EPFO Assistant Prelims Mock Test - 9 - Bank Exams MCQ

For Age according to question
P is eldest in the group.
R is not eldest in the group.
Q is elder than S but he is not elder than P or R.
Decreasing order ( age wise )
P > R > Q > S

For Money according to question
P is not the poorest.
R is the riches.
P is richer than Q but he is not richer than S
Decreasing order ( money wise )
R > S > P > Q

So Option B is correct

Given statement:
R > M ≥ T ≤ Q = S
Thus, we can’t compare R and Q or Q and M.
Hence neither I (R > Q) nor II (Q ≥ M) is true.
Hence, option D is correct.

Following the common explanation, we get "11 persons".
Hence, option D is correct.

Final arrangement:

Common Explanation:
References:
Certain number of persons is sitting in a circular table and is facing towards the center of the table.
Some of them own different cars.
No two persons have same car.
 
Inferences:
From above statements,
Keep above information in mind while solving this seating.
 
References:
Robert is sitting second to the left of Prince.
Samuel is sitting second to the left of Robert.
 
Inferences:
From above statements,
Let the position of the person be numbered as 1 to till last in clockwise direction.
Let the Prince sits at 1 and then Robert and Samuel will sit at 3 and 5 respectively.
By using above information we get the following seating,
 
 
References:
Two persons are sitting between Thakur and Prince.
Samuel and Thakur are not the immediate neighbors.
 
Inferences:
From above statements,
Thakur can’t sit at 4 (adjacent to Samuel)
Therefore, Thakur sits third to the right of Prince as shown,
Note: Thakur position is known only based on other statements.

 
References:
Qasim is sitting second to the right of Thakur.
Number of persons sitting between Qasim and Prince, when counted from right of Prince is four times as the number of persons sitting between Samuel and Qasim, when counted from left of Samuel.
 
Inferences:
From above statements,
Qasim is sitting second to the right of Thakur.
Given, Number of persons sitting between Qasim and Prince, when counted from right of Prince = 4 × number of persons sitting between Samuel and Qasim, when counted from left of Samuel
As per above seating, number of persons sitting between Qasim and Prince, when counted from right of Prince is 4
4 = 4 × number of persons sitting between Samuel and Qasim, when counted from left of Samuel
Therefore number of person sitting between Samuel and Qasim, when counted from left of Samuel, is 1.
Thus we can conclude that there are 11 persons sitting in the circle and Qasim and Thakur sit at 7 and 9 respectively as shown,
 
 
References:
The one, who sits immediate left of Samuel, owns Honda.
The one, who owns Ford, is sitting third to the left of Qasim.
The one, who owns Hyundai, is sitting second to the left of the one, who owns Ford.
Three persons are sitting between Thakur and the one, who owns Renault.
 
Inferences:
From above statements,
The one, who sits at 6, owns Honda (immediate left of Samuel)
The one, who sits at 10, owns Ford (third to the left of Qasim)
Prince owns Hyundai (second to the left of the one, who owns Ford)
Three persons are sitting between Thakur and the one, who owns Renault i.e. either Samuel or the one who sits at 2, owns Renault.
By using above information we get the following seating,

 
References:
Three persons are not sitting between the one, who owns Renault and the one, who owns Honda, when counted from the right of the one, who owns Honda.

Inferences:
From above statements,
If the one, who owns Renault, sits at 2, then there are 3 persons sitting between the one, who owns Renault and the one, who owns Honda, when counted from the right of the one, who owns Honda, which is not possible.
Therefore Samuel owns Renault.
All the given conditions get satisfied and we get the completed seating,

Following the common explanation, we get "Robert".
Robert sits third to the right of the one, who owns Honda car
Hence, option C is correct.

Final arrangement:

Common Explanation:
References:
Certain number of persons is sitting in a circular table and is facing towards the center of the table.
Some of them own different cars.
No two persons have same car.
 
Inferences:
From above statements,
Keep above information in mind while solving this seating.
 
References:
Robert is sitting second to the left of Prince.
Samuel is sitting second to the left of Robert.
 
Inferences:
From above statements,
Let the position of the person be numbered as 1 to till last in clockwise direction.
Let the Prince sits at 1 and then Robert and Samuel will sit at 3 and 5 respectively.
By using above information we get the following seating,
 
 
References:
Two persons are sitting between Thakur and Prince.
Samuel and Thakur are not the immediate neighbors.
 
Inferences:
From above statements,
Thakur can’t sit at 4 (adjacent to Samuel)
Therefore, Thakur sits third to the right of Prince as shown,
Note: Thakur position is known only based on other statements.

 
References:
Qasim is sitting second to the right of Thakur.
Number of persons sitting between Qasim and Prince, when counted from right of Prince is four times as the number of persons sitting between Samuel and Qasim, when counted from left of Samuel.
 
Inferences:
From above statements,
Qasim is sitting second to the right of Thakur.
Given, Number of persons sitting between Qasim and Prince, when counted from right of Prince = 4 × number of persons sitting between Samuel and Qasim, when counted from left of Samuel
As per above seating, number of persons sitting between Qasim and Prince, when counted from right of Prince is 4
4 = 4 × number of persons sitting between Samuel and Qasim, when counted from left of Samuel
Therefore number of person sitting between Samuel and Qasim, when counted from left of Samuel, is 1.
Thus we can conclude that there are 11 persons sitting in the circle and Qasim and Thakur sit at 7 and 9 respectively as shown,
 
 
References:
The one, who sits immediate left of Samuel, owns Honda.
The one, who owns Ford, is sitting third to the left of Qasim.
The one, who owns Hyundai, is sitting second to the left of the one, who owns Ford.
Three persons are sitting between Thakur and the one, who owns Renault.
 
Inferences:
From above statements,
The one, who sits at 6, owns Honda (immediate left of Samuel)
The one, who sits at 10, owns Ford (third to the left of Qasim)
Prince owns Hyundai (second to the left of the one, who owns Ford)
Three persons are sitting between Thakur and the one, who owns Renault i.e. either Samuel or the one who sits at 2, owns Renault.
By using above information we get the following seating,

 
References:
Three persons are not sitting between the one, who owns Renault and the one, who owns Honda, when counted from the right of the one, who owns Honda.

Inferences:
From above statements,
If the one, who owns Renault, sits at 2, then there are 3 persons sitting between the one, who owns Renault and the one, who owns Honda, when counted from the right of the one, who owns Honda, which is not possible.
Therefore Samuel owns Renault.
All the given conditions get satisfied and we get the completed seating,

From I, we know that L is T's brother and J's husband. Since L is the only son of his parents, T is L's sister.
From II, we know that K is L's daughter.
Thus, from I and II, we conclude that T is the sister of K's father i.e. T is K's aunt.

From II, we know that P's mother is married to J's husband, which means that J is P's mother.

From Formula  

NP² = NQ² + PQ²

Nothing about the growth of economy is mentioned in the statement. So, I does not follow. Also, it is given that 35 per cent of national income is shared by 10 per cent of households. This indicates unequal distribution. So, II follows.

The data is insufficient, since we only know that the work gets completed in 200 boy days and 300 women days.

In 5 days, A would do 25% of the work. Since, B finishes the remaining 75% work in 10 days, we
can conclude that B’s work in a day = 7.5%
Thus, (A + B) = 12.5% per day.
Together they would take 100/12.5 = 8 days.

Volume of given figure = Volume of cone + Volume of cylinder
Radius of cone = Radius of cylinder, r = 7 cm
Height of cone = h₁ = 9 cm
Height of cylinder, h = 30 - 9 = 21 cm

Volume of figure = 462 + 3234 = 3696 cm³

Answer – b) 10000 Explanation : Let total votes = T and party B gets 15000 votes then party A will get T -15000 votes T – 15000 – 15000 = 25T/100
T = 40000, so A get 25000 and B gets 15000 votes, so difference = 10000

In P, quantity of Supari = 9/13
And quantity of Saunf = 4/13
In Q, quantity of Supari = 9/26
And quantity of Saunf = 17/26
When we add these two mouth fresheners:
Total quantity of Supari = 
Total quantity of Saunf = 
So, ratio of Saunf and Supari in R = 25 : 27

Number of employees in HR department

= 40
Numbers of females
= 40 - 12
= 28
∴ Ration = 28 : 40 → 7 : 10

Number of employees in IT department

= 160
Number of females
= 160 - 74
= 86
∴ Required percentage

= 10.75%

There are two different approaches to solving this problem. The first employs a purely algebraic approach, as follows: Let us assume there are n teams in a double-eliminat ion tournament. In order to crown a champion, n – 1 teams must be eliminated, each losing exactly two games. Thus, the minimum number of games played in order to eliminate all but one of the teams is 2(n – 1). At the time when the (n – 1)th team is eliminated, the surviving team (the division champion) either has one loss or no losses, adding at most one more game to the total played. Thus, the maximum number of games that can be played in an n-team double-eliminat ion tournament is 2(n – 1) + 1. There were four divisions with 9, 10, 11, and 12 teams each. The maximum number of games that could have been played in order to determine the four division champions was (2(8) + 1) + (2(9) + 1) + (2(10) + 1) + (2(11) + 1) = 17 + 19 + 21 + 23 = 80. The four division champions then played in a single-elimination tournament. Since each team that was eliminated lost exactly one game, the elimination of three teams required exactly three more games. Thus, the maximum number of games that could have been played in order to crown a league champion was 80 + 3 = 83. The correct answer choice is (B). Another way to approach this problem is to use one division as a concrete starting point. Let's think first about the 9-team division. After 9 games, there are 9 losses. Assuming that no team loses twice (thereby maximizing the number of games played), all 9 teams remain in the tournament. After 8 additional games, only 1 team remains and is declared the division winner. Therefore, 9 + 8 = 17 games is the maximum # o f games than can be played in this tournament. We can generalize this information and apply it to the other divisions. To maximize the # of games in the 10-team division, 10 + 9 = 19 games are played. To maximize the # of games in the 11-team division, 11 + 10 = 21 games are played. To maximize the # of games in the 12-team division, 12 + 11 = 23 games are played. Thus, the maximum number of games that could have been played in order to determine the four division champions was 17 + 19 + 21 + 23 = 80. After 3 games in the single elimination tournament, there will be 3 losses, thereby eliminating all but the one championship team. Thus, the maximum number of games that could have been played in order to crown a league champion was 80 + 3 = 83. Once again.

4 * 1 + 1 = 5
5 * 1.5 – 1.5= 6
6 * 2 + 2 = 14
14 * 2.5 – 2.5 = 32.5
32.5 * 3 + 3 = 100.5

Answer – B. Rs.23 Explanation : Total CP of first variety = 60 * 32 = 1920 Total CP of second variety = 48 * x = 48x SP of Mixture = 1920 + (108 * 28) = 3024 1920 + 48x = 3024 => x = 23

Answer – A. 18 litre Explanation : [x(1-6/x)/x]³ = (8/27) [x(1-6/x)/x]³ = (2/3)³ (x-6)/x = 2/3 x = 18

1/6 + 1/10 + 1/8 = 47/120

change, We can't hardly believe that the → We can't believe that the

change, footprints on their surface would → footprints on its surface would

Above board: If a situation or business is described as above board, it is open, honest and legal.

Ex: There are not secret negotiations. Our dealings have always been above board.

Covert means hidden while dishonest is opposite of the correct meaning.

Complete is irrelevant.

Legitimate is correct and means honest.

Hence, option C is correct.

Today most businessmen are very worried. To begin with, they are not used to competition.In the past they sold whatever they produced at whatever prices they chose.

So option C is correct

The correct order will be:
The grocer → who was in the habit of weighing less (Q)→ did not listen to the protests of customer (P)→ whom he had cheated (R)→ with great audacity. (S)