people call their discipline a science. They consider themselves the most rigorous of social scientists. Yet whereas their peers in the natural sciences can edit genes and spot new planets, economists cannot reliably predict, let alone prevent, recessions or other economic events. Indeed, some claim that economics is based not so much on empirical observation and rational analysis as on ideology.
In October Russell Roberts, a research fellow at Stanford University's Hoover Institution, tweeted that if told an economist's view on one issue, he could confidently predict his or her position on any number of other questions. Prominent bloggers on economics have since furiously defended the profession, citing cases when economists changed their minds in response to new facts, rather than hewing stubbornly to dogma. Adam Ozimek, an economist at Moody's Analytics, pointed to Narayana Kocherlakota, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis from 2009 to 2015, who flipped from hawkishness to dovishness when reality failed to affirm his warnings of a looming surge in inflation. Tyler Cowen, an economist at George Mason, published a list of issues on which his opinion has shifted (he is no longer sure that income from capital is best left untaxed). Paul Krugman, an economist and New York Times columnist, chimed in. He changed his view on the minimum wage after research found that increases up to a certain point reduced employment only marginally (this newspaper had a similar change of heart).
Economists, to be fair, are constrained in ways that many scientists are not. They cannot brew up endless recessions in test tubes to work out what causes what, for instance. Yet the same restriction applies to many hard sciences, too: geologists did not need to recreate the Earth in the lab to get a handle on plate tectonics. The essence of science is agreeing on a shared approach for generating widely accepted knowledge. Science, wrote Paul Romer, an economist, in a paper published last year, leads to broad consensus. Politics does not.
Nor, it seems, does economics. In a paper on macroeconomics published in 2006, Gregory Mankiw of Harvard University declared: 'A new consensus has emerged about the best way to understand economic fluctuations.' But after the financial crisis prompted a wrenching recession, disagreement about the causes and cures raged. 'Schlock economics' was how Robert Lucas, a Nobel-prize-winning economist, described Barack Obama's plan for a big stimulus to revive the American economy. Mr Krugman, another Nobel-winner, reckoned Mr Lucas and his sort were responsible for a 'dark age of macroeconomics'.
As Mr Roberts suggested, economists tend to fall into rival camps defined by distinct beliefs. Anthony Randazzo of the Reason Foundation, a libertarian think-tank, and Jonathan Haidt of New York University recently asked a group of academic economists both moral questions (is it fairer to divide resources equally, or according to effort?) and questions about economics. They found a high correlation between the economists' views on ethics and on economics. The correlation was not limited to matters of debate" how much governments should intervene to reduce inequality, say" but also encompassed more empirical questions, such as how fiscal austerity affects economies on the ropes. Another study found that, in supposedly empirical research, right-leaning economists discerned more economically damaging effects from increases in taxes than left-leaning ones.
That is worrying. Yet is it unusual, compared with other fields? Gunnar Myrdal, yet another Nobel-winning economist, once argued that scientists of all sorts rely on preconceptions. "Questions must be asked before answers can be given," he quipped. A survey conducted in 2003 among practitioners of six social sciences found that economics was no more political than the other fields, just more finely balanced ideologically: left-leaning economists outnumbered right-leaning ones by three to one, compared with a ratio of 30:1 in anthropology.

Q. According to the information given in the passage:
I. Scientists and economists are similar.
II. Scientists and economists are not similar.
III. Scientists are more accurate than economists.
IV. Scientists are less disputative that economists.

Solution:

Statement I clearly goes against the information given in the passage.
Statement II is the opposite of statement I and mirrors the central idea of the passage.
Statement III can be derived from the lines: Science, wrote Paul Romer, an economist, in a paper published last year, leads to broad consensus.
Statement IV can be derived from the lines: A survey conducted in 2003 among practitioners of six social sciences found that economics was no more political than the other fields, just more finely balanced ideologically: left-leaning economists outnumbered right-leaning ones by three to one, compared with a ratio of 30:1 in anthropology.

QUESTION: 14

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

DISMAL may not be the most desirable of modifiers, but economists love it when people call their discipline a science. They consider themselves the most rigorous of social scientists. Yet whereas their peers in the natural sciences can edit genes and spot new planets, economists cannot reliably predict, let alone prevent, recessions or other economic events. Indeed, some claim that economics is based not so much on empirical observation and rational analysis as on ideology.
In October Russell Roberts, a research fellow at Stanford University's Hoover Institution, tweeted that if told an economist's view on one issue, he could confidently predict his or her position on any number of other questions. Prominent bloggers on economics have since furiously defended the profession, citing cases when economists changed their minds in response to new facts, rather than hewing stubbornly to dogma. Adam Ozimek, an economist at Moody's Analytics, pointed to Narayana Kocherlakota, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis from 2009 to 2015, who flipped from hawkishness to dovishness when reality failed to affirm his warnings of a looming surge in inflation. Tyler Cowen, an economist at George Mason, published a list of issues on which his opinion has shifted (he is no longer sure that income from capital is best left untaxed). Paul Krugman, an economist and New York Times columnist, chimed in. He changed his view on the minimum wage after research found that increases up to a certain point reduced employment only marginally (this newspaper had a similar change of heart).
Economists, to be fair, are constrained in ways that many scientists are not. They cannot brew up endless recessions in test tubes to work out what causes what, for instance. Yet the same restriction applies to many hard sciences, too: geologists did not need to recreate the Earth in the lab to get a handle on plate tectonics. The essence of science is agreeing on a shared approach for generating widely accepted knowledge. Science, wrote Paul Romer, an economist, in a paper published last year, leads to broad consensus. Politics does not.
Nor, it seems, does economics. In a paper on macroeconomics published in 2006, Gregory Mankiw of Harvard University declared: 'A new consensus has emerged about the best way to understand economic fluctuations.' But after the financial crisis prompted a wrenching recession, disagreement about the causes and cures raged. 'Schlock economics' was how Robert Lucas, a Nobel-prize-winning economist, described Barack Obama's plan for a big stimulus to revive the American economy. Mr Krugman, another Nobel-winner, reckoned Mr Lucas and his sort were responsible for a 'dark age of macroeconomics'.
As Mr Roberts suggested, economists tend to fall into rival camps defined by distinct beliefs. Anthony Randazzo of the Reason Foundation, a libertarian think-tank, and Jonathan Haidt of New York University recently asked a group of academic economists both moral questions (is it fairer to divide resources equally, or according to effort?) and questions about economics. They found a high correlation between the economists' views on ethics and on economics. The correlation was not limited to matters of debate" how much governments should intervene to reduce inequality, say" but also encompassed more empirical questions, such as how fiscal austerity affects economies on the ropes. Another study found that, in supposedly empirical research, right-leaning economists discerned more economically damaging effects from increases in taxes than left-leaning ones.
That is worrying. Yet is it unusual, compared with other fields? Gunnar Myrdal, yet another Nobel-winning economist, once argued that scientists of all sorts rely on preconceptions. "Questions must be asked before answers can be given," he quipped. A survey conducted in 2003 among practitioners of six social sciences found that economics was no more political than the other fields, just more finely balanced ideologically: left-leaning economists outnumbered right-leaning ones by three to one, compared with a ratio of 30:1 in anthropology.

Q. Economics is closer to:

Solution:

The answer can be derived from the lines: Science, wrote Paul Romer, an economist, in a paper published last year, leads to broad consensus. Politics does not. Nor, it seems, does economics.

QUESTION: 15

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

DISMAL may not be the most desirable of modifiers, but economists love it when people call their discipline a science. They consider themselves the most rigorous of social scientists. Yet whereas their peers in the natural sciences can edit genes and spot new planets, economists cannot reliably predict, let alone prevent, recessions or other economic events. Indeed, some claim that economics is based not so much on empirical observation and rational analysis as on ideology.
In October Russell Roberts, a research fellow at Stanford University's Hoover Institution, tweeted that if told an economist's view on one issue, he could confidently predict his or her position on any number of other questions. Prominent bloggers on economics have since furiously defended the profession, citing cases when economists changed their minds in response to new facts, rather than hewing stubbornly to dogma. Adam Ozimek, an economist at Moody's Analytics, pointed to Narayana Kocherlakota, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis from 2009 to 2015, who flipped from hawkishness to dovishness when reality failed to affirm his warnings of a looming surge in inflation. Tyler Cowen, an economist at George Mason, published a list of issues on which his opinion has shifted (he is no longer sure that income from capital is best left untaxed). Paul Krugman, an economist and New York Times columnist, chimed in. He changed his view on the minimum wage after research found that increases up to a certain point reduced employment only marginally (this newspaper had a similar change of heart).
Economists, to be fair, are constrained in ways that many scientists are not. They cannot brew up endless recessions in test tubes to work out what causes what, for instance. Yet the same restriction applies to many hard sciences, too: geologists did not need to recreate the Earth in the lab to get a handle on plate tectonics. The essence of science is agreeing on a shared approach for generating widely accepted knowledge. Science, wrote Paul Romer, an economist, in a paper published last year, leads to broad consensus. Politics does not.
Nor, it seems, does economics. In a paper on macroeconomics published in 2006, Gregory Mankiw of Harvard University declared: 'A new consensus has emerged about the best way to understand economic fluctuations.' But after the financial crisis prompted a wrenching recession, disagreement about the causes and cures raged. 'Schlock economics' was how Robert Lucas, a Nobel-prize-winning economist, described Barack Obama's plan for a big stimulus to revive the American economy. Mr Krugman, another Nobel-winner, reckoned Mr Lucas and his sort were responsible for a 'dark age of macroeconomics'.
As Mr Roberts suggested, economists tend to fall into rival camps defined by distinct beliefs. Anthony Randazzo of the Reason Foundation, a libertarian think-tank, and Jonathan Haidt of New York University recently asked a group of academic economists both moral questions (is it fairer to divide resources equally, or according to effort?) and questions about economics. They found a high correlation between the economists' views on ethics and on economics. The correlation was not limited to matters of debate"how much governments should intervene to reduce inequality, say"but also encompassed more empirical questions, such as how fiscal austerity affects economies on the ropes. Another study found that, in supposedly empirical research, right-leaning economists discerned more economically damaging effects from increases in taxes than left-leaning ones.
That is worrying. Yet is it unusual, compared with other fields? Gunnar Myrdal, yet another Nobel-winning economist, once argued that scientists of all sorts rely on preconceptions. "Questions must be asked before answers can be given," he quipped. A survey conducted in 2003 among practitioners of six social sciences found that economics was no more political than the other fields, just more finely balanced ideologically: left-leaning economists outnumbered right-leaning ones by three to one, compared with a ratio of 30:1 in anthropology.

Q. It can be inferred from the passage that:

Solution:

The answer to this question can be derived from the lines: Anthony Randazzo of the Reason Foundation, a libertarian think-tank, and Jonathan Haidt of New York University recently asked a group of academic economists both moral questions (is it fairer to divide resources equally, or according to effort?) and questions about economics. They found a high correlation between the economists'' views on ethics and on economics. The correlation was not limited to matters of debate"how much governments should intervene to reduce inequality, say"but also encompassed more empirical questions, such as how fiscal austerity affects economies on the ropes.

Another study found that, in supposedly empirical research, right-leaning economists discerned more economically damaging effects from increases in taxes than left-leaning ones.

QUESTION: 16

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

DISMAL may not be the most desirable of modifiers, but economists love it when people call their discipline a science. They consider themselves the most rigorous of social scientists. Yet whereas their peers in the natural sciences can edit genes and spot new planets, economists cannot reliably predict, let alone prevent, recessions or other economic events. Indeed, some claim that economics is based not so much on empirical observation and rational analysis as on ideology.
In October Russell Roberts, a research fellow at Stanford University's Hoover Institution, tweeted that if told an economist's view on one issue, he could confidently predict his or her position on any number of other questions. Prominent bloggers on economics have since furiously defended the profession, citing cases when economists changed their minds in response to new facts, rather than hewing stubbornly to dogma. Adam Ozimek, an economist at Moody's Analytics, pointed to Narayana Kocherlakota, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis from 2009 to 2015, who flipped from hawkishness to dovishness when reality failed to affirm his warnings of a looming surge in inflation. Tyler Cowen, an economist at George Mason, published a list of issues on which his opinion has shifted (he is no longer sure that income from capital is best left untaxed). Paul Krugman, an economist and New York Times columnist, chimed in. He changed his view on the minimum wage after research found that increases up to a certain point reduced employment only marginally (this newspaper had a similar change of heart).
Economists, to be fair, are constrained in ways that many scientists are not. They cannot brew up endless recessions in test tubes to work out what causes what, for instance. Yet the same restriction applies to many hard sciences, too: geologists did not need to recreate the Earth in the lab to get a handle on plate tectonics. The essence of science is agreeing on a shared approach for generating widely accepted knowledge. Science, wrote Paul Romer, an economist, in a paper published last year, leads to broad consensus. Politics does not.
Nor, it seems, does economics. In a paper on macroeconomics published in 2006, Gregory Mankiw of Harvard University declared: 'A new consensus has emerged about the best way to understand economic fluctuations.' But after the financial crisis prompted a wrenching recession, disagreement about the causes and cures raged. 'Schlock economics' was how Robert Lucas, a Nobel-prize-winning economist, described Barack Obama's plan for a big stimulus to revive the American economy. Mr Krugman, another Nobel-winner, reckoned Mr Lucas and his sort were responsible for a 'dark age of macroeconomics'.
As Mr Roberts suggested, economists tend to fall into rival camps defined by distinct beliefs. Anthony Randazzo of the Reason Foundation, a libertarian think-tank, and Jonathan Haidt of New York University recently asked a group of academic economists both moral questions (is it fairer to divide resources equally, or according to effort?) and questions about economics. They found a high correlation between the economists' views on ethics and on economics. The correlation was not limited to matters of debate" how much governments should intervene to reduce inequality, say"but also encompassed more empirical questions, such as how fiscal austerity affects economies on the ropes. Another study found that, in supposedly empirical research, right-leaning economists discerned more economically damaging effects from increases in taxes than left-leaning ones.
That is worrying. Yet is it unusual, compared with other fields? Gunnar Myrdal, yet another Nobel-winning economist, once argued that scientists of all sorts rely on preconceptions. "Questions must be asked before answers can be given," he quipped. A survey conducted in 2003 among practitioners of six social sciences found that economics was no more political than the other fields, just more finely balanced ideologically: left-leaning economists outnumbered right-leaning ones by three to one, compared with a ratio of 30:1 in anthropology.

Q. The tone and attitude of the author of the passage can said to be: 

Solution:

In the given passage, the author of the passage does repeatedly point out the flaws of economists. But while doing so, he never openly attacks the subject and tries to maintain a balance on the subject.

This makes option 2 the correct answer in this case. Remember, every time he criticizes economics, he provides a counter as well. This makes option 1 and 3 too strong in nature.

QUESTION: 17

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

DISMAL may not be the most desirable of modifiers, but economists love it when people call their discipline a science. They consider themselves the most rigorous of social scientists. Yet whereas their peers in the natural sciences can edit genes and spot new planets, economists cannot reliably predict, let alone prevent, recessions or other economic events. Indeed, some claim that economics is based not so much on empirical observation and rational analysis as on ideology.
In October Russell Roberts, a research fellow at Stanford University's Hoover Institution, tweeted that if told an economist's view on one issue, he could confidently predict his or her position on any number of other questions. Prominent bloggers on economics have since furiously defended the profession, citing cases when economists changed their minds in response to new facts, rather than hewing stubbornly to dogma. Adam Ozimek, an economist at Moody's Analytics, pointed to Narayana Kocherlakota, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis from 2009 to 2015, who flipped from hawkishness to dovishness when reality failed to affirm his warnings of a looming surge in inflation. Tyler Cowen, an economist at George Mason, published a list of issues on which his opinion has shifted (he is no longer sure that income from capital is best left untaxed). Paul Krugman, an economist and New York Times columnist, chimed in. He changed his view on the minimum wage after research found that increases up to a certain point reduced employment only marginally (this newspaper had a similar change of heart).
Economists, to be fair, are constrained in ways that many scientists are not. They cannot brew up endless recessions in test tubes to work out what causes what, for instance. Yet the same restriction applies to many hard sciences, too: geologists did not need to recreate the Earth in the lab to get a handle on plate tectonics. The essence of science is agreeing on a shared approach for generating widely accepted knowledge. Science, wrote Paul Romer, an economist, in a paper published last year, leads to broad consensus. Politics does not.
Nor, it seems, does economics. In a paper on macroeconomics published in 2006, Gregory Mankiw of Harvard University declared: 'A new consensus has emerged about the best way to understand economic fluctuations.' But after the financial crisis prompted a wrenching recession, disagreement about the causes and cures raged. 'Schlock economics' was how Robert Lucas, a Nobel-prize-winning economist, described Barack Obama's plan for a big stimulus to revive the American economy. Mr Krugman, another Nobel-winner, reckoned Mr Lucas and his sort were responsible for a 'dark age of macroeconomics'.
As Mr Roberts suggested, economists tend to fall into rival camps defined by distinct beliefs. Anthony Randazzo of the Reason Foundation, a libertarian think-tank, and Jonathan Haidt of New York University recently asked a group of academic economists both moral questions (is it fairer to divide resources equally, or according to effort?) and questions about economics. They found a high correlation between the economists' views on ethics and on economics. The correlation was not limited to matters of debate"how much governments should intervene to reduce inequality, say"but also encompassed more empirical questions, such as how fiscal austerity affects economies on the ropes. Another study found that, in supposedly empirical research, right-leaning economists discerned more economically damaging effects from increases in taxes than left-leaning ones.
That is worrying. Yet is it unusual, compared with other fields? Gunnar Myrdal, yet another Nobel-winning economist, once argued that scientists of all sorts rely on preconceptions. "Questions must be asked before answers can be given," he quipped. A survey conducted in 2003 among practitioners of six social sciences found that economics was no more political than the other fields, just more finely balanced ideologically: left-leaning economists outnumbered right-leaning ones by three to one, compared with a ratio of 30:1 in anthropology.

Q. A suitable title for the passage is:

Solution:

Let''s explore the meanings of all the idioms given in the options:

All sizzle and no steak: A thing or person which fails to measure up to its description or advanced promotion.

A chilles heel: This expression refers to a vulnerable area or a weak spot, in an otherwise strong situation, that could cause one''s downfall or failure.

All in your head: If something is all in your head, it is not real.  It is in your imagination.

All at sea: confused and not certain what to do.

We can clearly see that option 4 is the best answer here.

QUESTION: 18

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

Pretentiousness is always someone else's crime. It's never a felony in the first person. You might cop to the odd personality flaw; the occasional pirouette of self-deprecation is nothing if not good manners. Most likely one of those imperfections nobody minds owning up to, something that looks charming in the right circumstances. Being absent-minded. A bad dancer. Partial to a large gin after work. But being pretentious? That's premier-league obnoxious, the team-mate of arrogance, condescension, careerism and pomposity. Pretension brunches with fraudulence and snobbery, and shops for baubles with the pseudo and the vacuous. Whatever it is you do, I'll bet you'd never think it pretentious. That's because you do it, and pretension never self-identifies. Pretentiousness happens over there. In the way he writes. In her music taste. In the way they dress. And who hasn't before described a person, place or thing as pretentious?

Solution:

This is a tough question and one that you should avoid to solve in the first attempt. The language of the question stem as well as the options will pose a severe challenge while attempting this question under time pressure. On close observation, you will see that option 3 is the only that comes close to the main idea of the paragraph.

In this paragraph, the last three lines are pivotal to understand the paragraph meaning:
Pretentiousness is always someone else's crime. It's never a felony in the first person. Pretentiousness happens over there. In the way he writes. In her music taste. In the way they dress. And who hasn't before described a person, place or thing as pretentious?

In this case, the author wishes to communicate that pretentiousness is something that we allege is present in others but we don't acknowledge our own.

*Answer can only contain numeric values
QUESTION: 19

DIRECTIONS for the question: Five sentences related to a topic are given below. Four 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. Wait, though. Rub your eyes, refocus your gaze, and really, is there any real reason why this ought to be weird?

2. Earlier this year, the 17-year-old son of Will Smith and Jada  Pinkett Smith, brother of Willow, appeared in a Louis Vuitton womenswear campaign.

3. If you wanted to choose a celebrity avatar for everything supposedly weird about The Youth, you could do worse than Jaden Smith: a gnomic tweeter, sometime crystal devotee, self-described "Future of Music, Photography, and Filmmaking," who has little attachment to the gender binary.

4. Jaden Smith, quasar of contemporary teen behaviors, wears a fringed white top and an embellished, knee-length black skirt.

5. The impulse to re examine assumptions has had practical consequences " gender-neutral college dorms and high-school bathrooms " and cultural ripples.


Solution:

Statements 3-2-4-1 form the set of connected statements. These four statements are based on the common subject of Jaden Smith.

Only statement 5 is the odd one out here as it is not directly based on this subject.

*Answer can only contain numeric values
QUESTION: 20

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. Tensions were brewing within the Gulf Cooperation Council for the past six years ever since Qatar started actively supporting the Muslim Brotherhood, a political Islamist movement that the Saudis and their close allies see as a threat to stability in West Asia.

2. The countries said they would halt all land, air and sea traffic with Qatar, eject its diplomats and order Qatari citizens to leave all the Gulf states within 14 days.

3. Saudi Arabia blames Qatar for “harbouring a multitude of terrorist and sectarian groups that aim to create instability in the region”. But such allegations can be raised against most Gulf countries.

4. The dramatic decision by Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Egypt and Yemen to suspend diplomatic ties with Qatar could have far-reaching economic and geopolitical consequences.


Solution:

4 will be the introductory sentence as it mentions what has been done by some countries  (suspending the ties with Qatar (effect)). 

1 tells that why some countries have suspended all the ties with Qatar (cause). 

3 elaborates 1. Thus 413 is a trio.

2 will be the odd one out as it says that the countries would eject Qatar’s diplomats and its citizens from all the gulf states. .

∴ Sentence 2 is the odd one out.

*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 key in this sequence of five numbers as your answer.

1. Technology has given people too many choices, and then instantly relieved them of the need to make them.

2. It now turns out that, even in a potentially unlimited digital marketplace, social networks, rankings, recommendation algorithms and the like focus people attentions on just a few items in the same way.

3. Whatever the arena, the biggest crowds will increasingly gravitate towards just a small number of the most popular hits.

4. Until recently that was seen as a natural consequence of the physical limits on production and distribution.

5. The story of mass entertainment in the internet age is a paradox.


Solution:

Sentence 3 initiated the discussion on the topic. Then 4 forms a mandatory pair with three due to noun pronoun pair of ''that'' and the fact stated in 3. Sentence 2 carries forward the idea of sentence 4. Sentence 5 brings in an example about the same theory and finally is concluded in 1.

QUESTION: 22

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

In a 1994 case, the Supreme Court clarified the issue of transformative use.
Has the material been used to help create something new or merely copied verbatim into another work?
When taking portions of copyrighted work ask yourself the following questions:
Has the material you have taken from the original work been transformed by adding new expression or meaning?
Was value added to the original by creating new information, new aesthetics, new insights, and understandings?

Q. Based on the guidelines above, which of the following would be a summary written in an example form and write the key for most appropriate option?

Solution:

By juxtaposing the quotes with the photos of endangered trees, Roger has transformed the remarks from their original purpose and used them to create a new insight.

2 – The creation of a Harry Potter encyclopedia was determined to be “slightly transformative” (because it made the Harry Potter terms and lexicons available in one volume), but this transformative quality was not enough to justify a fair use defense in light of the extensive verbatim use of text from the Harry Potter books.

3 - It did not matter whether the photographer had considered making sculptures; what mattered was that a potential market for sculptures of the photograph existed.

4 - The less you take, the more likely that your copying will be excused as a fair use. However, even if you take a small portion of a work, your copying will not be a fair use if the portion taken is the “heart” of the work, which it is in the Rolling Stone song case.

*Answer can only contain numeric values
QUESTION: 23

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. Thus, unless the plastic is specially designed to decompose in the soil, such materials can last a very long time.

2. This depends upon the plastic (polymer) and the environment to which it is exposed.

3. Commercially available plastics (polyolefin like polyethylene, polypropylene, etc.) have been further made resistant to decomposition by means of additional stabilizers like antioxidants.

4. Plastics do decompose, though not fully, over a very long period of time (in average 100 to 500 years).

5. This means that soil microorganisms that can easily attack and decompose things like wood and other formerly living materials cannot break the various kinds of strong bonds that are common to most plastics.


Solution:

Theme revolves around plastic and decomposition of it.
Opening sentence - 4 as it is independent and starts the theme.
Pairs- 3 & 1 are pairs. Look at the word” thus” in sentence 1. it is an effect.

Also Sentence 1 uses words like such material; reference to such material is made in sentence 3. Hence 3 & 1 are pairs. Also E follows 1.

5 gives an explanation of soil microorganisms inefficiency to break bonds in most plastics.
2 is the closing sentence.

*Answer can only contain numeric values
QUESTION: 24

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

1. They turn and aerate the soil and make passageways for water drainage, playing a vital role in maintaining soil fecundity and health, they truly are, as biologist E. Q. Wilson has pointed out, the little things that run the world.

2. All their materials, even their most deadly chemical weapons, are biodegradable, and when they return to the soil, they supply nutrients, restoring in the process some of those that were taken to support the colony.

3. Just as there is almost no corner of the globe untouched by human presence, there is almost no land habitat, from harsh desert to inner city, untouched by some species of ant.

4. But although they may run the world, they do not overrun it.


Solution:

3 is a good introductory sentence – because of the use of ‘ant’.
The ‘their’ of 2 refers to ants of 3.
1, 4 is a pair because of ‘run’ and ‘overrun’.

*Answer can only contain numeric values
QUESTION: 25

DIRECTIONS for the question: Five sentences related to a topic are given below. Four 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.  This, rather than self-discipline or self-control, per se, is what children would benefit from developing.

2.  What counts is the capacity to choose whether and when to persevere, to control oneself, to follow the rules rather than the simple tendency to do these things in every situation.

3. Remarkably, the predictive power of self-control is comparable to that of either general intelligence or family socioeconomic status.

4.  But such a formulation is very different from the uncritical celebration of self-discipline that we find in the field of education and throughout our culture.

5.  It’s not just that self-control isn’t always good; it’s that a lack of self-control isn’t always bad because it may “provide the basis for spontaneity, flexibility, expressions of interpersonal warmth, openness to experience, and creative recognitions.”


Solution:

The given sentences highlight the importance of self -control or self discipline and hence form a group except 3, which is equating this trait to general intelligence or family socio-economic ties.

∴ 3 is odd one out of the given sentences.

QUESTION: 26

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

All Iconia computers are available with at least one pre-loaded program from each of three categories: Word Processor – F, G, H; Databases - O, P, R; Browsers – T, U, W. When installing these programs, the company ensures that:

  • An equal number of programs from each category is loaded on a computer.
  • T and P cannot both be loaded on the same computer.
  • If R is loaded on a computer, then U must also be loaded on the computer.
  • O must be loaded on a computer if F is loaded on the computer.
  • If P is loaded on a computer, then R is not loaded on the computer.

Q. How many possible combinations of programs can be loaded on to the computer if P is the only database loaded on the computer?

Solution:

Since P is the only database installed on the computer, we know that 1 word processor and 1 browser must be loaded on the computer.

We know that P and T both cannot be loaded on the same computer.
So, the browser that is loaded could be either U or W.

We now need to load 1 word processor.

If we load F, then we must load O.
Since O is not loaded, we know that F is not loaded.

So, the word processor that is loaded could be either G or H.

Thus, there are 2 × 2 = 4 combinations.

QUESTION: 27

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

All Iconia computers are available with at least one pre-loaded program from each of three categories: Word Processor – F, G, H; Databases - O, P, R; Browsers – T, U, W. When installing these programs, the company ensures that:

  • An equal number of programs from each category is loaded on a computer.
  • T and P cannot both be loaded on the same computer.
  • If R is loaded on a computer, then U must also be loaded on the computer.
  • O must be loaded on a computer if F is loaded on the computer.
  • If P is loaded on a computer, then R is not loaded on the computer.

Q. If two browsers are loaded on the computer, which of the following cannot be true?

Solution:

Since 2 browsers are loaded, 2 data bases must be loaded.
Since P and R both cannot be loaded on a computer, the 2 databases that can be loaded are either (O, P) or (O, R).

► Case I: When (O, P) is loaded, T cannot be loaded and hence W, U are the browsers to be loaded.

Case II: When (O, R) is loaded, U should be loaded and hence either W or T is the browser to be loaded with U i.e. either (W, U) or (T, U).

In all the above possibilities, it can be checked that we do not have the browsers T and W together.

Thus, T and W cannot be the two browsers that are loaded on the computer.

QUESTION: 28

DIRECTIONS for the question: Go through the following graph/information and answer the question that follows.

As a part of the Best City contest, a news channel invited ten eminent personalities - Q, R, S, T, U, V, W, X, Y and Z - and asked each of them to vote for one of the four shortlisted cities - Bangalore, Delhi, Hyderabad and Mumbai - in each of the two categories-most beautiful city and most happening city. The sum of the number of votes obtained by a city in these two categories put together is considered to be the total number of votes for the city. The city with the maximum total number of votes is finally adjudged as the Best City
After the voting, it was found that:

(i) no two cities got the same number of votes in the most beautiful city category and the same was the case in the most happening city category. However, every city got at least one vote in each of the two categories.

(ii) No two cities got the same total number of votes and Hyderabad emerged as the winner of the contest.

(iii) In case of S and T, in each of the two categories, S voted for the same city as T. However, the same cannot be said to be true for any other pair of persons.

(iv) In the most beautiful city category, no other person voted for the city for which R voted and the same was the case in the most happening city category,

(v) "Except V, who voted for Hyderabad in both the categories and Y, who voted for Bangalore in both the categories, no other person voted for the same city in both the categories,

(vi) Q did not vote for Hyderabad in the most beautiful city category,

(vii) U and W voted for the same city in the most happening city category.

(viii) ln the most beautiful city category, only W and X Voted for Mumbai, while S voted for Bangalore.

Q. Which city did Z vote for as the most beautiful city ?

Solution:

From the given conditions , the following information can be arrived at as shown.MBC and MHC denote the most beautiful city and most happening city categories

From the above table , it can be seen that in MBC category , all the cities other than Delhi have been voted for by at least one participant. ∴ From (iv) it follows that R voted for Delhi.

Of the remaining people Q, U and Z, whose votes are not determined yet in MBC category, Q has not voted for Hyderabad.
⇒ Hyderabad can get at most 2 out of these 3 votes in the MBC category i.e. a total of at most 3 votes.

It is given that Hyderabad has obtained the highest number of total votes and that, in each ategory ., no two cities have the same number of votes and total number of votes is 10.
∴ The number of votes obtained obtained by any city must be 1,2,3 or 4 in either category.

If Hyderabad has to get highest number of votes it must get exactly 7 votes i.e. 4 votes in MHC category. In case Hyderabad has to get fewer than 7 votes and still get the highest number of votes, condition (ii) would be violated
∴ Hyderabad gets 3 votes from U,V and Z in MBC category and 4 votes in MHC category.

From the above, it can be seen that in the MBC category, Bangalore has already obtained 3 votes in MBC category . Since one city has to get 4 votes, that city has to be Bangalore .
∴ Q,S,T,Y vote for Bangalore under MBC.
 Mumbai gets 2 votes in MBC category. Since the total votes have to be distinct for each city in each of the categories, the following should be the distribution of votes.

From the above title, it follows that R voted for Mumbai in the MHC category.

Also, from (v),(iii) and above discussion, neither U  nor Z voted for Hyderabad in the MHC category. Also, they did-not vote for the same city in the MHC category.

From(vii) U and W voted for the same city in the MHC category.
They did not vote for Bangalore under MHC

They must have voted for Delhi under MHC
∴ X must have voted for Hyderabad under MHC.
∴ Z must have voted for Bangalore under MHC.
∴ S and T voted for Hyderabad under MHC
⇒ Q must have voted for Delhi under MHC
∴ The final distribution is as follows.

QUESTION: 29

DIRECTIONS for the question: Go through the following graph/information and answer the question that follows.

As a part of the Best City contest, a news channel invited ten eminent personalities - Q, R, S, T, U, V, W, X, Y and Z - and asked each of them to vote for one of the four shortlisted cities - Bangalore, Delhi, Hyderabad and Mumbai - in each of the two categories-most beautiful city and most happening city. The sum of the number of votes obtained by a city in these two categories put together is considered to be the total number of votes for the city. The city with the maximum total number of votes is finally adjudged as the Best City
After the voting, it was found that,

(i) no two cities got the same number of votes in the most beautiful city category and the same was the case in the most happening city category. However, every city got at least one vote in each of the two categories.

(ii) No two cities got the same total number of votes and Hyderabad emerged as the winner of the contest.

(iii) In case of S and T, in each of the two categories, S voted for the same city as T. However, the same cannot be said to be true for any other pair of persons.

(iv) In the most beautiful city category, no other person voted for the city for which R voted and the same was the case in the most happening city category,

(v) "Except V, who voted for Hyderabad in both the categories and Y, who voted for Bangalore in both the categories, no other person voted for the same city in both the categories,

(vi) Q did not vote for Hyderabad in the most beautiful city category,

(vii) U and W voted for the same city in the most happening city category.

(viii) ln the most beautiful city category, only W and X Voted for Mumbai, while S voted for Bangalore.

Q. Which of the following pairs of persons voted for Bangalore as the most beautiful city?​

Solution:

From the given conditions , the following information can be arrived at as shown. MBC and MHC denote the most beautiful city and most happening city categories

From the above table , it can be seen that in MBC category , all the cities other than Delhi have been voted for by at least one participant. ∴ From (iv) it follows that R voted for Delhi.

Of the remaining people Q, U and Z, whose votes are not determined yet in MBC category, Q has not voted for Hyderabad.
⇒ Hyderabad can get at most 2 out of these 3 votes in the MBC category i.e. a total of at most 3 votes.

It is given that Hyderabad has obtained the highest number of total votes and that, in each ategory ., no two cities have the same number of votes and total number of votes is 10.
∴ The number of votes obtained obtained by any city must be 1,2,3 or 4 in either category.

If Hyderabad has to get highest number of votes it must get exactly 7 votes i.e. 4 votes in MHC category. In case Hyderabad has to get fewer than 7 votes and still get the highest number of votes, condition (ii) would be violated
∴ Hyderabad gets 3 votes from U,V and Z in MBC category and 4 votes in MHC category.

From the above, it can be seen that in the MBC category, Bangalore has already obtained 3 votes in MBC category . Since one city has to get 4 votes, that city has to be Bangalore .
∴ Q,S,T,Y vote for Bangalore under MBC.
 Mumbai gets 2 votes in MBC category. Since the total votes have to be distinct for each city in each of the categories, the following should be the distribution of votes.

From the above title, it follows that R voted for Mumbai in the MHC category.

Also, from (v),(iii) and above discussion, neither U  nor Z voted for Hyderabad in the MHC category. Also, they did-not vote for the same city in the MHC category.

From(vii) U and W voted for the same city in the MHC category.
They did not vote for Bangalore under MHC
They must have voted for Delhi under MHC
∴ X must have voted for Hyderabad under MHC.
∴ Z must have voted for Bangalore under MHC.
∴ S and T voted for Hyderabad under MHC
⇒ Q must have voted for Delhi under MHC
∴ The final distribution is as follows.

QUESTION: 30

DIRECTIONS for the question: Go through the following graph/information and answer the question that follows.
As a part of the Best City contest, a news channel invited ten eminent personalities - Q, R, S, T, U, V, W, X, Y and Z - and asked each of them to vote for one of the four shortlisted cities - Bangalore, Delhi, Hyderabad and Mumbai - in each of the two categories-most beautiful city and most happening city. The sum of the number of votes obtained by a city in these two categories put together is considered to be the total number of votes for the city. The city with the maximum total number of votes is finally adjudged as the Best City
After the voting, it was found that,

(i) no two cities got the same number of votes in the most beautiful city category and the same was the case in the most happening city category. However, every city got at least one vote in each of the two categories.

(ii) No two cities got the same total number of votes and Hyderabad emerged as the winner of the contest.

(iii) In case of S and T, in each of the two categories, S voted for the same city as T. However, the same cannot be said to be true for any other pair of persons.

(iv) In the most beautiful city category, no other person voted for the city for which R voted and the same was the case in the most happening city category,

(v) "Except V, who voted for Hyderabad in both the categories and Y, who voted for Bangalore in both the categories, no other person voted for the same city in both the categories,

(vi) Q did not vote for Hyderabad in the most beautiful city category,

(vii) U and W voted for the same city in the most happening city category.

(viii) ln the most beautiful city category, only W and X Voted for Mumbai, while S voted for Bangalore.

Q. Which of the following pairs of persons voted for the same city in the most happening city category?

Solution:

From the given conditions , the following information can be arrived at as shown.MBC and MHC denote the most beautiful city and most happening city categories

From the above table , it can be seen that in MBC category , all the cities other than Delhi have been voted for by at least one participant. ∴ From (iv) it follows that R voted for Delhi.

Of the remaining people Q, U and Z, whose votes are not determined yet in MBC category, Q has not voted for Hyderabad.
⇒ Hyderabad can get at most 2 out of these 3 votes in the MBC category i.e. a total of at most 3 votes.

It is given that Hyderabad has obtained the highest number of total votes and that, in each ategory ., no two cities have the same number of votes and total number of votes is 10.
∴ The number of votes obtained obtained by any city must be 1,2,3 or 4 in either category.

If Hyderabad has to get highest number of votes it must get exactly 7 votes i.e. 4 votes in MHC category. In case Hyderabad has to get fewer than 7 votes and still get the highest number of votes, condition (ii) would be violated
∴ Hyderabad gets 3 votes from U,V and Z in MBC category and 4 votes in MHC category.

From the above, it can be seen that in the MBC category, Bangalore has already obtained 3 votes in MBC category . Since one city has to get 4 votes, that city has to be Bangalore .
∴ Q,S,T,Y vote for Bangalore under MBC.
 Mumbai gets 2 votes in MBC category. Since the total votes have to be distinct for each city in each of the categories, the following should be the distribution of votes.

From the above title, it follows that R voted for Mumbai in the MHC category.

Also, from (v),(iii) and above discussion, neither U  nor Z voted for Hyderabad in the MHC category. Also, they did-not vote for the same city in the MHC category.

From (vii) U and W voted for the same city in the MHC category.
They did not vote for Bangalore under MHC
They must have voted for Delhi under MHC
∴ X must have voted for Hyderabad under MHC.
∴ Z must have voted for Bangalore under MHC.
∴ S and T voted for Hyderabad under MHC
⇒ Q must have voted for Delhi under MHC
∴ The final distribution is as follows.

QUESTION: 31

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

Six teams, A, B, C, D, E and F participate in a football tournament. In the first round each team |plays one match each against every other team. The winning team is awarded 3 points and the loosing team 1 point. In case of a draw each team is awarded 2 points. The team with the highest number of points enters the finals. The semifinals are played between the next two teams. The winner of the semifinals enters the finals. The winner of the finals is declared the champion. There can be no draws in the finals and the semifinals. The results of all matches played by the teams in the end of the tournament is given below.

Q. Semifinals are played between teams:

Solution:

In the first round each team plays one match with every team.

∴ Each team plays 6-1=5 matches.
∴ Teams which play only 5 matches do not enter the semifinals.
∴ Teams B, C, and D do not enter the semifinals. Team which plays 6 matches enters the finals directly or loses the semifinals i.e., teams A and E. Winner of the semifinals plays 7 matches i.e., team F.

Case I : If semifinals are between A and F and E enters finals directly.
∴ In round 1, A wins 3 matches and draws 2
( A loses the semifinal).
∴ Score = 3 × 3 + 2 × 2 = 13.
E's score at the end of round 1, = maximum 1 × 3 + 1 × 1 + 3 × 2 ( E loses the finals) = 3 + 1 + 6 = 10.
But E's score > A's score for E to enter finals directly.
∴ Case I is not possible.

Case II:  Case I is not possible, therefore, Semifinals are between E and F and A enters finals directly.

Finals take place between A and F
Semifinals are played between E and F, as explained above.

QUESTION: 32

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

Six teams, A, B, C, D, E and F participate in a football tournament. In the first round each team |plays one match each against every other team. The winning team is awarded 3 points and the loosing team 1 point. In case of a draw each team is awarded 2 points. The team with the highest number of points enters the finals. The semifinals are played between the next two teams. The winner of the semifinals enters the finals. The winner of the finals is declared the champion. There can be no draws in the finals and the semifinals. The results of all matches played by the teams in the end of the tournament is given below.

Q. Find the points of the semifinalists before the semifinals.

Solution:

In the first round each team plays one match with every team.

∴ Each team plays 6-1=5 matches.
∴ Teams which play only 5 matches do not enter the semifinals.
∴ Teams B, C, and D do not enter the semifinals. Team which plays 6 matches enters the finals directly or loses the semifinals i.e., teams A and E. Winner of the semifinals plays 7 matches i.e., team F.
Case I : If semifinals are between A and F and E enters finals directly.
∴ In round 1, A wins 3 matches and draws 2
(∵ A loses the semifinal).
∴ Score = 3 × 3 + 2 × 2 = 13.
E''s score at the end of round 1, = maximum 1 × 3 + 1 × 1 + 3 × 2 (∵ E loses the finals) = 3 + 1 + 6 = 10.
But E''s score > A''s score for E to enter finals directly.
∴ Case I is not possible.

Case II:  case I is not possible, therefore, Semifinals are between E and F and A enters finals directly.
Finals take place between A and F.
In the first round:
E won 1 match, lost 1, and draw 3 matches.
∴ Score = 1 × 3 + 1 × 1 + 3 × 2 = 3 + 1 + 6 = 10
F won 2 matches, lost 1 and draw 2.
∴ Score = 2 × 3 + 1 × 1 + 2 × 2 = 6 + 1 + 4 = 11.

QUESTION: 33

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

Six teams, A, B, C, D, E and F participate in a football tournament. In the first round each team |plays one match each against every other team. The winning team is awarded 3 points and the loosing team 1 point. In case of a draw each team is awarded 2 points. The team with the highest number of points enters the finals. The semifinals are played between the next two teams. The winner of the semifinals enters the finals. The winner of the finals is declared the champion. There |can be no draws in the finals and the semifinals. The results of all matches played by the teams in the end of the tournament is given below.

Q. Which of the following is/are true?
I. The top three rankings at the end of the tournament are same as those at the end of the first round.
II. F won the maximum number of matches in the first round.
III. Team A has the highest score at the end of the first round.

Solution:

In the first round each team plays one match with every team.

∴ Each team plays 6 - 1 = 5 matches.
∴ Teams which play only 5 matches do not enter the semifinals.
∴ Teams B, C, and D do not enter the semifinals. Team which plays 6 matches enters the finals directly or loses the semifinals i.e., teams A and E. Winner of the semifinals plays 7 matches i.e., team F.

Case I : If semifinals are between A and F and E enters finals directly.
∴ In round 1, A wins 3 matches and draws 2
(∵ A loses the semifinal).
∴ Score = 3 × 3 + 2 × 2 = 13.
E's score at the end of round 1, = maximum 1 × 3 + 1 × 1 + 3 × 2 (∵ E loses the finals) = 3 + 1 + 6 = 10.
But E's score > A's score for E to enter finals directly.
∴ Case I is not possible.

Case II:  case I is not possible, therefore, Semifinals are between E and F and A enters finals directly.
Finals take place between A and F.
I. A's score at the end of 1st round = 3 × 3 + 2 × 2 = 9 + 4 = 13.
E's score = 10 and F's score = 11.
∴ Rankings are A →1st, F → 2nd, and E → 3rd.
Rankings at the end of the tournament are
F →.1st, A → 2nd, and E → 3rd.
∴ I is not true.
II. A won the maximum number of matches in the 1st round i.e., 3 matches.
F won only 2 matches in the 1st round
∴ II is not true.
III. True. Hence, [3]

*Answer can only contain numeric values
QUESTION: 34

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

Four colors-White, Blue, Green and Orange- are used to paint a cube such that each face is painted in exactly one color and each color is painted on at least one face. The cube is now perfectly and completely cut into exactly 120 identical cuboids by making the least possible number of cuts

Q. What is the maximum possible number of cuboids which have more than one face painted in the same color? (in numerical value)


Solution:

Here we have to consider the least possible number of cuts needed for getting 120 pieces.
120 = 4 × 5 × 6 ⇒ (4 - 1) + (5 -1) + (6 - 1) = 12

As shown in the above figure, any face can have 30 or 24 or 20 cuboids. Any edge can have 6 or 5 or 4 cuboids.
To  get the maximum possible number of cuboids which have more than one color on them, we have to use one color on three faces , such that any two faces are adjacent to each other.
∴ Number of such cuboids at the corners = 1
Number of such cuboids on the edges (but not corners ) = 3 + 4 + 5 = 12
∴ Total required cuboids = 13.

*Answer can only contain numeric values
QUESTION: 35

DIRECTIONS for the question: Read the information given below and answer the question that follows.
Four colors-White, Blue, Green and Orange- are used to paint a cube such that each face is painted in exactly one color and each color is painted on at least one face. The cube is now perfectly and completely cut into exactly 120 identical cuboids by making the least possible number of cuts

Q. What is the least possible number of cuboids which have no face painted Green? (in numerical value)


Solution:

Here we have to consider the least possible number of cuts needed for getting 120 pieces.
120 = 4 × 5 × 6 ⇒ (4 - 1) + (5 - 1) + (6 - 1) = 12

As shown in the above figure , any face can have 30 or 24 or 20 cuboids. Any edge can have 6 or 5 or 4 cuboids.

To get the least possible number of such cuboids, green is to be painted on three faces (i.e. maximum possible number of faces ) such that there are least possible common edges i.e. two
Maximum possible number of cuboids with green colour on them = 6{(5 + 4 + 5) - 2} = 72.
∴ The minimum number of cuboids with no green colour on them = 120 - 72 = 48

*Answer can only contain numeric values
QUESTION: 36

DIRECTIONS for the question: Read the information given below and answer the question that follows.
Four colors-White, Blue, Green and Orange- are used to paint a cube such that each face is painted in exactly one color and each color is painted on at least one face. The cube is now perfectly and completely cut into exactly 120 identical cuboids by making the least possible number of cuts.

Q. What is the least possible number of cuboids which have at most one color on them? (in numerical value)


Solution:

Here we have to consider the least possible number of cuts needed for getting 120 pieces.

120 = 4 ×5 × 6 ⇒ (4 - 1) + (5 - 1) + (6 - 1) = 12

As shown in the above figure , any face can have 30 or 24 or 20 cuboids. Any edge can have 6 or 5 or 4 cuboids.

To get least possible number of such cuboids all the cuboids on the edges (and corners) must have more than one color which is possible when opposite faces are painted in the same color. (i.e two pairs of opposite faces )

Number of cuboids with three colors on them = 8

Number of cuboids with two colors on them
= 4 × (2 + 3 + 4) = 36

∴ Number of required cuboids (i.e. with exactly one color or no color on them) = 120 - { 36 + 8 } = 76.

QUESTION: 37

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

Three persons Ram, Sham and Mohan – play a series of games with match sticks. In each game, they place some sticks on a table and pick the sticks in turns, starting with Ram, then Sham then Mohan and then Ram and so on.  Each person, in his turn, has to pick either one or two sticks. In any game, the number of sticks with which the game starts is termed as the Basic Number of that game. In each game, they get point according to the following conditions.

(i) The person who picks the last Sticks is the winner of that game and hence gets two points.

(ii) The person whose turn is next to the winner of that game gets one point.

(iii) The person whose turn is before the winner of that game gets no points.

Also each person plays intelligently and tries to get the maximum possible points.

Q. For which of the following Basic Number will Ram win?

Solution:

Each person wants to win, and if it is not possible, he wants the person next to him to lose and the person before him should win.
IF there are 3 sticks at the beginning, even if Ram picks one or two sticks, Sham will definitely win.

If there are 4 sticks. Ram picks only one stick such that Sham does not win. And hence Ram gets one point and Mohan gets two points.

If there are 5 sticks, Ram picks one stick and hence Sham picks one stick such that he gets one point as in previous case (where Ram gets one point). Now Ram gets two points.

If there are 6 sticks, Ram picks two sticks and wins as in the previous case.

If there are 7 sticks, even if Ram picks one or two sticks, Sham will definitely win.

If there are 8 sticks, Ram picks up one stick so that Sham cannot win and Mohan wins. Hence Ram gets one point.

If there are 9 sticks, Ram picks up one sticks and Sham also picks up one sticks (for Mohan must not be the winner). So Mohan is left with 7 sticks in which case Ram wins.
If these are 10 sticks, Ram picks up two sticks and hence he wins (as in the previous case)
We can generalize this as follows (for n =1, 2, ---)

Only 34 is of the form 4n + 1 or 4n + 2.

QUESTION: 38

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

Three persons Ram, Sham and Mohan – play a series of games with match sticks. In each game, they place some sticks on a table and pick the sticks in turns, starting with Ram, then Sham then Mohan and then Ram and so on.  Each person, in his turn, has to pick either one or two sticks. In any game, the number of sticks with which the game starts is termed as the Basic Number of that game. In each game, they get point according to the following conditions.

(i) The person who picks the last Sticks is the winner of that game and hence gets two points.

(ii) The person whose turn is next to the winner of that game gets one point.

(iii) The person whose turn is before the winner of that game gets no points.

Also each person plays intelligently and tries to get the maximum possible points.

Q. For which of the following Basic Number will Sham get no points?

Solution:

Each person wants to win, and if it is not possible, he wants the person next to him to lose and the person before him should win.

If there are 3 sticks at the beginning, even if Ram picks one or two sticks, Sham will definitely win.

If there are 4 sticks. Ram picks only one stick such that Sham does not win. And hence Ram gets one point and Mohan gets two points.

If there are 5 sticks, Ram picks one stick and hence Sham picks one stick such that he gets one point as in previous case (where Ram gets one point). Now Ram gets two points.

If there are 6 sticks, Ram picks two sticks and wins as in the previous case.

If there are 7 sticks, even if Ram picks one or two sticks, Sham will definitely win.

If there are 8 sticks, Ram picks up one stick so that Sham cannot win and Mohan wins. Hence Ram gets one point.

If there are 9 sticks, Ram picks up one sticks and Sham also picks up one sticks (for Mohan must not be the winner). So Mohan is left with 7 sticks in which case Ram wins.
If these are 10 sticks, Ram picks up two sticks and hence he wins (as in the previous case)

We can generalize this as follows (for n = 1, 2, ---)

Sham gets no points if Mohan wins i.e., if the sticks are 4n

QUESTION: 39

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

Three persons Ram, Sham and Mohan – play a series of games with match sticks. In each game, they place some sticks on a table and pick the sticks in turns, starting with Ram, then Sham then Mohan and then Ram and so on.  Each person, in his turn, has to pick either one or two sticks. In any game, the number of sticks with which the game starts is termed as the Basic Number of that game. In each game, they get point according to the following conditions.

(i) The person who picks the last Sticks is the winner of that game and hence gets two points.

(ii) The person whose turn is next to the winner of that game gets one point.

(iii) The person whose turn is before the winner of that game gets no points.

Q. If they play a total of 500 games with each game having a different Basic Number from 1 to 500, then the total number of points that Ram gets is

Solution:

Each person wants to win, and if it is not possible, he wants the person next to him to lose and the person before him should win.

If there are 3 sticks at the beginning, even if Ram picks one or two sticks, Sham will definitely win.

If there are 4 sticks. Ram picks only one stick such that Sham does not win. And hence Ram gets one point and Mohan gets two points.

If there are 5 sticks, Ram picks one stick and hence Sham picks one stick such that he gets one point as in previous case (where Ram gets one point). Now Ram gets two points.

If there are 6 sticks, Ram picks two sticks and wins as in the previous case.

If there are 7 sticks, even if Ram picks one or two sticks, Sham will definitely win.

If there are 8 sticks, Ram picks up one stick so that Sham cannot win and Mohan wins. Hence Ram gets one point.

If there are 9 sticks, Ram picks up one sticks and Sham also picks up one sticks (for Mohan must not be the winner). So Mohan is left with 7 sticks in which case Ram wins.
If these are 10 sticks, Ram picks up two sticks and hence he wins (as in the previous case)

We can generalize this as follows (for n =1, 2, ---)

For every four games, Ram wins two games (i.e. 2 × 2 = 4 points), Shyam wins one game (i.e., 0 points for Ram) and Mohan wins one game (i.e. 1 point for Ram). Hence for every four games, Ram gets 5 points.

So total points = 

QUESTION: 40

DIRECTIONS for the question: Go through the pie chart/s given below and answer the question that follows.

The following two pie charts give the details of the number of professors in the age group of 35 to 50 years, in different departments, at an engineering college, during the year 2003 and the year 2006. No faculty joined or left the college or shifted to another department during the period from 2003 to 2006.

Department Wise Distribution of Professors in the Age Group of 35 to 50 years

Q. If the number of professors in the college who crossed the age of 50 years between 2003 and 2006 is represented by x, the minimum possible value of is​

Solution:

The number of professors in the different departments in 2003 and 2006 in the age group 35-50 are as follows.

At least twelve professors would have crossed the age of 50 in the Mechanical department, seven in the  Civil department and two in Electrical department.

∴ At least 12(24-12) + 7(16-9) + 2(20-18) = 21 professors would have crossed the age of 50 from 2003 to 2006.

QUESTION: 41

DIRECTIONS for the question: Go through the pie chart/s given below and answer the question that follows.

The following two pie charts give the details of the number of professors in the age group of 35 to 50 years, in different departments, at an engineering college, during the year 2003 and the year 2006. No faculty joined or left the college or shifted to another department during the period from 2003 to 2006.

Department Wise Distribution of Professors in the Age Group of 35 to 50 years

Q. What is the minimum possible number of professors who crossed the age of 35 years between 2003 and 2006?

Solution:

Atleast 16  i.e. 9 in Computers and 7 Electronics departments crossed the age of 35 years.

QUESTION: 42

DIRECTIONS for the question: Go through the pie chart/s given below and answer the question that follows.

The following two pie charts give the details of the number of professors in the age group of 35 to 50 years, in different departments, at an engineering college, during the year 2003 and the year 2006. No faculty joined or left the college or shifted to another department during the period from 2003 to 2006.

Department Wise Distribution of Professors in the Age Group of 35 to 50 years

Q. If all lecturers who attain an age of 32 years get promoted as assistant professors and all assistant professors on attaining an age of 35 years get promoted as professors, then the number of assistant professors in the college in 2003 was the maximum in which department?

Solution:

We do not know the number of professors who crossed the age of 50, between the years 2003 and 2006, in the different departments.

So, the number of new entrants into the age group of 35-50 cannot be determined.

Since number of people who crossed 35 in 2006 (who were above 32 in 2003) cannot be determined, we cannot find out which department had the highest number of assistant professors in 2003.

QUESTION: 43

DIRECTIONS for the question: Go through the pie chart/s given below and answer the question that follows.

The following two pie charts give the details of the number of professors in the age group of 35 to 50 years, in different departments, at an engineering college, during the year 2003 and the year 2006. No faculty joined or left the college or shifted to another department during the period from 2003 to 2006.
Department Wise Distribution of Professors in the Age Group of 35 to 50 years

Q. If the number of professors in the 47 to 50 years age group in the college in 2003 was the minimum possible, then which of the following statements is definitely true, given that the college had no professor over the age of 50 years in the year 2003?

Solution:

Since a minimum number of professors were in the 47-50 age group in 2003, the number of professors who crossed the age of 50 in 2006 is minimum which is 21. Even though maximum number of professors crossed the age of 50, in the mechanical department, their average age need not be the highest.

Similarly, nothing can be said about the average age of faculty in the civil engineering department. The number of professors who crossed the age of 50 between 2003 and 2006 is at least 21.

QUESTION: 44

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

A and B are two traders who trade in gold futures at the commodity exchange. They trade from Monday (Day 1) to Friday (Day 5). On Day 1, A started with 100 grams of gold and Rs.50000, while B started with 50 grams of gold and Rs. 100000. Gold is sold or bought only in multiples of 10 grams and at the beginning of Day 1, the price of 10 grams of gold was Rs.8600, while at the end of Day 5, the price was Rs.8400. At the end of each day, the price of 10 grams of gold went up by Rs. 200, or else it came down by Rs.200. Both A and B took buying and selling decisions, at the end of each trading day. On each day the beginning price of gold was the same as the ending price on the previous day. Below are some additional facts about how A and B traded over the five trading days. Each day if the price went up, A sold 10 grams of gold at the closing price. On the other hand, each day if the price went down, he bought 10 grams at the closing price.
If on any day, the closing price per 10 grams of gold was above Rs.8800, then B sold 10 grams of gold, and if the closing price was below Rs.8400, he bought 10 grams, all at the closing price.

Q. If both A and B sold gold on a particular day from Day 1 to Day 5, then what was the closing price of gold per 10 gms on Day 3?

Solution:

It is given that A started with 100 grams of gold and Rs.50000 while B started with 50 grams of gold and Rs. 100000.

Given that both A and B sold gold on the same day of the week. This can only happen when the price of gold is Rs.9000.

∴ The only possible price movement of gold, at the end of each day from Day 1 to Day 5 is Rs.8800, Rs.9000, Rs.8800, Rs.8600 and Rs. 8400. 

∴ The closing price of gold on Day 3 was Rs. 8800.

QUESTION: 45

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

A and B are two traders who trade in gold futures at the commodity exchange. They trade from Monday (Day 1) to Friday (Day 5). On Day 1, A started with 100 grams of gold and Rs.50000, while B started with 50 grams of gold and Rs. 100000. Gold is sold or bought only in multiples of 10 grams and at the beginning of Day 1, the price of 10 grams of gold was Rs.8600, while at the end of Day 5, the price was Rs.8400. At the end of each day, the price of 10 grams of gold went up by Rs. 200, or else it came down by Rs.200. Both A and B took buying and selling decisions, at the end of each trading day. On each day the beginning price of gold was the same as the ending price on the previous day. Below are some additional facts about how A and B traded over the five trading days. Each day if the price went up, A sold 10 grams of gold at the closing price. On the other hand, each day if the price went down, he bought 10 grams at the closing price.
If on any day, the closing price per 10 grams of gold was above Rs.8800, then B sold 10 grams of gold, and if the closing price was below Rs.8400, he bought 10 grams, all at the closing price.

Q. If both A and B bought gold on a particular day, while on the next day, A sold but B did not buy gold, then what was the beginning  price of gold per 10 gms on Day 4?

Solution:

It is given that A started with 100 grams of gold and Rs.50000 while B started with 50 grams of gold and Rs. 100000.
If both A and B bought gold on the same day and only A sold on the next day, the only possibility is that the price of gold was Rs.8200 on the day they bought, Rs.8400 on the day before it and Rs.8400 on the day after it. i.e. on the day A alone sold. This is possible in the following ways when the closing prices from Day 1 to Day 5, are given.

Case I  : 8800,8600,8400,8200,8400

Case II : 8400,8200,8400, 8200, 8400

Case III : 8400, 8200, 8400, 8600, 8400

Case IV : 8400,8600,8400,8200,8400

In all the cases the closing price of Day 3 or the price on the morning of Day 4 is Rs. 8400.

QUESTION: 46

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

A and B are two traders who trade in gold futures at the commodity exchange. They trade from Monday (Day 1) to Friday (Day 5). On Day 1, A started with 100 grams of gold and Rs.50000, while B started with 50 grams of gold and Rs. 100000. Gold is sold or bought only in multiples of 10 grams and at the beginning of Day 1, the price of 10 grams of gold was Rs.8600, while at the end of Day 5, the price was Rs.8400. At the end of each day, the price of 10 grams of gold went up by Rs. 200, or else it came down by Rs.200. Both A and B took buying and selling decisions, at the end of each trading day. On each day the beginning price of gold was the same as the ending price on the previous day. Below are some additional facts about how A and B traded over the five trading days. Each day if the price went up, A sold 10 grams of gold at the closing price. On the other hand, each day if the price went down, he bought 10 grams at the closing price.
If on any day, the closing price per 10 grams of gold was above Rs.8800, then B sold 10 grams of gold, and if the closing price was below Rs.8400, he bought 10 grams, all at the closing price.

Q. What could have been the minimum possible value of the total amount of cash with both A and B together at the end of Day 5?

Solution:

It is given that A started with 100 grams of gold and Rs.50000 while B started with 50 grams of gold and Rs. 100000.

The minimum possible total amount with A and B happens when they have bought the maximum amount of gold. As the price at the beginning of Day 1 and that at the end of Day 5 is given it is clear that A would have bought three times and sold two times.
∴ We have to find the maximum number of time B would have bought gold. B would have bought at most three times when the closing price at the end of each day from Day 1 to Day 5 was 8400, 8200, 8000, 8200, 8400.
∴ Change in amount with A
= (-8400) + (-8200) + (-8000) + 8200 + 8400
= Rs.8000 decrease
Change in amount with B
= (-8200) + (-8000) + (-8200) = Rs.24400 decrease
∴ Change in total amount = Rs.32400 decrease
∴ Total final amount = 150000 - 32400 = Rs. 117600.

QUESTION: 47

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

A and B are two traders who trade in gold futures at the commodity exchange. They trade from Monday (Day 1) to Friday (Day 5). On Day 1, A started with 100 grams of gold and Rs.50000, while B started with 50 grams of gold and Rs. 100000. Gold is sold or bought only in multiples of 10 grams and at the beginning of Day 1, the price of 10 grams of gold was Rs.8600, while at the end of Day 5, the price was Rs.8400. At the end of each day, the price of 10 grams of gold went up by Rs. 200, or else it came down by Rs.200. Both A and B took buying and selling decisions, at the end of each trading day. On each day the beginning price of gold was the same as the ending price on the previous day. Below are some additional facts about how A and B traded over the five trading days. Each day if the price went up, A sold 10 grams of gold at the closing price. On the other hand, each day if the price went down, he bought 10 grams at the closing price.
If on any day, the closing price per 10 grams of gold was above Rs.8800, then B sold 10 grams of gold, and if the closing price was below Rs.8400, he bought 10 grams, all at the closing price.

Q. If A had 40 grams of gold more than what B had at the end of Day 5, then what was the closing price of gold per 10 gms on Day 3?

Solution:

It is given that A started with 100 grams of gold and Rs.50000 while B started with 50 grams of gold and Rs. 100000.

If A had 40 grams of gold more than B, it means that B bought gold exactly twice  during  the  week. This can happen only if the closing prices of gold from Day 1 to Day 5 are Rs.8400, Rs.8200, Rs.8400, Rs.8200 and Rs.8400 respectively.

∴ Price of gold at the end of Day 3 was Rs. 8400.

QUESTION: 48

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

Atul, Beena, Chetan, Deepak, Eknath and Fareed are six friends. All of them are MBA's but have different specialisations and backgrounds.

  • Atul is not an Engineer and has specialized in Finance.
  • Chetan is not a CA and has not specialised in Operations.
  • Eknath is a Science graduate and has specialised in Marketing.
  • Fareed is an Arts graduate and has specialized in Marketing.
  • Two of them have specialized in Operations and three in Marketing.
  • There is one Engineer, two Science graduates, two CAs and one Arts graduate.
  • Beena is neither an Engineer nor a CA.

Q. Who among the following is not an engineer?

Solution:

From the given information, we can make the following table:

Both Beena and Deepak are not engineers.

QUESTION: 49

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

Atul, Beena, Chetan, Deepak, Eknath and Fareed are six friends. All of them are MBA's but have different specialisations and backgrounds.

  • Atul is not an Engineer and has specialized in Finance.
  • Chetan is not a CA and has not specialised in Operations.
  • Eknath is a Science graduate and has specialised in Marketing.
  • Fareed is an Arts graduate and has specialized in Marketing.
  • Two of them have specialized in Operations and three in Marketing.
  • There is one Engineer, two Science graduates, two CAs and one Arts graduate.
  • Beena is neither an Engineer nor a CA.

Q. Which of the following is the right combination of name, background and specialisation?

Solution:

From the given information, we can make the following table:

Clearly Deepak - CA – Operations is the right combination.

QUESTION: 50

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

Atul, Beena, Chetan, Deepak, Eknath and Fareed are six friends. All of them are MBA's but have different specialisations and backgrounds.

  • Atul is not an Engineer and has specialized in Finance.
  • Chetan is not a CA and has not specialised in Operations.
  • Eknath is a Science graduate and has specialised in Marketing.
  • Fareed is an Arts graduate and has specialized in Marketing.
  • Two of them have specialized in Operations and three in Marketing.
  • There is one Engineer, two Science graduates, two CAs and one Arts graduate.
  • Beena is neither an Engineer nor a CA.

Q. Apart from Eknath and Fareed, who has specialization in Marketing?

Solution:

From the given information, we can make the following table:

Apart from Eknath and Fareed, Chetan has specialization in Marketing.

QUESTION: 51

DIRECTIONS for the question: Solve the following question and mark the best possible option.
The largest circle which is possible to draw inside triangle PQR touches the triangle at S, T and U, as shown in the diagram.

The size of ∠STU = 55°. What is the size of  ∠PQR?

Solution:

By the Alternate Segment Theorem ∠QUS = 55°.

Tangents to a circle from an exterior point are equal, so QU = QS and hence ∠QSU = ∠QUS = 55°.
So, ∠PQR = 180° – 2 × 55°  = 70°.

QUESTION: 52

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

A quadratic function f(x) attains a maximum of 10 at x = 2. The value of the function at x = 0 is 4. Find the value of f(x) at x = 5.

Solution:

Let f(x) = ax2 + bx + c
► F(2) = 10 → 4a + 2b + c = 10
► F(0) = 4 → c = 4.

will be 0, 2ax + b = 0 → 4a + b = 0

Solving these we get
► a = -1.5  
► b = 6
► c = 4.
So, f(x) = -1.5x2 + 6x + 4 
at x = 5 gives -3.5.

QUESTION: 53

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

What is the smallest natural number that is made up of each of the digits 1 through 9 exactly once and is divisible by 99?

Solution:

The first thing we note is that 1 + 2 + ... + 9 = 45 and as the sum of the digits is divisible by 9 then any arrangement of those digits will produce a number that is divisible by 9. So our challenge reduces to finding the smallest number that is divisible by 11.

To test if a number is divisible by 11 we find a, the sum of digits in the odd positions, and b, the sum of digits in the even positions. If a – b is divisible by 11 then so too is the number; for example, 95953: 9 + 9 + 3 = 21, 5 + 5 = 10, and as 21 – 10 = 11 then we know that 95953 is divisible by 11.

Let us begin with the smallest 9-digit number using each of the digits 1 through 9: 123456789. The first set, {1, 3, 5, 7, 9}, has sum 25 and the second set, {2, 4, 6, 8}, has sum 20. As the difference is 5 we know that the number is not divisible by 11.

However, for the difference to increase from 5 to 11 we need to increase the sum of the first set by 3 and decrease the sum of the second set by 3. This can be achieved by swapping 1 and 4, 3 and 6, or 5 and 8.

Swapping 1 and 4 gives the two sets {4, 3, 5, 7, 9} and {2, 1, 6, 8}. But before we merge these numbers we must place them in ascending order to keep the number as small as possible: {3, 4, 5, 7, 9} and {1, 2, 6, 8}. This produces the number 314256789.
By swapping 3 and 6 we get {1, 5, 6, 7, 9} and {2, 3, 4, 8}, producing the number 125364789.

Finally by swapping 5 and 8 we get {1, 3, 7, 8, 9} and {2, 4, 5, 6}, producing the number 123475869.
Hence the smallest number using the digits 1 through 9 which is divisible by 99 is 123475869.

*Answer can only contain numeric values
QUESTION: 54

DIRECTIONS for the question: Solve the following question and write the best possible option.
In a race of 500 meters, R beats S by 20 m and N by 50 m. If S and N are running a race of 1200 m with S running exactly at the same speed as before and N increases his speed by 20 %, then who wins the race and by how many meters?
1. N, 233.34 m
2. S, 116.64 m
3. N, 133.34 m
4. The race ends in a dead heat.


Solution:

When R runs 500 meters, S runs 480 m and N runs 450 m.

In a 1200 m race, if they continue with the same pace then:
When S has run 1200 m, then N runs 1200 * 450/480 = 1125 m

But N runs at 20% more than his previous speed, thus he would cover = 1125 * 6/5 = 1350 m

Hence, when N runs 1350 m, then S runs 1200 m.

When N runs 1200 m, S runs 1200/1350 * 1200 = 1066.66 m.

Hence, N wins the race by 133.34 meters.

QUESTION: 55

DIRECTIONS for the question: Mark the best option.

The sum of first 30 terms of an AP is 1635. If its last term is 98, find the first term and the common difference.

Solution:


Hence option 4.

QUESTION: 56

DIRECTIONS for the question: Mark the best option.

If the mean proportion between two numbers is 8√2 and the third proportion to them is 4, find these numbers.

Solution:

If x & y are 2 such numbers, then
x × y = (8√2)2 = 128 and x/y = y/4 ⇒ 4x = y2

Now, go by the options & get the correct answer.

Only 16 & 8 satisfy which is option B.

QUESTION: 57

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

After two successive price reductions of the same percentage, the price of a good became Rs.16 from Rs.25. What was the % reduction in each case?

Solution:

Let the % reduction in each case  = (100 - x)%

Hence 5 reduction = 100 - 80 = 20%
Or else use answer options.

QUESTION: 58

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

An article was sold at a profit of 12%. If the cost price would be 10% less and selling price would be Rs. 5.75 more, there would be profit of 30%. Then at what price it should be sold to make a profit of 20%?

Solution:

Let be cost price of article = 100x
Then selling price will be = Rs. 112x

If cost price = 10% less then cost price = 90x

If by selling the product at 5.75 more, then profit is 30%

Also because the product is sold = Rs. 5.75 more.

Hence, 117x -112x = 5.75
5x = 5.75
x = 1.15

Hence, original cost price = 100x = 115

Hence, the answer is 138 Rs.

QUESTION: 59

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

A fly is on the outer tip of a fan blade and is exactly 24 cm away from the centre of the fan(i.e. the point about which the blade rotates). The fly then walks towards the centre of the fan. After 4 seconds, during which the blade rotates through an angle of 90o, it appears that the fly has been displaced from its original position by 25 cm. What is the speed in cm/sec with which the fly moves towards centre of the fan? Assume that the centre of the fan and blades of the fan all lie in the same plane.

Solution:

The fly has covered d cm.
Now (25)2 = (24)+ (24 - d)2
⇒ 24 - d = 7
d = 17

QUESTION: 60

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

If x2 - 3x + 1 = 0, then the value of   is equal to 

Solution:

x2 - 3x +1 = 0
x2 +1 = 3x
Dividing both sides by x
  ► x + 1/x = 3
squaring both sides we will get :
  ► x2 + 1/x + 2 = 9
  ► x2 + 1/x = 7
Squaring both sides again we will get
  ► x4 + 1/x4 = 49 - 2 = 47
Hence the answer is 47 option A

QUESTION: 61

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

The total tractor population in a State is 294000, out of which 150000 are made by Mahindra & Mahindra. Out of every 1000 Mahindra tractors, 98 are red in colour. But only 5.3% of the total tractor population is red. Find the percentage of non-Mahindra tractors that are red.

Solution:

Total no, of tractors = 294000
Tractors provided by M&M = 150000
Tractors which are red

Tractors which are Red as well as produced by M&M 

So, non M&M red tractors =  15582 - 14700 = 882.

Non - M&M Tractors = 294000 - 150000 = 144000

QUESTION: 62

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

4 men and 6 women complete a task in 24 days. If the women are at least half as efficient as the men, but not more efficient than the men, what is the range of the number of days for 6 women and 2 men to complete a task?

Solution:

4m and 6w finish in 24 days.
In one day, 4m + 6w = 1/24 of task.

In these questions, just substitute extreme values to get the whole range:
If a woman is half as efficient as man 
4m + 3m = 1/24, 7m = 1/24, m = 1/168
6w + 2m = 3m + 2m = 5m, 5m will take 168/5 days = 33.6 days

If a woman is as efficient as a man
4m + 6w finish in 24 days
10m finish 1/24 of task in a day
6w + 2m = 8m, 8m will take 240/8 = 30 days to finish the task.
So, the range = 30 to 33.6 days.

The new team will take 30 to 33.6 days to finish the task.
So option B.

QUESTION: 63

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

If x, y and z are positive real numbers, for what ratio of the values of y and z is the value of the minimum?

Solution:

Treat the given expressions the sum of two independent terms and minimize each term

QUESTION: 64

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

How many incongruent triangles of perimeter 18 will have sides of even lengths?

Solution:

The semi-perimeter of the triangle will be 9. We know that the longest side of a triangle is less than the semi-perimeter and therefore, can be a maximum of 8. Since the sides of the triangle are even numbers, the only possibilities are (8, 8, 2), (8, 6, 4) and (6, 6, 6). Thus 3 triangles are possible.

QUESTION: 65

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

Solution:


which is greater than 1

QUESTION: 66

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

M and N are two stations on a railway line. A single rail track is present between these stations. X, Y and Z are three trains that run between M and N. X runs half as fast as Y, which, in turn, runs at a speed less than that of Z. Each day, X leaves M at 7:00 a.m., for N, and as soon as it reaches N, Z starts from N and reaches M at 9:00 a.m. One day, X started 24 minutes behind schedule but increased its speed  by  to try to catch up on the schedule. If Z also increased its speed and reached M at the usual time, find the ratio of the speeds of Z and X, on that day.

Solution:

Let the initial speeds of X, Y and Z be x, y and z respectively.

Total time of travel of x and z, usually = 2 hours.

⇒ Usually z runs for 30 minutes and x runs for 90 minutes. On the day that X runs 24 minutes behind schedule, total time of travel = 96 minutes. On that day X increased its speed by its original speed.

∴ New travel time of x = Z must have travelled for 96 – 81 = 15 minutes.

Z doubled its speed (since it usually takes 30 minutes)

∴ Required ratio = 

*Answer can only contain numeric values
QUESTION: 67

The sum of four natural numbers is 305. The ratios of these numbers in pairs are 2 : 3, 3 : 4, 4 : 5, 5 : 6, 8 : 9 and 15 : 16. What is smallest natural number that can be divided by these four numbers? (in numerical value)


Solution:

Since one of the ratios in pairs is 15:16, we know that one of the numbers is a multiple of 15 and one other number is a multiple of 16.

The number which is a multiple of 15, when taken with the remaining two numbers should give a ratio of 4:5 and 5:6, which can be rewritten as 12:15 and 15:18 respectively. Thus, the ratio of the four numbers is 12 : 15 : 16 : 18.

Since the ratio adds up to 61 and the sum of the four numbers is 305 = 61 × 5, we have a common factor of 5.

The LCM of 12, 15, 16 and 18 is 720. Thus the smallest natural number that can be divided by the four natural numbers is 720 × 5 = 3600.

Alternately, we can determine that the four natural numbers are 60, 75, 80 and 90 and their LCM is 3600.

QUESTION: 68

DIRECTIONS for the question: Mark the best option.

Two vessels contain spirit of 0.5 and 0.75 concentrations. If two litres from the first vessel and three litres from the second vessel are mixed, then what will be the ratio of the spirit and the water in the resultant solution?

Solution:

From the given statement, we get

QUESTION: 69

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

Satinder went to the wholesale market to buy some vegetables and fruits for his grocery store. He bought some ashgourd, some beetroot and some apples. He had to buy at least 15 of each. The number of ashgourd had to be more than the number of Beetroot, which had to be more than the number of apples. He bought 50 vegetables and fruits in all at the following rates: 1 apple @ Rs. 3, 1 beetroot @ Rs. 2 and 1 ashgourd @ Rs. 4.

Q. How many apples did Satinder buy?

Solution:

He has to have at least 15 of each. So that takes care of 45 numbers.

Now, the remaining 5 can be split into two different increasing orders as follows: 0, 2, 3 that means 15 apples, 17 beetroot, 18 ash gourd
Or 0, 1, 4 that means 15 apples, 16 beetroot, 19 ashgourd.

In both cases, the number of apples is 15.

QUESTION: 70

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

Consider the sequence 2, 5, 2, 5, 5, 2, 5, 5, 5, 2, 5, 5, 5, 5, 2, ... and so on. How many 5s are there between the 44th and the 47th appearances of the number 2?

Solution:

In the given sequence, the 1st 2 is followed by a single 5, the 2nd 2 is followed by two 5s, the 3rd 2 is followed by three 5s and so on.

So, the 44th, 45th and 46th 2s will be followed by 44, 45 and 46 fives respectively.

Thus the total number of 5s between the 44th and 47th appearances of the number 2 is 44 + 45 + 46 = 135.

QUESTION: 71

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

A dealer deals only in colour TVs and VCRs. He wants to spend up to Rs.12 lakhs to buy 100 pieces. He can purchase a colour TV at Rs.10,000 and a VCR at Rs.15,000. He can sell a colour TV at Rs.12,000 and a VCR at Rs.17,500. His objective is to maximize profits. Assume that he can sell all the items that he stocks.

Q. For the maximum profit, the number of colour TVs and VCRs that he should respectively stock are

Solution:

The person has 2 options
Colour TV- cost price 10k selling price 12k
VCR- cost price 15k selling price 17.5k
So, his profit margin on each device is
TV- 2k per piece and VCR 2.5k per piece.
Now, his objective is to maximize profits and not the profit percentage, so he should spend all the money i.e 12 lakhs. If the aim was to maximize profit percentage, he should have bought all 100 pieces of TV because its profit percentage is more than VCR.
Let he buys a Tvs and b VCR
then a+b=100
and 10a+15b=1200
solving it you will get, a=60 and b=40.

QUESTION: 72

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

A rabbit on a controlled diet is fed daily 300 grams of a mixture of two foods, food X and food Y. Food X contains 10 percent protein and food Y contains 15 percent protein. If the rabbit’s diet provides exactly 38 grams of protein daily, how many grams of food X are in the mixture?

Solution:

Let food X = x gm.
Then food Y = 300 – x gm.
Now  10% of x + 15 % of (300 – x) = 38
⇒ 10 x + 4500 - 15 x = 3800;
⇒ 5 x = 700;
⇒ x = 140

QUESTION: 73

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

The weight of a body, as calculated by the average of  7 different experiments is 53.735 g. The average of the first three experiments is 54.005 g, the fourth experiment was greater than the fifth by 0.004g, while the average of sixth and the seventh was 0.010 g less than the average of the first three.  Find the weight of the body as obtained by the fourth experiment.

Solution:

Let weight of the body as obtained by the fourth experiment be x.   
Therefore
    ► 53.735 =  [(3) (54.005) + x + x – 0.004 + 2 (53.995)] / 7
x = 53.072.

QUESTION: 74

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

A hill is in the form of a regular cone with a vertical drop of 20m from the cliff to the bottom of the hill. A tower perpendicular to the slope of the hill is situated midway down the slope. The tower is 40m tall and the top of the tower is 50m away from the cliff. The area of the base of the mountain is:

Solution:

Since AB is ⊥ to the slope
OA2 = OB2 - AB2 ∴ OA = 30m
Since A is the midpoint OY = 60m
OX = 20m


∴ Area of the base = π × XY2 = π × 3200 = 3200π m2.

QUESTION: 75

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

In the given figure, D is midpoint of AB and ∠ABC = 90°, ∠C = 30°. Also DE is parallel to BC, and BE is angle bisector of ∠ABC. Find the area of Δ ABE. (BC = 5√3cm.)

Solution:


Also AD = BD
Now since DE || BC

∴ ∠ADE = ∠ABC = 90 = 2x as shown in Figure.

∠DBE + ∠DEB = 2x .......... (exterior angle = Sum of other two interior angle).

x + ∠DEB = 2x
∴ Δ DEB is isosceles Δ

Now,
∴ DE = DB = AD
∠DAE = ∠DEA = y ∴ 2x+y+y = 180
2y = 180-2x. So, y = 90-x

∴ ∠AEB = 90-x+x = 900

∴ Δ AEB is right angled Δ with ∠AEB = 900

∴ Δ AEB is 450 - 450 - 900 Δ

Similar Content

Related tests