Mr. Raheja, the president of Alpha Ltd., a construction company, is studying his companyandrsquo;s chances of being awarded a Rs. 1,000 crore bridge building contract in Delhi. In this process, two events interest him. First, Alphaandrsquo;s major competitor Gamma Ltd, is trying to import the latest bridge building technology from Europe, which it hopes to get before the deadline of the award of contact. Second, there are rumors that Delhi Government is investigating all recent contractors and Alpha Ltd is one of those contractors, while Gamma Ltd is not one of those. If Gamma is able to import the technology and there is no investigation by the Government, then Alphaandrsquo;s chance of getting contract is 0.67. If there is investigation and Gamma Ltd is unable to import the technology in time, the Alphaandrsquo;s chance is 0.72. If both events occur, then Alphaandrsquo;s chance of getting the contract is 0.58 and if none events occur, its chances are 0.85. Raheja knows that the chance of Gamma Ltd being able to complete the import of technology before the award date is 0.80. How low must the probability of investigation be, so that the probability of the contract being awarded to Alpha Ltd is atleast 0.65? (Assume that occurrence of investigation and Gammaandrsquo;s completion of import in time is independent to each other.)a)0.44b)0.57c)0.63d)0.55Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?

Explore Courses UPSC Exam UPSC Test Series Free Notes EduRev Infinity

Open App

CAT Exam > CAT Questions > Mr. Raheja, the president of Alpha Ltd., a co...

Mr. Raheja, the president of Alpha Ltd., a construction company, is studying his company’s chances of being awarded a Rs. 1,000 crore bridge building contract in Delhi. In this process, two events interest him. First, Alpha’s major competitor Gamma Ltd, is trying to import the latest bridge building technology from Europe, which it hopes to get before the deadline of the award of contact. Second, there are rumors that Delhi Government is investigating all recent contractors and Alpha Ltd is one of those contractors, while Gamma Ltd is not one of those. If Gamma is able to import the technology and there is no investigation by the Government, then Alpha’s chance of getting contract is 0.67. If there is investigation and Gamma Ltd is unable to import the technology in time, the Alpha’s chance is 0.72. If both events occur, then Alpha’s chance of getting the contract is 0.58 and if none events occur, its chances are 0.85. Raheja knows that the chance of Gamma Ltd being able to complete the import of technology before the award date is 0.80. How low must the probability of investigation be, so that the probability of the contract being awarded to Alpha Ltd is atleast 0.65? (Assume that occurrence of investigation and Gamma’s completion of import in time is independent to each other.)

a)
0.44
b)
0.57
c)
0.63
d)
0.55

Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?

Join for Free

Join for Free

Verified Answer

Mr. Raheja, the president of Alpha Ltd., a construction company, is st...

Let x be the probability of investigation
Alpha's chances of getting a contract:-

1. if Gamma is able to import the technology and there is no investigation by the Government = 0.8*0.67*(1-x)
2. If there is investigation and Gamma Ltd is unable to import the technology in time = 0.72*0.2*x
3. If both events occur = 0.8*0.58*x
4. if none events occur = 0.85*0.2*(1-x)

The probability of the contract being awarded to Alpha Ltd is = 0.8*0.67*(1-x) + 0.72*0.2*x + 0.8*0.58*x + 0.85*0.2*(1-x) > 0.65
0.536 - 0.536x + 0.144x + 0.464x + 0.17 - 0.17x > 0.65

i.e. 0.056 > 0.098x
i.e. 0.057 >x

Therefore option 'B' is our answer

View all questions of this test

View all answers Start learning for free

Explore Courses for CAT exam

Similar CAT Doubts

Read the passage carefully and answer within the context.There are two major systems of criminal procedure in the modern world—the adversarial and the inquisitorial. Both systems were historically preceded by the system of private vengeance in which the victim of a crime fashioned a remedy and administered it privately, either personally or through an agent.The modern adversarial system is only one historical step removed from the private vengeance system and still retains some of its characteristic features. For example, even though the right to initiate legal action against a criminal has now been extended to all members of society (as represented by the office of the public prosecutor), and even though the police department has effectively assumed the pretrial investigative functions on behalf of the prosecution, the adversarial system still leaves the defendant to conduct his or her own pretrial investigation. The trial is viewed as a forensic duel between two adversaries, presided over by a judge who, at the start, has no knowledge of the investigative background of the case. In the final analysis the adversarial system of criminal procedure symbolizes and regularizes punitive combat.By contrast, the inquisitorial system begins historically where the adversarial system stopped its development. It is two historical steps removed from the system of private vengeance.From the standpoint of legal anthropology, then, it is historically superior to the adversarial system. Under the inquisitorial system, the public prosecutor has the duty to investigate not just on behalf of society but also on behalf of the defendant. Additionally, the public prosecutor has the duty to present the court not only evidence that would convict the defendant, but also evidence that could prove the defendant’s innocence. The system mandates that both parties permit full pretrial discovery of the evidence in their possession. Finally, an aspect of the system that makes the trial less like a duel between two adversarial parties is that the inquisitorial system mandates that the judge take an active part in the conduct of the trial, with a role that is both directive and protective. Fact-finding is at the heart of the inquisitorial system. This system operates on the philosophical premise that in a criminal action the crucial factor is the body of facts, not the legal rule (in contrast to the adversarial system), and the goal of the entire procedure is to attempt to recreate, in the mind of the court, the commission of the alleged crime.Because of the inquisitorial system’s thoroughness in conducting its pretrial investigation, it can be concluded that, if given the choice, a defendant who is innocent would prefer to be tried under the inquisitorial system, whereas a defendant who is guilty would prefer to be tried under the adversarial system.Q.It can be inferred from the passage that the crucial factor in a trial under the adversarial system is

View answer

Read the passage carefully and answer within the context.There are two major systems of criminal procedure in the modern world—the adversarial and the inquisitorial. Both systems were historically preceded by the system of private vengeance in which the victim of a crime fashioned a remedy and administered it privately, either personally or through an agent.The modern adversarial system is only one historical step removed from the private vengeance system and still retains some of its characteristic features. For example, even though the right to initiate legal action against a criminal has now been extended to all members of society (as represented by the office of the public prosecutor), and even though the police department has effectively assumed the pretrial investigative functions on behalf of the prosecution, the adversarial system still leaves the defendant to conduct his or her own pretrial investigation. The trial is viewed as a forensic duel between two adversaries, presided over by a judge who, at the start, has no knowledge of the investigative background of the case. In the final analysis the adversarial system of criminal procedure symbolizes and regularizes punitive combat.By contrast, the inquisitorial system begins historically where the adversarial system stopped its development. It is two historical steps removed from the system of private vengeance.From the standpoint of legal anthropology, then, it is historically superior to the adversarial system. Under the inquisitorial system, the public prosecutor has the duty to investigate not just on behalf of society but also on behalf of the defendant. Additionally, the public prosecutor has the duty to present the court not only evidence that would convict the defendant, but also evidence that could prove the defendant’s innocence. The system mandates that both parties permit full pretrial discovery of the evidence in their possession. Finally, an aspect of the system that makes the trial less like a duel between two adversarial parties is that the inquisitorial system mandates that the judge take an active part in the conduct of the trial, with a role that is both directive and protective. Fact-finding is at the heart of the inquisitorial system. This system operates on the philosophical premise that in a criminal action the crucial factor is the body of facts, not the legal rule (in contrast to the adversarial system), and the goal of the entire procedure is to attempt to recreate, in the mind of the court, the commission of the alleged crime.Because of the inquisitorial system’s thoroughness in conducting its pretrial investigation, it can be concluded that, if given the choice, a defendant who is innocent would prefer to be tried under the inquisitorial system, whereas a defendant who is guilty would prefer to be tried under the adversarial system.Q.The author sees the judge’s primary role in a trial under the inquisitorial system as that of

View answer

Read the passage carefully and answer within the context.There are two major systems of criminal procedure in the modern world—the adversarial and the inquisitorial. Both systems were historically preceded by the system of private vengeance in which the victim of a crime fashioned a remedy and administered it privately, either personally or through an agent.The modern adversarial system is only one historical step removed from the private vengeance system and still retains some of its characteristic features. For example, even though the right to initiate legal action against a criminal has now been extended to all members of society (as represented by the office of the public prosecutor), and even though the police department has effectively assumed the pretrial investigative functions on behalf of the prosecution, the adversarial system still leaves the defendant to conduct his or her own pretrial investigation. The trial is viewed as a forensic duel between two adversaries, presided over by a judge who, at the start, has no knowledge of the investigative background of the case. In the final analysis the adversarial system of criminal procedure symbolizes and regularizes punitive combat.By contrast, the inquisitorial system begins historically where the adversarial system stopped its development. It is two historical steps removed from the system of private vengeance.From the standpoint of legal anthropology, then, it is historically superior to the adversarial system. Under the inquisitorial system, the public prosecutor has the duty to investigate not just on behalf of society but also on behalf of the defendant. Additionally, the public prosecutor has the duty to present the court not only evidence that would convict the defendant, but also evidence that could prove the defendant’s innocence. The system mandates that both parties permit full pretrial discovery of the evidence in their possession. Finally, an aspect of the system that makes the trial less like a duel between two adversarial parties is that the inquisitorial system mandates that the judge take an active part in the conduct of the trial, with a role that is both directive and protective. Fact-finding is at the heart of the inquisitorial system. This system operates on the philosophical premise that in a criminal action the crucial factor is the body of facts, not the legal rule (in contrast to the adversarial system), and the goal of the entire procedure is to attempt to recreate, in the mind of the court, the commission of the alleged crime.Because of the inquisitorial system’s thoroughness in conducting its pretrial investigation, it can be concluded that, if given the choice, a defendant who is innocent would prefer to be tried under the inquisitorial system, whereas a defendant who is guilty would prefer to be tried under the adversarial system.Q.The author’s attitude toward the inquisitorial system can best be described as

View answer

Read the passage carefully and answer within the context.There are two major systems of criminal procedure in the modern world—the adversarial and the inquisitorial. Both systems were historically preceded by the system of private vengeance in which the victim of a crime fashioned a remedy and administered it privately, either personally or through an agent.The modern adversarial system is only one historical step removed from the private vengeance system and still retains some of its characteristic features. For example, even though the right to initiate legal action against a criminal has now been extended to all members of society (as represented by the office of the public prosecutor), and even though the police department has effectively assumed the pretrial investigative functions on behalf of the prosecution, the adversarial system still leaves the defendant to conduct his or her own pretrial investigation. The trial is viewed as a forensic duel between two adversaries, presided over by a judge who, at the start, has no knowledge of the investigative background of the case. In the final analysis the adversarial system of criminal procedure symbolizes and regularizes punitive combat.By contrast, the inquisitorial system begins historically where the adversarial system stopped its development. It is two historical steps removed from the system of private vengeance.From the standpoint of legal anthropology, then, it is historically superior to the adversarial system. Under the inquisitorial system, the public prosecutor has the duty to investigate not just on behalf of society but also on behalf of the defendant. Additionally, the public prosecutor has the duty to present the court not only evidence that would convict the defendant, but also evidence that could prove the defendant’s innocence. The system mandates that both parties permit full pretrial discovery of the evidence in their possession. Finally, an aspect of the system that makes the trial less like a duel between two adversarial parties is that the inquisitorial system mandates that the judge take an active part in the conduct of the trial, with a role that is both directive and protective. Fact-finding is at the heart of the inquisitorial system. This system operates on the philosophical premise that in a criminal action the crucial factor is the body of facts, not the legal rule (in contrast to the adversarial system), and the goal of the entire procedure is to attempt to recreate, in the mind of the court, the commission of the alleged crime.Because of the inquisitorial system’s thoroughness in conducting its pretrial investigation, it can be concluded that, if given the choice, a defendant who is innocent would prefer to be tried under the inquisitorial system, whereas a defendant who is guilty would prefer to be tried under the adversarial system.Q.According to the passage, a central distinction between the system of private vengeance and the two modern criminal procedure systems was the shift in responsibility for initiating legal action against a criminal from the

View answer

Read the passage carefully and answer within the context.There are two major systems of criminal procedure in the modern world—the adversarial and the inquisitorial. Both systems were historically preceded by the system of private vengeance in which the victim of a crime fashioned a remedy and administered it privately, either personally or through an agent.The modern adversarial system is only one historical step removed from the private vengeance system and still retains some of its characteristic features. For example, even though the right to initiate legal action against a criminal has now been extended to all members of society (as represented by the office of the public prosecutor), and even though the police department has effectively assumed the pretrial investigative functions on behalf of the prosecution, the adversarial system still leaves the defendant to conduct his or her own pretrial investigation. The trial is viewed as a forensic duel between two adversaries, presided over by a judge who, at the start, has no knowledge of the investigative background of the case. In the final analysis the adversarial system of criminal procedure symbolizes and regularizes punitive combat.By contrast, the inquisitorial system begins historically where the adversarial system stopped its development. It is two historical steps removed from the system of private vengeance.From the standpoint of legal anthropology, then, it is historically superior to the adversarial system. Under the inquisitorial system, the public prosecutor has the duty to investigate not just on behalf of society but also on behalf of the defendant. Additionally, the public prosecutor has the duty to present the court not only evidence that would convict the defendant, but also evidence that could prove the defendant’s innocence. The system mandates that both parties permit full pretrial discovery of the evidence in their possession. Finally, an aspect of the system that makes the trial less like a duel between two adversarial parties is that the inquisitorial system mandates that the judge take an active part in the conduct of the trial, with a role that is both directive and protective. Fact-finding is at the heart of the inquisitorial system. This system operates on the philosophical premise that in a criminal action the crucial factor is the body of facts, not the legal rule (in contrast to the adversarial system), and the goal of the entire procedure is to attempt to recreate, in the mind of the court, the commission of the alleged crime.Because of the inquisitorial system’s thoroughness in conducting its pretrial investigation, it can be concluded that, if given the choice, a defendant who is innocent would prefer to be tried under the inquisitorial system, whereas a defendant who is guilty would prefer to be tried under the adversarial system.Q.All of the following are characteristics of the inquisitorial system that the author cites EXCEPT

View answer

Top Courses for CATView all

Quantitative Aptitude (Quant)

Crash Course for CAT

CAT Mock Test Series 2024

Mock Test Series for SNAP

Mock Test Series for XAT

Top Courses for CAT

View all

Share with a Friend

Answer this doubt

Question Description
Mr. Raheja, the president of Alpha Ltd., a construction company, is studying his company’s chances of being awarded a Rs. 1,000 crore bridge building contract in Delhi. In this process, two events interest him. First, Alpha’s major competitor Gamma Ltd, is trying to import the latest bridge building technology from Europe, which it hopes to get before the deadline of the award of contact. Second, there are rumors that Delhi Government is investigating all recent contractors and Alpha Ltd is one of those contractors, while Gamma Ltd is not one of those. If Gamma is able to import the technology and there is no investigation by the Government, then Alpha’s chance of getting contract is 0.67. If there is investigation and Gamma Ltd is unable to import the technology in time, the Alpha’s chance is 0.72. If both events occur, then Alpha’s chance of getting the contract is 0.58 and if none events occur, its chances are 0.85. Raheja knows that the chance of Gamma Ltd being able to complete the import of technology before the award date is 0.80. How low must the probability of investigation be, so that the probability of the contract being awarded to Alpha Ltd is atleast 0.65? (Assume that occurrence of investigation and Gamma’s completion of import in time is independent to each other.)a)0.44b)0.57c)0.63d)0.55Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? for CAT 2025 is part of CAT preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the CAT exam syllabus. Information about Mr. Raheja, the president of Alpha Ltd., a construction company, is studying his company’s chances of being awarded a Rs. 1,000 crore bridge building contract in Delhi. In this process, two events interest him. First, Alpha’s major competitor Gamma Ltd, is trying to import the latest bridge building technology from Europe, which it hopes to get before the deadline of the award of contact. Second, there are rumors that Delhi Government is investigating all recent contractors and Alpha Ltd is one of those contractors, while Gamma Ltd is not one of those. If Gamma is able to import the technology and there is no investigation by the Government, then Alpha’s chance of getting contract is 0.67. If there is investigation and Gamma Ltd is unable to import the technology in time, the Alpha’s chance is 0.72. If both events occur, then Alpha’s chance of getting the contract is 0.58 and if none events occur, its chances are 0.85. Raheja knows that the chance of Gamma Ltd being able to complete the import of technology before the award date is 0.80. How low must the probability of investigation be, so that the probability of the contract being awarded to Alpha Ltd is atleast 0.65? (Assume that occurrence of investigation and Gamma’s completion of import in time is independent to each other.)a)0.44b)0.57c)0.63d)0.55Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for CAT 2025 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for Mr. Raheja, the president of Alpha Ltd., a construction company, is studying his company’s chances of being awarded a Rs. 1,000 crore bridge building contract in Delhi. In this process, two events interest him. First, Alpha’s major competitor Gamma Ltd, is trying to import the latest bridge building technology from Europe, which it hopes to get before the deadline of the award of contact. Second, there are rumors that Delhi Government is investigating all recent contractors and Alpha Ltd is one of those contractors, while Gamma Ltd is not one of those. If Gamma is able to import the technology and there is no investigation by the Government, then Alpha’s chance of getting contract is 0.67. If there is investigation and Gamma Ltd is unable to import the technology in time, the Alpha’s chance is 0.72. If both events occur, then Alpha’s chance of getting the contract is 0.58 and if none events occur, its chances are 0.85. Raheja knows that the chance of Gamma Ltd being able to complete the import of technology before the award date is 0.80. How low must the probability of investigation be, so that the probability of the contract being awarded to Alpha Ltd is atleast 0.65? (Assume that occurrence of investigation and Gamma’s completion of import in time is independent to each other.)a)0.44b)0.57c)0.63d)0.55Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?.

Solutions for Mr. Raheja, the president of Alpha Ltd., a construction company, is studying his company’s chances of being awarded a Rs. 1,000 crore bridge building contract in Delhi. In this process, two events interest him. First, Alpha’s major competitor Gamma Ltd, is trying to import the latest bridge building technology from Europe, which it hopes to get before the deadline of the award of contact. Second, there are rumors that Delhi Government is investigating all recent contractors and Alpha Ltd is one of those contractors, while Gamma Ltd is not one of those. If Gamma is able to import the technology and there is no investigation by the Government, then Alpha’s chance of getting contract is 0.67. If there is investigation and Gamma Ltd is unable to import the technology in time, the Alpha’s chance is 0.72. If both events occur, then Alpha’s chance of getting the contract is 0.58 and if none events occur, its chances are 0.85. Raheja knows that the chance of Gamma Ltd being able to complete the import of technology before the award date is 0.80. How low must the probability of investigation be, so that the probability of the contract being awarded to Alpha Ltd is atleast 0.65? (Assume that occurrence of investigation and Gamma’s completion of import in time is independent to each other.)a)0.44b)0.57c)0.63d)0.55Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? in English & in Hindi are available as part of our courses for CAT. Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for CAT Exam by signing up for free.

Here you can find the meaning of Mr. Raheja, the president of Alpha Ltd., a construction company, is studying his company’s chances of being awarded a Rs. 1,000 crore bridge building contract in Delhi. In this process, two events interest him. First, Alpha’s major competitor Gamma Ltd, is trying to import the latest bridge building technology from Europe, which it hopes to get before the deadline of the award of contact. Second, there are rumors that Delhi Government is investigating all recent contractors and Alpha Ltd is one of those contractors, while Gamma Ltd is not one of those. If Gamma is able to import the technology and there is no investigation by the Government, then Alpha’s chance of getting contract is 0.67. If there is investigation and Gamma Ltd is unable to import the technology in time, the Alpha’s chance is 0.72. If both events occur, then Alpha’s chance of getting the contract is 0.58 and if none events occur, its chances are 0.85. Raheja knows that the chance of Gamma Ltd being able to complete the import of technology before the award date is 0.80. How low must the probability of investigation be, so that the probability of the contract being awarded to Alpha Ltd is atleast 0.65? (Assume that occurrence of investigation and Gamma’s completion of import in time is independent to each other.)a)0.44b)0.57c)0.63d)0.55Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of Mr. Raheja, the president of Alpha Ltd., a construction company, is studying his company’s chances of being awarded a Rs. 1,000 crore bridge building contract in Delhi. In this process, two events interest him. First, Alpha’s major competitor Gamma Ltd, is trying to import the latest bridge building technology from Europe, which it hopes to get before the deadline of the award of contact. Second, there are rumors that Delhi Government is investigating all recent contractors and Alpha Ltd is one of those contractors, while Gamma Ltd is not one of those. If Gamma is able to import the technology and there is no investigation by the Government, then Alpha’s chance of getting contract is 0.67. If there is investigation and Gamma Ltd is unable to import the technology in time, the Alpha’s chance is 0.72. If both events occur, then Alpha’s chance of getting the contract is 0.58 and if none events occur, its chances are 0.85. Raheja knows that the chance of Gamma Ltd being able to complete the import of technology before the award date is 0.80. How low must the probability of investigation be, so that the probability of the contract being awarded to Alpha Ltd is atleast 0.65? (Assume that occurrence of investigation and Gamma’s completion of import in time is independent to each other.)a)0.44b)0.57c)0.63d)0.55Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for Mr. Raheja, the president of Alpha Ltd., a construction company, is studying his company’s chances of being awarded a Rs. 1,000 crore bridge building contract in Delhi. In this process, two events interest him. First, Alpha’s major competitor Gamma Ltd, is trying to import the latest bridge building technology from Europe, which it hopes to get before the deadline of the award of contact. Second, there are rumors that Delhi Government is investigating all recent contractors and Alpha Ltd is one of those contractors, while Gamma Ltd is not one of those. If Gamma is able to import the technology and there is no investigation by the Government, then Alpha’s chance of getting contract is 0.67. If there is investigation and Gamma Ltd is unable to import the technology in time, the Alpha’s chance is 0.72. If both events occur, then Alpha’s chance of getting the contract is 0.58 and if none events occur, its chances are 0.85. Raheja knows that the chance of Gamma Ltd being able to complete the import of technology before the award date is 0.80. How low must the probability of investigation be, so that the probability of the contract being awarded to Alpha Ltd is atleast 0.65? (Assume that occurrence of investigation and Gamma’s completion of import in time is independent to each other.)a)0.44b)0.57c)0.63d)0.55Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of Mr. Raheja, the president of Alpha Ltd., a construction company, is studying his company’s chances of being awarded a Rs. 1,000 crore bridge building contract in Delhi. In this process, two events interest him. First, Alpha’s major competitor Gamma Ltd, is trying to import the latest bridge building technology from Europe, which it hopes to get before the deadline of the award of contact. Second, there are rumors that Delhi Government is investigating all recent contractors and Alpha Ltd is one of those contractors, while Gamma Ltd is not one of those. If Gamma is able to import the technology and there is no investigation by the Government, then Alpha’s chance of getting contract is 0.67. If there is investigation and Gamma Ltd is unable to import the technology in time, the Alpha’s chance is 0.72. If both events occur, then Alpha’s chance of getting the contract is 0.58 and if none events occur, its chances are 0.85. Raheja knows that the chance of Gamma Ltd being able to complete the import of technology before the award date is 0.80. How low must the probability of investigation be, so that the probability of the contract being awarded to Alpha Ltd is atleast 0.65? (Assume that occurrence of investigation and Gamma’s completion of import in time is independent to each other.)a)0.44b)0.57c)0.63d)0.55Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice Mr. Raheja, the president of Alpha Ltd., a construction company, is studying his company’s chances of being awarded a Rs. 1,000 crore bridge building contract in Delhi. In this process, two events interest him. First, Alpha’s major competitor Gamma Ltd, is trying to import the latest bridge building technology from Europe, which it hopes to get before the deadline of the award of contact. Second, there are rumors that Delhi Government is investigating all recent contractors and Alpha Ltd is one of those contractors, while Gamma Ltd is not one of those. If Gamma is able to import the technology and there is no investigation by the Government, then Alpha’s chance of getting contract is 0.67. If there is investigation and Gamma Ltd is unable to import the technology in time, the Alpha’s chance is 0.72. If both events occur, then Alpha’s chance of getting the contract is 0.58 and if none events occur, its chances are 0.85. Raheja knows that the chance of Gamma Ltd being able to complete the import of technology before the award date is 0.80. How low must the probability of investigation be, so that the probability of the contract being awarded to Alpha Ltd is atleast 0.65? (Assume that occurrence of investigation and Gamma’s completion of import in time is independent to each other.)a)0.44b)0.57c)0.63d)0.55Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CAT tests.

Explore Courses for CAT exam