12 Minute Test: Tables | Logical Reasoning (LR) and Data Interpretation (DI) - CAT PDF Download

It is given that:  High Q > Best Ed > Cosmopolitan  and Education Aid > A-one

We can say that High Q > Cosmopolitan

We can see that both High Q and Cosmopolitan got same points in reputation (R) and placement quality (P). High Q received more points in infrastructure (I) than Cosmopolitan whereas Cosmopolitan received more points in faculty Quality (F) than High Q.

Hence, we can say that Infrastructure’s weight should be greater than Faculty quality. i.e.   I > F

Similarly, We can see that both Best Ed and Cosmopolitan got same points in faculty Quality (F) and placement quality (P). Best Ed received more points in reputation (R) than Cosmopolitan whereas Cosmopolitan received more points in infrastructure (I) than Best Ed.

Hence, we can say that reputation’s weight should be greater than infrastructure. i.e.   R > I

Similarly, We can see that both Education Aid and A-one got same points in faculty Quality (F) and reputation (R). Education Aid received more points in infrastructure (I) than A-one whereas A-one received more points in placement quality (P) than Education Aid.

Hence, we can say that reputation’s weight should be greater than infrastructure. i.e.   I > P

So basically there are two possible cases: R > I > P > F or  R > I > F > P

Case 1:   Order of weights assigned = R > I > P > F

R = 0.4, I = 0.3. P = 0.2, F = 0.1

In this case overall score received by Best Ed = 0.1*40+0.4*30+0.2*20+0.3*20 = 26

In this case overall score received by High Q = 0.1*30+0.4*20+0.2*20+0.3*40 = 27

We can see that High Q’s overall score is higher than Best Ed. Hence, this is a possible case.

Case 2:   Order of weights assigned = R > I > F > P

R = 0.4, I = 0.3. P = 0.1, F = 0.2

In this case overall score received by Best Ed = 0.2*40+0.4*30+0.1*20+0.3*20 = 28

In this case overall score received by High Q = 0.2*30+0.4*20+0.1*20+0.3*40 = 28

We can see that High Q’s overall score is not greater than the overall score received Best Ed. Hence, this case is not possible.

Now that we know the weight of each parameter, we can calculate the overall score and accreditation received by each college.

From the table we can see that none of the mentioned college received an overall scores between 31 and 40, both inclusive. Hence, option A is the correct answer.

It’s given in the question that the first runner up polled 10,000
more votes than the second runner up in constituency A. Now the first
runner up has got 95000 votes, hence the second runner up will get 85000
votes.

Now the remaining votes will be 500000-275000-95000-85000=45000

From
2, None of the candidates who contested in constituency C lost their
security deposit. The difference in votes polled by any pair of
candidates in this constituency was at least 10,000 => the person who
got 5th highest votes must have got > 600030/6 => ≥ 100006.
Since it is also given that the difference of votes is ≥ 10000,
the only possible case is winner, 1st runner up, 2nd runner up, 3rd
runner up, 4th runner up must have got
140006,130006,120006,110006,100006 respectively which sums upto exactly
600030.

From 3, Let the total votes in D be 100x => The winning candidate in constituency D must have got 37500+5x.

The table now looks like:

The candidates who didn’t lose the deposit must have got <16.67% => 3rd runner up must surely didn’t get the deposit.
Also,  the candidates who got security deposit must have got 65% of votes.
Case I:
Let top three candidates got the security deposit => 37500+5x+37500+30000 =65x => x=1750 => 100x= 175000

Case II:
Let top three candidates got the security deposit => 37500 + 5x + 37500 = 65x => 60x = 1250 => x=125000 but 16.66% of 125000 =20834  => 2nd runner up must got security deposit. So, this case is not valid.

The increasing order C will always come after D which is not happening in the third option. Hence that is the correct answer.