CAT Mock Test- 3 Free Online Test 2026

The author states that " Déjà vu is almost impossible to study — people are rarely hooked up to electrodes or undergoing internal scans when they experience it — so most information about the sensation comes from self-reports". Hence, it is not possible to conduct detailed laboratory studies, as the experience occurs randomly. As a result, most of the information about Deja-vu is based on anecdotal evidence. Option C aptly captures the point elucidated above (especially the part highlighting the unpredictability of the experience).

Option A is wrong. It talks about mental sensations - an idea that is irrelevant to the discussion.

Option B is not the reason. Instead, it serves to exemplify a potential outcome of Déjà vu being random. Because of the dearth of scientific information concerning this phenomenon, we largely depend on anecdotal evidence. Option B is incorrect.

Option D can be eliminated as it has not been implied in the passage.

Hence, Option C is the correct choice.

{Déjà vu — French for “already seen” — is a mental sensation of intense familiarity coupled with the awareness that the familiarity is mistaken. It’s a recognition we know is wrong, a memory we know doesn’t exist.} Option A can be inferred from these lines.

The third and fourth paragraphs discuss two theories that are backed by experimental findings. Option B can be inferred.

{Human memory is notoriously faulty and malleable.} Option C can be inferred as well.

Option D is a distortion; the author states that "déjà vu becomes more common when we are stressed and tired." However, the corollary may not necessarily true. It is not necessary that most people who experience are tired or stressed. Hence, option D cannot be inferred.

In the passage, the author presents three theories that attempt to explain the occurrence of Deja-vu;

1)Deja-vu isn’t a sign of faulty memory, so much as it’s a sign of a well-functioning brain that actively fact-checks itself.

2)Our stored memories still influence our present perception even if we can’t consciously recall them.

3)Déjà vu occurs when a familiar object appears incongruously.

Options A, C and D are valid. 

Option B is close to the first theory but incorrect. The author does not say that the two regions have conflicting responses to the same stimuli. The second half of the option is out of the scope of the passage.

The author makes the following observation-"This conflict between what we know and what we remember is why déjà vu feels so eerie — almost paranormal or out-of-body." The person is aware that the memory doesn't exist but is still trying to discern if he remembers correctly and whether his awareness is indeed true. Option B conveys this inference and is the answer.

All other options are either tangential to the discussion or do not convey the above point.

Option C is wrong. The author does not mention the simultaneous nature of sensation and awareness.

Options A is extraneous to the discussion.

Option D is an exaggeration where it says that people doubt their sense of reality.

The following excerpt enables us to determine the correct choice: "...From this perspective, authoritarian political systems echo monotheistic religions. Like God himself, the leader is omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent. His words define the horizons of reality. He must be praised and appeased, but never challenged. His enemies are, by definition, in league with the forces of evil..."

Option A: The author doesn't assert that authoritarian leaders exploit our vulnerabilities; nor does he label the followers as politically disillusioned. Hence, Option A is not implied.

Option B: The author does not mention any expectation, on the part of the followers, concerning deliverance from human helplessness. While he highlights how this facet forms the root of our vulnerabilities, he does not use this to correlate authoritarian systems and monotheistic religion. Thus, Option B can be rejected.

Option C: This aspect is presented as a belief of the followers and not as a true capability of the leader; the author does not assert that authoritarian leaders have the capacity to "define horizons of reality" (this is how the followers perceive them to be). The statement here appears to be definitive, and hence, goes beyond the scope of the discussion. Thus, Option C can be discarded.   

Option D: This highlights one of the points that the author mentions: "...He must be praised and appeased, but never challenged. His enemies are, by definition, in league with the forces of evil..."

Hence, Option D is the correct choice.

The author highlights how Plato was one of the first eminent thinkers to deliberate on the concept of tyranny. His opinion on this topic is discussed briefly in the first paragraph. This is followed by Weber's version of the same subject in the second paragraph. The author mentions the idea of a 'charismatic leader' and relates it to the underlying beliefs of the followers of a tyrant. Subsequently, the author discusses two main ideas stemming from Freud's study of the psychological dynamics of followership. The ideas are briefly presented in the third paragraph, followed by their implications (in the fourth paragraph). Thus, the author intends to describe the manner in which different eminent thinkers have conceptualised the idea of tyranny and followership. Option B aptly captures this point.

Option A: The author does not attempt to contrast 'a modern take' on tyranny and an 'earlier/older version'. Neither of these categories has been understandably identified in the passage. Hence, Option A can be eliminated. 

Option C: The statement here has subtle distortions and differs in the intended meaning. Plato has been labelled as "one of the first and most influential thinkers to address the problem of tyranny". Additionally, the claim in C implies that he is followed by Weber and Freud as perhaps the second and third individuals who worked on the idea of followership - a point that is not backed by any information. Thus, Option C can be rejected.

Option D: We cannot perceive the author's attitude as alarmed or concerned, nor does he attribute the establishment of authoritarian regimes to deluded followers. Hence, Option D can be discarded as the potential choice.

 Hence, Option B is the correct answer.

Option A: The statement here coincide with the discussion undertaken in the following excerpt: "...There are clear links between Freud’s analysis of the religious impulse, and psychological forces at play in the political sphere. Politics is, explicitly, a response to human vulnerability. Our deepest hopes and fears permeate the political arena, and this makes us susceptible to political illusions, which are often clung to with such impassioned tenacity, and so refractory to reasoned argument, that they fit Freud’s characterisation of delusions..." Hence, Option A has been discussed in the passage.

Option B: The author mentions that: "Charismatic leaders inspire devotion, and are regarded as prophetic figures by their followers." However, we notice no cause-effect relationship presented; nor does the author shed light on the claim made in the latter half of Option B. Thus, we can reject B as the potential answer. 

Option C: The author makes the following comments: "...Religious convictions are Freud’s prime examples of delusions. They are, he wrote, ‘fulfillments of the oldest, strongest, and most urgent wishes of mankind. The wishes that underpin religious belief have to do with deliverance from human helplessness..." However, he does not contrast political convictions with the aforementioned idea; they are not presented as opposing elements but instead have similar underlying drivers. Hence, the comparison is C is not presented, and hence, we can eliminate it.

Option D: No such assertion has been made in the passage and thus, we can eliminate D.

Hence, Option A is the correct choice.

Statement I: We observe that the author has discussed this point in the passage: "This intoxicating sense of unity, and the subordination of personal self-interest to a greater cause, is a very important component of authoritarian systems.". Hence, Statement I is true. 

Statement II: "He must be praised and appeased, but never challenged. His enemies are, by definition, in league with the forces of evil." The above lines from the passage covey a general idea/perception concerning similarities between an authoritarian government and monotheistic religion; it does not reflect the author's opinion. The author is simply describing the common underlying beliefs. 

Statement III: "From this perspective, authoritarian political systems echo monotheistic religions." The author draws a parallel between these two setups. However, it has not been implied that followers of monotheistic religions would be highly supportive of authoritarian political systems; we do not have sufficient information to substantiate this claim.

Hence, Option C is the correct choice.

In the second and third paragraphs, the author advances the point that authenticity is intricately linked with self-realisation and self-appraisal, i.e., staying true to oneself. Hence, when someone 'performs' or 'builds' an authentic self that conforms to expectations, it is simply not authentic because authenticity is a natural state of being, not a manufactured one.

Comparing the options, only option B conveys this point.

Options A and D have not been implied in the passage. Option C is not incorrect but does not convey the larger point. 

Option B is the answer.

{Finding your true self means self-reflection, engaging in candid self-appraisal and seeking ‘genuine self-knowledge’, in the words of the American philosopher Charles Guignon."}. So, self-reflection, self-appraisal and seeking self-knowledge are the three activities associated with finding one's true self, according to Charles Guignon.

Options A, B and C convey these activities. Option D has not been implied explicitly in the passage. Hence, option D is the answer. 

Option A talks about bonafide knowledge of one's characteristics, which is the same as, genuine self-knowledge.

Option B discusses introspection, part of self-realisation.

Self-appraisal refers to one's worth and significance. Option C conveys this

Option A: In the second paragraph, the author states that "...as an ethical ideal...authenticity means more than self-consistency or a lack of pretentiousness." So, though it is not limited to self-consistency, it is still an essential feature. And a self-consistent person would react similarly in familiar situations. Hence option A can be inferred. The author is bound to stand by his claim, and hence, we can eliminate this choice.

Option B: "...Authenticity in this ethical sense also had a critical edge, standing against and challenging the utilitarian practices and conformist tendencies of the conventional social and economic order. Society erects barriers that the authentic person must break through..." Thus, Option B echoes the author's opinion and can be eliminated as the potential answer. 

Option C: The author highlights the difference between performative and inner authenticity in the following manner: "...The inner ideal aims at a way of being that is unfeigned and without illusions. It resists the cultivation of an affirming audience, because being a ‘whole’ person, with a noninstrumental relation to self and others, is often at odds with the demands of society. In the performative mode, by contrast, this tension between self and society disappears. Self-elaboration still requires self-examination, but not necessarily of any inner or even aesthetic kind..." The author does not present a cause-effect relationship concerning performative authenticity not requiring external validation and the "disappearance of tension between the self and the society". He mentions that inner authenticity disregards or does not demand the "cultivation of an affirming audience" and the opposite applies to performative authenticity. Thus, performative authenticity does require an audience. Hence, the author is unlikely to agree with the statement in C since it conflicts with his assertions.  

Option D: "...In the performative mode, by contrast, this tension between self and society disappears. Self-elaboration still requires self-examination, but not necessarily of any inner or even aesthetic kind..." Option D can be inferred from these lines. Even in the performative mode, self-examination is necessary.

Hence, Option C is the correct answer.

In the second paragraph, the author makes the following observation about inner mode - {Authenticity in this ethical sense also had a critical edge, standing against and challenging the utilitarian practices and conformist tendencies of the conventional social and economic order.} Furthermore, in the fourth paragraph, the author states that "Performative authenticity is tied to economic success and social prestige" Hence, option B can be inferred.

{Performative authenticity is tied to economic success and social prestige, which means... that your specialness and self-realisation have to be performed...The inner ideal aims at a way of being that is unfeigned and without illusions.} Option C can be inferred from these lines.

In the penultimate paragraph, the author remarks the following about performative mode-{Self-elaboration still requires self-examination, but not necessarily of any inner or even aesthetic kind.} Option D can be inferred as well.

This leaves us with option A. The former part of option A is true- {...they must ...positively affect others with their self-representations, personal characteristics and quality of life.}

However, the latter part has not been implied in the passage. The inner mode resists the cultivation of an affirming audience, true, but this cannot be equated to a lack of desire to affect others positively.

Option A is the answer.

In the first paragraph, the author states that the meteorite strike wiped out non-avian dinosaurs. However, the author does not discuss the fate of avian dinosaurs in the passage. Option A cannot be inferred.

The author states the following: "But researchers have had no idea how the event changed the tropical rain forests of Africa or, until now, those of South America." In the penultimate paragraph, the author notes that "Within moments of the Chicxulub meteorite’s impact, however, this ecosystem was irrevocably altered." This description, however, is only limited to South America's forest ecosystems. The author then extends on how these ecosystems changed drastically. However, no information is provided concerning forests in Africa; the author focuses solely on the alterations in the tropical rainforests of South America. Hence, Option B can be eliminated.

"Yet Western European and North American palaeontologists have paid little attention to tropical forests". This statement, however, does not imply that Asian and African palaeontologists majorly carried out the research. Option C can be eliminated as well.

{" Prior to the meteorite, the authors determined, South America’s forests featured many conifers and a brightly lit open canopy...As flowering species competed for light, they formed dense canopies of leaves and created the layered Amazon rain forest we know today.}

So, before the meteorite strike, the forests had open canopies, while currently, they have dense canopies. Option D can be inferred.

Hence, Option D is the correct choice.

{Many academic and amateur fossil hunters have also tended to write off warm, wet locales as a lost cause for finds because they have assumed that conditions there would prevent organic materials from being preserved long enough to fossilize.} From this line, it can be inferred that they believed the tropical climate did not favour the fossilization of organic materials. Comparing the options, option C conveys this inference.

All other options are either distorted or do not convey the above point, central to the discussion.

In the penultimate paragraph, the author states that dinosaurs played a crucial role in maintaining the pre-meteoritic ecosystem. However, it has not been implied that their extinction was necessary for the new ecosystem to develop. It was merely a chain of events. Statment I cannot be inferred.

{Scientists already knew that the effects of the meteorite collision and its aftermath—at least in temperate zones—varied with local conditions and distance from the Chicxulub impact crater in Mexico’s Yucatán Peninsula.} Hence, the effects varied with distance from the crater. So the location of the crater is important. Statement II can be inferred.

{But researchers have had no idea how the event changed the tropical rain forests of Africa or, until now, those of South America.} The study is centred on the effects of the collision on South American forests. The effects on African tropical forests remain a mystery. Statement III is wrong.

Though the soil was deficient in nutrients for a long-time after the collision, the exact cause for this depletion has not been discussed in the passage. Statement iv cannot be inferred.

The passage does not discuss the impact of rainfall anywhere. Hence, option C is the answer.

All the other options can be inferred from the information presented in the last paragraph. {This influx of nitrogen, along with phosphorus from the meteorite’s ash, enabled other flowering plants to thrive alongside the legumes and to displace conifers. As flowering species competed for light, they formed dense canopies of leaves and created the layered Amazon rain forest we know today.}

After reading the given collection of statements, we identify that the core of the discussion appears to be liberal democracies and the inherent limitations associated with them. Statement 2 (independent sentence) first introduces us to this subject and sets the context, comparing liberal democracy to capitalism and subsequently to a competition/game. Sentence 1 follows 2 because the phrase 'such systems' (in 1) refers to liberal democracy and capitalism, discussed in the opening sentence. The author also describes the limitation originating from such competition: "imprisons its players to stay within their roles". Sentence 4 follows 1- 'that competition' (in 4) refers to the competition described in 1. Additionally, it adds to the preceding point that discusses the limitations. Finally, 3 ends the paragraph as it discusses a consequence of the drawback mentioned in 4. Hence, 2143 is the answer.

Sentence 1 is the opening line, as it introduces the subject of discussion-parasites. 3 follows 1. Because of the behaviour mentioned in 1, parasites are seen as pariahs or outcasts. 42 form a bloc. 4 discusses the other side associated with parasites and why they may not be all bad. And 2 builds on 4, urging us to consider this other side.  Hence, the correct order is 1342

The passage predicts the dreary consequences of mounting plastic waste; it infiltrates both marine and human food webs. It causes disease and death in marine organisms, whereas by infiltrating human food webs, it inhibits growth and development during childhood.

Option A focuses on plastic usage, whereas the author is more concerned about plastic waste. Option A can be eliminated.

Option B talks about the effect on the quality of life, which has not been implied in the passage.

Option C covers all the key points discussed above. Option C is the answer.

Option D is close but is too narrow as it mentions only unprocessed plastic. The author does not make an explicit distinction. 

• The whole passage revolves around the t imelessness of Wimbledon and Roger Federrer.
• Statement 1, 2 and 3 are connected as they define the timelessness of Wimbledon and Roger Federrer.
• Statement 4 and 5 are close. But statement 4 talks about only a particular event
• Statement 5 via the phrase 'in to the future' connects with the central theme of timelessness

Hence Statement 4 is the odd one out.

• Statements 1, 2, 3, and 5 form a cohesive explanation of quantum computing, contrasting it with classical computing and emphasizing the revolutionary capacity of quantum systems.
• Statement 4, which specifically relates quantum computing to climate studies, diverges from the general theme of defining quantum computing and its fundamental differences from classical computing.

While arranging the parts of the paragraph, we should find some grammatical or contextual connections between them -

• 4 is the first sentenceas it is an independent sentence which is introducing the subject 'The First World War'. It means that the First World War is widely regarded as a war in which the majority of significant operations took place on mainland Europe, and only a few naval battles were fought across the world's oceans. 
• 1 is the second sentence as it says that ' this is only partially true '. From the phrase 'thought of as' in sentence 4, we can understand that it was just a perception or an opinion and it may or may not be true. 
• 3 is the third sentence as the phrase 'this operation' is referring to the major operation that was conducted at sea. It means that the operation at sea was the British blockade that sought to obstruct Germany's ability to import goods. 
• 2 is the last sentence as it says that the war that took place on land contributed to the victory of the allies (Britain, France, Italy, and the United States) in 1918, and it resulted in Germany's destruction.

Thus, the correct order is 4132:

• 4: The First World War is largely thought of as a conflict where the majority of the significant operations took place almost exclusively on mainland Europe with the exception of a handful of naval clashes fought throughout the world's oceans. 
• 1: This is only partially true because while most of the fighting did take place on the continent, one of the largest and most sophisticated undertakings of the war was conducted mainly at sea. 
• 3: This operation was the British blockade from 1914-1919 which sought to obstruct Germany's ability to import goods, and thus in the most literal sense starve the German people and military into submission.
• 2: While the land war certainly contributed to the Entente's (Britain, France, Italy, U.S.) victory in 1918, it was the blockade that truly broke Germany's back.

The passage pivots on the idea that the essence of the AI debate is human management, not the potential of AI itself. Option C captures this without introducing new concepts or misrepresenting the passage's content.

Option A succinctly summarizes the passage, highlighting the key theme: the unintended rise of protectionism and nationalism as a reaction to the negative repercussions of globalization.

Let R be the total amount spent by all the friends on Rent, G be the total amount spent by all the friends on Groceries and T be the total amount spent by all the friends on Travelling.
The given information in table form is as shown below:-

The total amount of money spent by exactly 3 friends is equal.
There are 10 possible combinations for this.
But as can be observed the amount spent by Anay, Bhola and Chintu on each of Rent, Groceries and Travel is greater than the amount spent by Eshwar on each of Rent, Groceries and Travel.
Thus, Amount of money spent by Eshwar cannot be equal to the amount of money spent by 2 other friends.
Thus, only 4 possible combinations now remain.
Out of these 4, the amount of money spent by Anay and Bhola on each of Rent, Groceries and Travel is greater than the amount spent by Dinu on each of Rent, Groceries and Travel
Thus, Amount of money spent by Dinu cannot be equal to the amount of money spent by 2 other friends.
Thus, the amount spent by Anay, Bhola and Chintu is equal.
Thus, 0.26R+0.24G+0.22T=0.22R+0.24G+0.24T
=> 0.04R = 0.02T
Thus, 2R=T
Also,
0.22R+0.24G+0.24T=0.18R+0.28G+0.24T
=> R=G
Thus, the table becomes:-

Thus, if R = 10000 then Dinu spent 0.36*1000 = 360 Rupees on Travelling.
Hence, option B is the correct answer.

Let R be the total amount spent by all the friends on Rent, G be the total amount spent by all the friends on Groceries and T be the total amount spent by all the friends on Travelling.
The given information in table form is as shown below:-

The total amount of money spent by exactly 3 friends is equal.
There are 10 possible combinations for this. 
But as can be observed the amount spent by Anay, Bhola and Chintu on each of Rent, Groceries and Travel is greater than the amount spent by Eshwar on each of Rent, Groceries and Travel.
Thus, Amount of money spent by Eshwar cannot be equal to the amount of money spent by 2 other friends.
Thus, only 4 possible combinations now remain.
Out of these 4, the amount of money spent by Anay and Bhola on each of Rent, Groceries and Travel is greater than the amount spent by Dinu on each of Rent, Groceries and Travel
Thus, Amount of money spent by Dinu cannot be equal to the amount of money spent by 2 other friends.
Thus, the amount spent by Anay, Bhola and Chintu is equal.
Thus, 0.26R+0.24G+0.22T=0.22R+0.24G+0.24T
=> 0.04R = 0.02T
Thus, 2R=T
Also, 0.22R+0.24G+0.24T=0.18R+0.28G+0.24T
=> R=G
Thus, the table becomes:-

Thus the required ratio is = 0.18R:0.24R = 3:4
ence, option D is the correct answer.

Let R be the total amount spent by all the friends on Rent, G be the total amount spent by all the friends on Groceries and T be the total amount spent by all the friends on Travelling.
The given information in table form is as shown below:-

The total amount of money spent by exactly 3 friends is equal.
There are 10 possible combinations for this. 
But as can be observed the amount spent by Anay, Bhola and Chintu on each of Rent, Groceries and Travel is greater than the amount spent by Eshwar on each of Rent, Groceries and Travel.
Thus, Amount of money spent by Eshwar cannot be equal to the amount of money spent by 2 other friends.
Thus, only 4 possible combinations now remain.
Out of these 4, the amount of money spent by Anay and Bhola on each of Rent, Groceries and Travel is greater than the amount spent by Dinu on each of Rent, Groceries and Travel
Thus, Amount of money spent by Dinu cannot be equal to the amount of money spent by 2 other friends.
Thus, the amount spent by Anay, Bhola and Chintu is equal.
Thus, 0.26R+0.24G+0.22T=0.22R+0.24G+0.24T
=> 0.04R = 0.02T
Thus, 2R=T
Also, 0.22R+0.24G+0.24T=0.18R+0.28G+0.24T
=> R=G
Thus, the table becomes:-

Thus the amount spent on traveling is 100% is more than the amount spent on rent by all the friends combined 
Hence, the Option A is the correct option.

Let R be the total amount spent by all the friends on Rent, G be the total amount spent by all the friends on Groceries and T be the total amount spent by all the friends on Travelling.
The given information in table form is as shown below:-

The total amount of money spent by exactly 3 friends is equal.
There are 10 possible combinations for this.
But as can be observed the amount spent by Anay, Bhola and Chintu on each of Rent, Groceries and Travel is greater than the amount spent by Eshwar on each of Rent, Groceries and Travel.
Thus, Amount of money spent by Eshwar cannot be equal to the amount of money spent by 2 other friends.
Thus, only 4 possible combinations now remain.
Out of these 4, the amount of money spent by Anay and Bhola on each of Rent, Groceries and Travel is greater than the amount spent by Dinu on each of Rent, Groceries and Travel
Thus, Amount of money spent by Dinu cannot be equal to the amount of money spent by 2 other friends.
Thus, the amount spent by Anay, Bhola and Chintu is equal.
Thus, 0.26R+0.24G+0.22T=0.22R+0.24G+0.24T
=> 0.04R = 0.02T
Thus, 2R=T
Also, 0.22R+0.24G+0.24T=0.18R+0.28G+0.24T
=> R=G
Thus, the table becomes:-

Thus, the amount spent by Anay on Travelling = 0.44*90000 = 39600 rupees
Hence, option A is the correct answer.

Amit, Aman, Rajesh and Rakesh are seated in inner circle. Amit is from Russia.(From statement:1)

The delegates who are from France and Russia are seared in the same circle but they are not immediate neighbours. Hence, we can say that the delegate from France is seated in the inner circle.

The delegates from Nepal and India are seated in different circles. Hence, we cay say that they sit in different circle. Moreover, the delegate from France faces the delegate from India. Hence we can say that the delegate from Nepal sit in inner circle.

From statement 6, we can see that the delegate from Aman is from China. Hence we can say that the delegates who are seated in the inner circle belong to France, Russia, Nepal and China. Consequently the delegates who are seated in the inner circle belong to India, Malaysia, Spain and Japan.

Among the delegates who are seated in the inner circle, we know about the Amit and Aman's nationality. According to statement 3, Rakesh is not from Nepal. Hence, we can say that he is from France. Consequently we can say that Rajesh is from Nepal.

In statement (2), it is given that Naman is sitting second to left of Nayan and the delegates. Hence, we can say that Naman and Nayan sit diametrically opposite to each other in the outer circle. The delegate from France faces the delegate from India. Hence, we can say that Naman is from India. .

The delegate who is from Malaysia is sitting immediate left of Nayan.

The delegates who are from France and Russia are seared in the same circle but they are not immediate neighbours. Hence, we can say that the delegate from Russia is sitting opposite to Nayan. From statement 1, we can say that the person seated immediate right to Nayan is from Japan. Hence, we can say that Nayan is from Spain.

In statement 6, it is given that Himesh is not from Japan. Hence, we can say that Hitesh is from Japan and Himesh is from Malaysia. Also from statement 7, we can say that Himesh faces Aman, who is from China. Consequently Hitesh faces Rajesh, who is from Nepal.

From the arrangement we can see that Aman is facing the Malaysian delegate. Therefore, option B is the correct answer.

Amit, Aman, Rajesh and Rakesh are seated in inner circle. Amit is from Russia.(From statement:1)

The delegates who are from France and Russia are seared in the same circle but they are not immediate neighbours. Hence, we can say that the delegate from France is seated in the inner circle.

The delegates from Nepal and India are seated in different circles. Hence, we cay say that they sit in different circle. Moreover, the delegate from France faces the delegate from India. Hence we can say that the delegate from Nepal sit in inner circle.

From statement 6, we can see that the delegate from Aman is from China. Hence we can say that the delegates who are seated in the inner circle belong to France, Russia, Nepal and China. Consequently the delegates who are seated in the inner circle belong to India, Malaysia, Spain and Japan.

Among the delegates who are seated in the inner circle, we know about the Amit and Aman's nationality. According to statement 3, Rakesh is not from Nepal. Hence, we can say that he is from France. Consequently we can say that Rajesh is from Nepal.

In statement (2), it is given that Naman is sitting second to left of Nayan and the delegates. Hence, we can say that Naman and Nayan sit diametrically opposite to each other in the outer circle. The delegate from France faces the delegate from India. Hence, we can say that Naman is from India. .

The delegate who is from Malaysia is sitting immediate left of Nayan.

The delegates who are from France and Russia are seared in the same circle but they are not immediate neighbours. Hence, we can say that the delegate from Russia is sitting opposite to Nayan. From statement 1, we can say that the person seated immediate right to Nayan is from Japan. Hence, we can say that Nayan is from Spain.

In statement 6, it is given that Himesh is not from Japan. Hence, we can say that Hitesh is from Japan and Himesh is from Malaysia. Also from statement 7, we can say that Himesh faces Aman, who is from China. Consequently Hitesh faces Rajesh, who is from Nepal.

From the arrangement we can see that Rajesh is from Japan. Hence, option D is the correct answer.