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  >   Sam and his 8 friends plan to rent an apartm... Start Learning for Free
SaveJoin the Discussion on the App
Sam and his 8 friends plan to rent an apartment for a duration of 15 days, by shelling out equal amount towards the rent. Contributing a particular amount, they each fall short of Rs.40. Sam observes that had there been 12 of them, they could have just paid the rent by contributing exactly the same amount. The rent and the amount each of them contribute are
  • a)
    Rent 1440, contribution 120
  • b)
    Rent 1500, contribution 125
  • c)
    Rent 1464, contribution 122
  • d)
    Rent 1680, contribution 140
  • e)
    Rent 1650, contribution 135
Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?
FREE This question is part of
Download PDF Attempt Test
Download PDF Attempt this Test
Most Upvoted Answer
Sam and his 8 friends plan to rent an apartment for a duration of 15 ...
Given:
- Sam and his 8 friends plan to rent an apartment for 15 days.
- They each fall short of Rs.40 when contributing towards the rent.
- If there were 12 of them, they could have paid the rent by contributing exactly the same amount.

To find:
- The rent amount and the amount each of them contributes.

Assumption:
- The rent is divided equally among all the individuals.
- The contribution amount is an integer.

Approach:
1. Let's assume the rent amount is 'R' and the contribution amount is 'C'.
2. According to the given information, 9 individuals (Sam and his 8 friends) fall short of Rs.40 when contributing towards the rent.
- So, the total contribution falls short by 9 * 40 = Rs.360.
- Therefore, we have the equation: 9C = R - 360.
3. According to the given information, if there were 12 individuals, they could have paid the rent by contributing exactly the same amount.
- So, the total contribution by 12 individuals would be 12C.
- Therefore, we have the equation: 12C = R.
4. Now, we have two equations: 9C = R - 360 and 12C = R.
5. To solve these equations, we can substitute the value of R from the second equation into the first equation.
- Substitute R = 12C into the first equation: 9C = 12C - 360.
- Simplify the equation: 3C = 360.
- Divide both sides by 3: C = 120.
6. Substitute the value of C back into the second equation to find R: 12 * 120 = R.
- Simplify: R = 1440.

Answer:
The rent amount is Rs.1440 and the amount each of them contributes is Rs.120. Therefore, the correct answer is option 'A' (Rent 1440, contribution 120).
Free Test
FREE
Start Free Test
Start Free Test
Community Answer
Sam and his 8 friends plan to rent an apartment for a duration of 15 ...
Let each friend contribute x.
From the question, we have
9(x + 40) = 12x or 3x = 360, or x = 120.
Total amount = 120 x 12 = 1440.
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

Read the passage carefully and answer the questions that follow:Our meritocracy looks to markets to measure merit. Prices—including, crucially, wages—establish what things are worth. Greg Mankiw, who chaired George Bush’s Council of Economic Advisers, captures the ideal in his “principle of just deserts.” Meritocracy holds that “a person who contributes more to society deserves a higher income that reflects those greater contributions.” Moreover, meritocracy measures each person’s contribution as the market value that she adds “to society’s production of goods and services.”But in reality, meritocratic hierarchies now distort market valuations, especially wages. Elites remake work in their own image, to privilege education and skills that only they can afford to acquire. Finance illustrates the pattern. In the mid 20th century, when the Economist called banking “the world’s most respectable dying industry,” those in the field were neither better educated nor better paid than others. Since then, super-educated elites have developed technologies—financial instruments, digital tools and legal regimes—that dramatically favour their own skills. Today, no sector is more closely associated with high wages. But the innovation is not a true advance, and the new style of finance does not make a greater social contribution than the old. The transaction costs of financial intermediation have not declined, and overall financial risk is neither reduced nor better shared.Similar patterns pervade the wider economy. Elites remake work to favour their peculiar skills and then use the enormous incomes that ensue to buy educations for their children that the rest cannot match. Far from correcting itself, meritocratic inequality triggers a feedback loop that undermines meritocracy’s core claims. Merit is an ideology built to launder offensive hierarchies.But,todays distribution of rewards and opportunities is notso repugnant that we need to junk the idea of merit.The meritocratic idea was forged in the revolt against the old society that fixed people’s position at birth, most notably in the French and American Revolutions of the 18th century and the English liberal revolution of the 19th. But things didn’t stop there. Prominent thinkers of the time like Du Bois and Luther King,all rested their arguments on the idea that people should be judged on the basis of their own abilities.I would agree with a reworded version of Mankiw’s principle: someone who contributes more to prosperity deserves a higher income that reflects their greater contribution.There is more to meritocracy than money-making.The meritocratic idea tries to address two of the great problems at the heart of modernity: how do we reconcile the moral equality of individuals with social differentiation? And how do we secure the economic growth that pays for the things we have come to expect, such as social welfare?Meritocracy answers the first question by providing a combination of equality of opportunity and competition. Universal education gives everybody a basic shot at succeeding. Competition allows people to discover their unique talents. And if competition has downsides, they are nothing compared with the risks of allowing talents to go undiscovered.The evidence that meritocracy promotes economic efficiency is overwhelming: meritocratic countries such as Singapore grow more robustly than non-meritocratic ones such as Greece; public companies that recruit people on merit are more successful than family companies that rely on nepotism.The solution to the inequalities produced by meritocracy’s success is to tax the winners rather than to bind Prometheus.Q. The author cites the example of developments in finance to drive home all of the following points, EXCEPT

Read the passage carefully and answer the questions that follow:Our meritocracy looks to markets to measure merit. Prices—including, crucially, wages—establish what things are worth. Greg Mankiw, who chaired George Bush’s Council of Economic Advisers, captures the ideal in his “principle of just deserts.” Meritocracy holds that “a person who contributes more to society deserves a higher income that reflects those greater contributions.” Moreover, meritocracy measures each person’s contribution as the market value that she adds “to society’s production of goods and services.”But in reality, meritocratic hierarchies now distort market valuations, especially wages. Elites remake work in their own image, to privilege education and skills that only they can afford to acquire. Finance illustrates the pattern. In the mid 20th century, when the Economist called banking “the world’s most respectable dying industry,” those in the field were neither better educated nor better paid than others. Since then, super-educated elites have developed technologies—financial instruments, digital tools and legal regimes—that dramatically favour their own skills. Today, no sector is more closely associated with high wages. But the innovation is not a true advance, and the new style of finance does not make a greater social contribution than the old. The transaction costs of financial intermediation have not declined, and overall financial risk is neither reduced nor better shared.Similar patterns pervade the wider economy. Elites remake work to favour their peculiar skills and then use the enormous incomes that ensue to buy educations for their children that the rest cannot match. Far from correcting itself, meritocratic inequality triggers a feedback loop that undermines meritocracy’s core claims. Merit is an ideology built to launder offensive hierarchies.But,todays distribution of rewards and opportunities is notso repugnant that we need to junk the idea of merit.The meritocratic idea was forged in the revolt against the old society that fixed people’s position at birth, most notably in the French and American Revolutions of the 18th century and the English liberal revolution of the 19th. But things didn’t stop there. Prominent thinkers of the time like Du Bois and Luther King,all rested their arguments on the idea that people should be judged on the basis of their own abilities.I would agree with a reworded version of Mankiw’s principle: someone who contributes more to prosperity deserves a higher income that reflects their greater contribution.There is more to meritocracy than money-making.The meritocratic idea tries to address two of the great problems at the heart of modernity: how do we reconcile the moral equality of individuals with social differentiation? And how do we secure the economic growth that pays for the things we have come to expect, such as social welfare?Meritocracy answers the first question by providing a combination of equality of opportunity and competition. Universal education gives everybody a basic shot at succeeding. Competition allows people to discover their unique talents. And if competition has downsides, they are nothing compared with the risks of allowing talents to go undiscovered.The evidence that meritocracy promotes economic efficiency is overwhelming: meritocratic countries such as Singapore grow more robustly than non-meritocratic ones such as Greece; public companies that recruit people on merit are more successful than family companies that rely on nepotism.The solution to the inequalities produced by meritocracy’s success is to tax the winners rather than to bind Prometheus.Q. The authors view on the principle of just deserts differs from that of Mankiw in which of the following ways?

Read the passage carefully and answer the questions that follow:Our meritocracy looks to markets to measure merit. Prices—including, crucially, wages—establish what things are worth. Greg Mankiw, who chaired George Bush’s Council of Economic Advisers, captures the ideal in his “principle of just deserts.” Meritocracy holds that “a person who contributes more to society deserves a higher income that reflects those greater contributions.” Moreover, meritocracy measures each person’s contribution as the market value that she adds “to society’s production of goods and services.”But in reality, meritocratic hierarchies now distort market valuations, especially wages. Elites remake work in their own image, to privilege education and skills that only they can afford to acquire. Finance illustrates the pattern. In the mid 20th century, when the Economist called banking “the world’s most respectable dying industry,” those in the field were neither better educated nor better paid than others. Since then, super-educated elites have developed technologies—financial instruments, digital tools and legal regimes—that dramatically favour their own skills. Today, no sector is more closely associated with high wages. But the innovation is not a true advance, and the new style of finance does not make a greater social contribution than the old. The transaction costs of financial intermediation have not declined, and overall financial risk is neither reduced nor better shared.Similar patterns pervade the wider economy. Elites remake work to favour their peculiar skills and then use the enormous incomes that ensue to buy educations for their children that the rest cannot match. Far from correcting itself, meritocratic inequality triggers a feedback loop that undermines meritocracy’s core claims. Merit is an ideology built to launder offensive hierarchies.But,todays distribution of rewards and opportunities is notso repugnant that we need to junk the idea of merit.The meritocratic idea was forged in the revolt against the old society that fixed people’s position at birth, most notably in the French and American Revolutions of the 18th century and the English liberal revolution of the 19th. But things didn’t stop there. Prominent thinkers of the time like Du Bois and Luther King,all rested their arguments on the idea that people should be judged on the basis of their own abilities.I would agree with a reworded version of Mankiw’s principle: someone who contributes more to prosperity deserves a higher income that reflects their greater contribution.There is more to meritocracy than money-making.The meritocratic idea tries to address two of the great problems at the heart of modernity: how do we reconcile the moral equality of individuals with social differentiation? And how do we secure the economic growth that pays for the things we have come to expect, such as social welfare?Meritocracy answers the first question by providing a combination of equality of opportunity and competition. Universal education gives everybody a basic shot at succeeding. Competition allows people to discover their unique talents. And if competition has downsides, they are nothing compared with the risks of allowing talents to go undiscovered.The evidence that meritocracy promotes economic efficiency is overwhelming: meritocratic countries such as Singapore grow more robustly than non-meritocratic ones such as Greece; public companies that recruit people on merit are more successful than family companies that rely on nepotism.The solution to the inequalities produced by meritocracy’s success is to tax the winners rather than to bind Prometheus.Q. Why does the author mention the phrase bind Prometheus?

Top Courses for CATView all

Top Courses for CAT

Sam and his 8 friends plan to rent an apartment for a duration of 15 days, by shelling out equal amount towards the rent. Contributing a particular amount, they each fall short of Rs.40. Sam observes that had there been 12 of them, they could have just paid the rent by contributing exactly the same amount. The rent and the amount each of them contribute area)Rent 1440, contribution 120b)Rent 1500, contribution 125c)Rent 1464, contribution 122d)Rent 1680, contribution 140e)Rent 1650, contribution 135Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?
Question Description
Sam and his 8 friends plan to rent an apartment for a duration of 15 days, by shelling out equal amount towards the rent. Contributing a particular amount, they each fall short of Rs.40. Sam observes that had there been 12 of them, they could have just paid the rent by contributing exactly the same amount. The rent and the amount each of them contribute area)Rent 1440, contribution 120b)Rent 1500, contribution 125c)Rent 1464, contribution 122d)Rent 1680, contribution 140e)Rent 1650, contribution 135Correct answer is option 'A'. 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 Sam and his 8 friends plan to rent an apartment for a duration of 15 days, by shelling out equal amount towards the rent. Contributing a particular amount, they each fall short of Rs.40. Sam observes that had there been 12 of them, they could have just paid the rent by contributing exactly the same amount. The rent and the amount each of them contribute area)Rent 1440, contribution 120b)Rent 1500, contribution 125c)Rent 1464, contribution 122d)Rent 1680, contribution 140e)Rent 1650, contribution 135Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for CAT 2024 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for Sam and his 8 friends plan to rent an apartment for a duration of 15 days, by shelling out equal amount towards the rent. Contributing a particular amount, they each fall short of Rs.40. Sam observes that had there been 12 of them, they could have just paid the rent by contributing exactly the same amount. The rent and the amount each of them contribute area)Rent 1440, contribution 120b)Rent 1500, contribution 125c)Rent 1464, contribution 122d)Rent 1680, contribution 140e)Rent 1650, contribution 135Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?.
Solutions for Sam and his 8 friends plan to rent an apartment for a duration of 15 days, by shelling out equal amount towards the rent. Contributing a particular amount, they each fall short of Rs.40. Sam observes that had there been 12 of them, they could have just paid the rent by contributing exactly the same amount. The rent and the amount each of them contribute area)Rent 1440, contribution 120b)Rent 1500, contribution 125c)Rent 1464, contribution 122d)Rent 1680, contribution 140e)Rent 1650, contribution 135Correct answer is option 'A'. 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 Sam and his 8 friends plan to rent an apartment for a duration of 15 days, by shelling out equal amount towards the rent. Contributing a particular amount, they each fall short of Rs.40. Sam observes that had there been 12 of them, they could have just paid the rent by contributing exactly the same amount. The rent and the amount each of them contribute area)Rent 1440, contribution 120b)Rent 1500, contribution 125c)Rent 1464, contribution 122d)Rent 1680, contribution 140e)Rent 1650, contribution 135Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of Sam and his 8 friends plan to rent an apartment for a duration of 15 days, by shelling out equal amount towards the rent. Contributing a particular amount, they each fall short of Rs.40. Sam observes that had there been 12 of them, they could have just paid the rent by contributing exactly the same amount. The rent and the amount each of them contribute area)Rent 1440, contribution 120b)Rent 1500, contribution 125c)Rent 1464, contribution 122d)Rent 1680, contribution 140e)Rent 1650, contribution 135Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for Sam and his 8 friends plan to rent an apartment for a duration of 15 days, by shelling out equal amount towards the rent. Contributing a particular amount, they each fall short of Rs.40. Sam observes that had there been 12 of them, they could have just paid the rent by contributing exactly the same amount. The rent and the amount each of them contribute area)Rent 1440, contribution 120b)Rent 1500, contribution 125c)Rent 1464, contribution 122d)Rent 1680, contribution 140e)Rent 1650, contribution 135Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of Sam and his 8 friends plan to rent an apartment for a duration of 15 days, by shelling out equal amount towards the rent. Contributing a particular amount, they each fall short of Rs.40. Sam observes that had there been 12 of them, they could have just paid the rent by contributing exactly the same amount. The rent and the amount each of them contribute area)Rent 1440, contribution 120b)Rent 1500, contribution 125c)Rent 1464, contribution 122d)Rent 1680, contribution 140e)Rent 1650, contribution 135Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice Sam and his 8 friends plan to rent an apartment for a duration of 15 days, by shelling out equal amount towards the rent. Contributing a particular amount, they each fall short of Rs.40. Sam observes that had there been 12 of them, they could have just paid the rent by contributing exactly the same amount. The rent and the amount each of them contribute area)Rent 1440, contribution 120b)Rent 1500, contribution 125c)Rent 1464, contribution 122d)Rent 1680, contribution 140e)Rent 1650, contribution 135Correct answer is option 'A'. 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
Signup to see your scores go up within 7 days!
Access 1000+ FREE Docs, Videos and Tests
Takes less than 10 seconds to signup