All Courses
Explore Courses UPSC Exam UPSC Test Series Free Notes EduRev Infinity Get the App Login Join for Free
Sign in Open App
CAT Exam  >  CAT Questions  >  A survey was conducted in a society to get an... Start Learning for Free
SaveJoin the Discussion on the App
A survey was conducted in a society to get an estimate of how many people read the following newspapers, The Telegraph, The Economic Times and The Times of India. It was found out that 20% of people of the society read The Telegraph, 30% of people of the society read The Economic Times and 40% of the people of the society read The Times of India. If the society had a total of 600 people, what can be the maximum number of people in the society who read none of the newspapers?

Correct answer is '60'. Can you explain this answer?
FREE This question is part of
Download PDF Attempt Test
Download PDF Attempt this Test
Verified Answer
A survey was conducted in a society to get an estimate of how many peo...




View all questions of this test
Most Upvoted Answer
A survey was conducted in a society to get an estimate of how many peo...
Given information:
- The survey was conducted in a society.
- The society has a total of 600 people.
- 20% of people read The Telegraph.
- 30% of people read The Economic Times.
- 40% of people read The Times of India.

Objective:
To find the maximum number of people in the society who read none of the newspapers.

Calculation:
Let's calculate the number of people who read each newspaper:
- The number of people who read The Telegraph = 20% of 600 = (20/100) * 600 = 120
- The number of people who read The Economic Times = 30% of 600 = (30/100) * 600 = 180
- The number of people who read The Times of India = 40% of 600 = (40/100) * 600 = 240

To find the maximum number of people who read none of the newspapers, we need to subtract the total number of people who read each newspaper from the total number of people in the society.

Total number of people who read at least one newspaper = Number of people who read The Telegraph + Number of people who read The Economic Times + Number of people who read The Times of India
= 120 + 180 + 240 = 540

Therefore, the maximum number of people who read none of the newspapers = Total number of people in the society - Total number of people who read at least one newspaper
= 600 - 540 = 60

Conclusion:
The maximum number of people in the society who read none of the newspapers is 60.
Free Test
FREE
Start Free Test
Start Free Test
Community Answer
A survey was conducted in a society to get an estimate of how many peo...
Let the newspapers be abbreviated as follows:
The Telegraph - TT
The Economic Times - ET
The Times of India - TOI
Let the number of people in the society be 100 (only for calculation, later we will substitute the correct value)
Therefore, n(TT) = 20
n(ET) = 30
n(TOI) = 40
To maximise the number of people reading no newspaper, we will have to maximise the number of people who read 3 and 2 newspapers as follows.
 
Hence, maximum number of people who read no newspapers = 60 = 60%.
Total number of people in the society = 600
Hence, the maximum number of people in the society who read none of the newspapers = 0.6 x 600 = 360
Attention CAT Students!
To make sure you are not studying endlessly, EduRev has designed CAT study material, with Structured Courses, Videos, & Test Series. Plus get personalized analysis, doubt solving and improvement plans to achieve a great score in CAT.
< Previous Question Next Question >
Explore Courses for CAT exam

Similar CAT Doubts

DIRECTIONSfor 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 Universitys Hoover Institution, tweeted that if told an economists 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 Moodys 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 untaxe d). 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 Obamas 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

DIRECTIONSfor 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 Universitys Hoover Institution, tweeted that if told an economists 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 Moodys 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 untaxe d). 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 Obamas 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.

DIRECTIONSfor 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 Universitys Hoover Institution, tweeted that if told an economists 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 Moodys 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 untaxe d). 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 Obamas 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

DIRECTIONSfor 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 Universitys Hoover Institution, tweeted that if told an economists 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 Moodys 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 untaxe d). 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 Obamas 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

DIRECTIONSfor 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 Universitys Hoover Institution, tweeted that if told an economists 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 Moodys 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 untaxe d). 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 Obamas 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 cansaid to be

Top Courses for CATView all

Top Courses for CAT

A survey was conducted in a society to get an estimate of how many people read the following newspapers, The Telegraph, The Economic Times and The Times of India. It was found out that 20% of people of the society read The Telegraph, 30% of people of the society read The Economic Times and 40% of the people of the society read The Times of India. If the society had a total of 600 people, what can be the maximum number of people in the society who read none of the newspapers?Correct answer is '60'. Can you explain this answer?
Question Description
A survey was conducted in a society to get an estimate of how many people read the following newspapers, The Telegraph, The Economic Times and The Times of India. It was found out that 20% of people of the society read The Telegraph, 30% of people of the society read The Economic Times and 40% of the people of the society read The Times of India. If the society had a total of 600 people, what can be the maximum number of people in the society who read none of the newspapers?Correct answer is '60'. Can you explain this answer? for CAT 2024 is part of CAT preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the CAT exam syllabus. Information about A survey was conducted in a society to get an estimate of how many people read the following newspapers, The Telegraph, The Economic Times and The Times of India. It was found out that 20% of people of the society read The Telegraph, 30% of people of the society read The Economic Times and 40% of the people of the society read The Times of India. If the society had a total of 600 people, what can be the maximum number of people in the society who read none of the newspapers?Correct answer is '60'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for CAT 2024 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for A survey was conducted in a society to get an estimate of how many people read the following newspapers, The Telegraph, The Economic Times and The Times of India. It was found out that 20% of people of the society read The Telegraph, 30% of people of the society read The Economic Times and 40% of the people of the society read The Times of India. If the society had a total of 600 people, what can be the maximum number of people in the society who read none of the newspapers?Correct answer is '60'. Can you explain this answer?.
Solutions for A survey was conducted in a society to get an estimate of how many people read the following newspapers, The Telegraph, The Economic Times and The Times of India. It was found out that 20% of people of the society read The Telegraph, 30% of people of the society read The Economic Times and 40% of the people of the society read The Times of India. If the society had a total of 600 people, what can be the maximum number of people in the society who read none of the newspapers?Correct answer is '60'. 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 A survey was conducted in a society to get an estimate of how many people read the following newspapers, The Telegraph, The Economic Times and The Times of India. It was found out that 20% of people of the society read The Telegraph, 30% of people of the society read The Economic Times and 40% of the people of the society read The Times of India. If the society had a total of 600 people, what can be the maximum number of people in the society who read none of the newspapers?Correct answer is '60'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of A survey was conducted in a society to get an estimate of how many people read the following newspapers, The Telegraph, The Economic Times and The Times of India. It was found out that 20% of people of the society read The Telegraph, 30% of people of the society read The Economic Times and 40% of the people of the society read The Times of India. If the society had a total of 600 people, what can be the maximum number of people in the society who read none of the newspapers?Correct answer is '60'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for A survey was conducted in a society to get an estimate of how many people read the following newspapers, The Telegraph, The Economic Times and The Times of India. It was found out that 20% of people of the society read The Telegraph, 30% of people of the society read The Economic Times and 40% of the people of the society read The Times of India. If the society had a total of 600 people, what can be the maximum number of people in the society who read none of the newspapers?Correct answer is '60'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of A survey was conducted in a society to get an estimate of how many people read the following newspapers, The Telegraph, The Economic Times and The Times of India. It was found out that 20% of people of the society read The Telegraph, 30% of people of the society read The Economic Times and 40% of the people of the society read The Times of India. If the society had a total of 600 people, what can be the maximum number of people in the society who read none of the newspapers?Correct answer is '60'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice A survey was conducted in a society to get an estimate of how many people read the following newspapers, The Telegraph, The Economic Times and The Times of India. It was found out that 20% of people of the society read The Telegraph, 30% of people of the society read The Economic Times and 40% of the people of the society read The Times of India. If the society had a total of 600 people, what can be the maximum number of people in the society who read none of the newspapers?Correct answer is '60'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CAT tests.
Explore Courses for CAT exam

Top Courses for CAT

Explore Courses

Suggested Free Tests

Signup for Free!
Signup to see your scores go up within 7 days! Learn & Practice with 1000+ FREE Notes, Videos & Tests.
10M+ students study on EduRev
Get App
© EduRev
Education Revolution
Follow Us
Signup to see your scores go up within 7 days!
Access 1000+ FREE Docs, Videos and Tests
Takes less than 10 seconds to signup