Loading....
Coupon Accepted Successfully!

Previous Year Paper

Open Flashcards

CAT-2005-Previous Years Paper

Question
21 out of 30
 

The year is 2089. Beijing, London, New York, and Paris are in contention to host the 2096 Olympics. The eventual winner is determined through several rounds of voting by members of the IOC with each member representing a different city. All the four cities in contention are also represented in IOC.

1. In any round of voting, the city receiving the lowest number of votes in that round gets eliminateD- The survivor after the last round of voting gets to host the event.

2. A member is allowed to cast votes for at most two different cities in all rounds of voting combineD- (Hence, a member becomes ineligible to cast a vote in a given round if both the cities (s)he voted for in earlier rounds are out of contention in that round of voting.)

3. A member is also ineligible to cast a vote in a round if the city (s)he represents is in contention in that round of voting.

4. As long as the member is eligible, (s)he must vote and vote for only one candidate city in any round of voting.

The following incomplete table shows the information on cities that received the maximum and minimum votes in different rounds, the number of votes cast in their favour, and the total votes that were cast in those rounds.

Round

Total votes cast

Maximum votes cast

Eliminated

City

Number of Votes

City

Number of Votes

1

 

London

30

New York

12

2

83

Paris

32

Beijing

21

3

75

 

 

 

 

 

It is also known that:

·      All those who voted for London and Paris in round 1, continued to vote for the same cities in subsequent rounds as long as these cities were in contention. 75% of those who voted for Beijing in round 1, voted for Beijing in round 2 as well.

·      Those who voted for New York in round 1, voted either for Beijing or Paris in round 2.

·      The difference in votes cast for the two contending cities in the last round was 1.

·      50% of those who voted for Beijing in round 1, voted for Paris in round 3.


What percentage of members from among those who voted for Beijing in round 2 and were eligible to vote in round 3, voted for London?



A 33.33
B 38.10
C 50
D 66.67

London L, Paris = P, New York = NY, Beijing = B

In round III, one of the two cities, either London or Paris will get 38 votes and the other 37. Now start decoding the information given:

1. It is given that the representatives of London, Paris, Beijing and New York cannot vote as long as their own cities are in contention. In round I, New York gets eliminated and hence, the representative from New York becomes eligible for voting in the round II. So, for round II, total votes increases by 1. Hence, we can conclude that the total votes in 
round I should be equal to 83 
- 1 = 82.

2. Post round II, representative of Beijing votes in the III rounD- This should have increased the number of total votes by 1 and so the total votes = 83 + 1 = 84.

It is known that the total votes in round III are 75 only. It is possible only if 84 - 75 = 9 people who voted in round I and II have become ineligible for voting in round III.

3. Let us understand that how come these nine people who have voted in round I and II become ineligible for voting in round III.
The reason of their ineligibility is the fact that till round I and II, they have already voted for two different cities which are not available for contention in round II. We can again see that all of these nine voters must have been those who voted for New York in round I and then voted for Beijing in round II.

4. It is also given that 75% of the people voting for Beijing in round I voted again for Beijing in round II as well. Hence, 
16 people must have voted for Beijing in round I.

5. Given that Beijing’s vote in round II is 21. This includes 9 votes from people who voted for NY in the first round also. Therefore 21 -= 12 people voted for Beijing in both round I and II.

6. We can have for round I: 82 = L + P + NY Or 82 = 30 + P + 16 12

Giving P = 24

7. And similarly, for round II we have:

83 = L + 32 + 21, Giving L = 30

8. New York had 12 votes in round I, 9 of these votes went to B (using point 2). The rest 3 went to P.

9. Now, B gets 16 votes in round I and 12 of them still vote for B The rest 4 voted for either L or P. As L has the same 
number of votes in both the rounds I and II so we can conclude that in round II, these 4 votes must have gone to 
Paris only.

10. Representative of NY did not vote in round I, but he has voted in round II (30 votes in both the rounds I and II). We know the exact break up of B in II. Hence, NY representative vote must go to Paris. Further, in order to avoid ineligibility, this NY representative must vote for Paris only in round III also.

11. We can see the composition of votes obtained by Paris (in round II):

32 = 24 (From round I) + 4 (out of the 16, who voted for Beijing in round I) + 3 (out of 12, who voted for NY in round I) + 1 (NY).

12. We know that Beijing gets eliminated in round II. So the Beijing can vote in round III.

13. 12 people (out of 21) who voted for Beijing in round II are still eligible for vote in round III.

14. Half of the members who voted for Beijing in Round I (i.e., 8 people) voted for Paris in round II. These 8 members include those four members too, who voted for Paris in round II also. Hence, a total of four members (out of 12, who voted for Beijing in round II and are still eligible for vote in round III) have voted for Paris in round III.

15. This means that the remaining B (out of 12 who voted for Beijing in round II are still eligible for vote in round III) can vote for London only. This makes London’s vote = 30 + 8 or 38 in round III. It means that Paris got 37 votes.

16. Beijing is eligible to vote in round III must have voted for Paris only.

Now we obtain the final votes tally:

Round

Total Votes

London (L)

Paris (P)

Beijing B.

New York (NY)

I

82

30

24

16

12

II

83

30

32

21(12 9)

X

III

75

38 = (30 + B)

37

X

X


Ans. D Percentage = (8/12) 100 = 66.67%

CAT-2005-Previous Years Paper Flashcard List

30 flashcards
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
8)
The table below reports the gender, designation and age-group of the employees in an organization. It also provides information on their commitment to projects coming up in the months of January (Jan), February (Feb), March (Mar) and April (Apr), as well as their interest in attending workshops on: Business Opportunities (BO), Communication Skills (CS), and E-Governance (EG). S. No. Name Gender Designation Age group Committed to  projects during Interested in workshop on S. No. Name Gender Designation Age group Committed to  projects during Interested in workshop on 1 Anshul M Mgr Y Jan, Mar CS, EG 2 Bushkant M Dir I Feb, Mar BO, EG 3 Charu F Mgr I Jan, Feb BO, CS 4 Dinesh M Exe O Jan, Apr BO, CS, EG 5 Eashwaran M Dir O Feb, Apr BO 6 Fatima F Mgr Y Jan, Mar BO, CS 7 Gayatri F Exe Y Feb, Mar EG 8 Hari M Mgr I Feb, Mar BO, CS, EG 9 Indira F Dir O Feb, Apr BO, EG 10 John M Dir Y Jan, Mar BO 11 Kalindi F Exe I Jan, Apr BO, CS, EG 12 Lavanya F Mgr O Feb, Apr CS, EG 13 Mandeep M Mgr O Mar, Apr BO, EG 14 Nandlal M Dir I Jan, Feb BO, EG 15 Parul F Exe Y Feb, Apr CS, EG 16 Rahul M Mgr Y Mar, Apr CS, EG 17 Sunita F Dir Y Jan, Feb BO, EG 18 Urvashi F Exe I Feb, Mar EG 19 Yamini F Mgr O Mar, Apr CS, EG 20 Zeena F Exe Y Jan, Mar BO, CS, EG   M = Male, F = Female; Exe = Executive, Mgr = Manager, Dir = Director; Y = Young, I = In-between, O = Old. For each workshop, exactly four employees are to be sent, of which at least two should be Females and at least one should be Young. No employee can be sent to a workshop in which he/she is not interested in. An employee cannot attend the workshop on: Communication Skills, if he/she is committed to internal projects in the month of January. Business Opportunities, if he/she is committed to internal projects in the month of February. E-governance, if he/she is committed to internal projects in the month of March. Assuming that Parul and Hari are attending the workshop on Communication Skills (CS), then which of the following employees can possibly attend the CS workshop? A Rahul and Yamini B Dinesh and Lavanya C Anshul and Yamini D Fatima and Zeena
9)
The table below reports the gender, designation and age-group of the employees in an organization. It also provides information on their commitment to projects coming up in the months of January (Jan), February (Feb), March (Mar) and April (Apr), as well as their interest in attending workshops on: Business Opportunities (BO), Communication Skills (CS), and E-Governance (EG). S. No. Name Gender Designation Age group Committed to  projects during Interested in workshop on S. No. Name Gender Designation Age group Committed to  projects during Interested in workshop on 1 Anshul M Mgr Y Jan, Mar CS, EG 2 Bushkant M Dir I Feb, Mar BO, EG 3 Charu F Mgr I Jan, Feb BO, CS 4 Dinesh M Exe O Jan, Apr BO, CS, EG 5 Eashwaran M Dir O Feb, Apr BO 6 Fatima F Mgr Y Jan, Mar BO, CS 7 Gayatri F Exe Y Feb, Mar EG 8 Hari M Mgr I Feb, Mar BO, CS, EG 9 Indira F Dir O Feb, Apr BO, EG 10 John M Dir Y Jan, Mar BO 11 Kalindi F Exe I Jan, Apr BO, CS, EG 12 Lavanya F Mgr O Feb, Apr CS, EG 13 Mandeep M Mgr O Mar, Apr BO, EG 14 Nandlal M Dir I Jan, Feb BO, EG 15 Parul F Exe Y Feb, Apr CS, EG 16 Rahul M Mgr Y Mar, Apr CS, EG 17 Sunita F Dir Y Jan, Feb BO, EG 18 Urvashi F Exe I Feb, Mar EG 19 Yamini F Mgr O Mar, Apr CS, EG 20 Zeena F Exe Y Jan, Mar BO, CS, EG   M = Male, F = Female; Exe = Executive, Mgr = Manager, Dir = Director; Y = Young, I = In-between, O = Old. For each workshop, exactly four employees are to be sent, of which at least two should be Females and at least one should be Young. No employee can be sent to a workshop in which he/she is not interested in. An employee cannot attend the workshop on: Communication Skills, if he/she is committed to internal projects in the month of January. Business Opportunities, if he/she is committed to internal projects in the month of February. E-governance, if he/she is committed to internal projects in the month of March. How many Executives (Exe) cannot attend more than one workshop? A 2B 3C 15D 16 Q
10)
The table below reports the gender, designation and age-group of the employees in an organization. It also provides information on their commitment to projects coming up in the months of January (Jan), February (Feb), March (Mar) and April (Apr), as well as their interest in attending workshops on: Business Opportunities (BO), Communication Skills (CS), and E-Governance (EG). S. No. Name Gender Designation Age group Committed to  projects during Interested in workshop on S. No. Name Gender Designation Age group Committed to  projects during Interested in workshop on 1 Anshul M Mgr Y Jan, Mar CS, EG 2 Bushkant M Dir I Feb, Mar BO, EG 3 Charu F Mgr I Jan, Feb BO, CS 4 Dinesh M Exe O Jan, Apr BO, CS, EG 5 Eashwaran M Dir O Feb, Apr BO 6 Fatima F Mgr Y Jan, Mar BO, CS 7 Gayatri F Exe Y Feb, Mar EG 8 Hari M Mgr I Feb, Mar BO, CS, EG 9 Indira F Dir O Feb, Apr BO, EG 10 John M Dir Y Jan, Mar BO 11 Kalindi F Exe I Jan, Apr BO, CS, EG 12 Lavanya F Mgr O Feb, Apr CS, EG 13 Mandeep M Mgr O Mar, Apr BO, EG 14 Nandlal M Dir I Jan, Feb BO, EG 15 Parul F Exe Y Feb, Apr CS, EG 16 Rahul M Mgr Y Mar, Apr CS, EG 17 Sunita F Dir Y Jan, Feb BO, EG 18 Urvashi F Exe I Feb, Mar EG 19 Yamini F Mgr O Mar, Apr CS, EG 20 Zeena F Exe Y Jan, Mar BO, CS, EG   M = Male, F = Female; Exe = Executive, Mgr = Manager, Dir = Director; Y = Young, I = In-between, O = Old. For each workshop, exactly four employees are to be sent, of which at least two should be Females and at least one should be Young. No employee can be sent to a workshop in which he/she is not interested in. An employee cannot attend the workshop on: Communication Skills, if he/she is committed to internal projects in the month of January. Business Opportunities, if he/she is committed to internal projects in the month of February. E-governance, if he/she is committed to internal projects in the month of March. Which set of employees cannot attend any of the workshops? A Anshul, Charu, Eashwaran and Lavanya B Anshul, Bushkant, Gayatri, and Urvashi C Charu, Urvashi, Bushkant and Mandeep D Anshul, Gayatri, Eashwaran and Mandeep
11)
In the table below is the listing of players, seeded from highest (#1) to lowest (#32), who are due to play in an Association of Tennis Players (ATP) tournament for women. This tournament has four knockout rounds before the final, i.e., first round, second round, quarterfinals, and semi-finals. In the first round, the highest seeded player plays the lowest seeded player (seed # 32) which is designated match number 1 of first round; the 2nd seeded player plays the 31st seeded player which is designated match number 2 of the first round, and so on. Thus, for instance, match number 16 of first round is to be played between 16th seeded player and the 17th seeded player. In the second round, the winner of match number 1 of first round plays the winner of match number 16 of first round and is designated match number 1 of second rounD- Similarly, the winner of match number 2 of first round plays the winner of match number 15 of first round, and is designated match number 2 of second rounD- Thus, for instance, match number 8 of the second round is to be played between the winner of match number 8 of first round and the winner of match number 9 of first rounD- The same pattern is followed for later rounds as well. Seed # Name of Player Seed # Name of Player Seed # Name of Player Seed # Name of Player Seed # Name of Player Seed # Name of Player 1 Maria Sharapova 12 Mary Pierce 23 Silvia Farina Elia 2 Lindsay Davenport 13 Anastasia Myskina 24 Tatiana Golovin 3 Amelie Mauresmo 14 Alicia Molik 25 Shinobu Asagoe 4 Kim Clijsters 15 Nathalie Dechy 26 Francesca Schiavone 5 Svetlana Kuznetsova 16 Elena Bovina 27 Nicole Vaidisova 6 Elena Dementieva 17 Jelena Jankovic 28 Gisela Dulko 7 Justine Henin 18 Ana Ivanovic 29 Flavia Pennetta 8 Serena Williams 19 Vera Zvonareva 30 Anna Chakvetadze 9 Nadia Petrova 20 Elena Likhovtseva 31 Ai Sugiyama 10 Venus Williams 21 Daniela Hantuchova 32 Anna-lena Groenefeld 11 Patty Schnyder 22 Dinara Safina     If there are no upsets (a lower seeded player beating a higher seeded player) in the first round, and only match numbers 6, 7, and 8 of the second round result in upsets, then who would meet Lindsay Davenport in quarter finals, in case Davenport reaches quarter finals? A Justine HeninB Nadia PetrovaC Patty SchnyderD Venus Williams
12)
In the table below is the listing of players, seeded from highest (#1) to lowest (#32), who are due to play in an Association of Tennis Players (ATP) tournament for women. This tournament has four knockout rounds before the final, i.e., first round, second round, quarterfinals, and semi-finals. In the first round, the highest seeded player plays the lowest seeded player (seed # 32) which is designated match number 1 of first round; the 2nd seeded player plays the 31st seeded player which is designated match number 2 of the first round, and so on. Thus, for instance, match number 16 of first round is to be played between 16th seeded player and the 17th seeded player. In the second round, the winner of match number 1 of first round plays the winner of match number 16 of first round and is designated match number 1 of second rounD- Similarly, the winner of match number 2 of first round plays the winner of match number 15 of first round, and is designated match number 2 of second rounD- Thus, for instance, match number 8 of the second round is to be played between the winner of match number 8 of first round and the winner of match number 9 of first rounD- The same pattern is followed for later rounds as well. Seed # Name of Player Seed # Name of Player Seed # Name of Player Seed # Name of Player Seed # Name of Player Seed # Name of Player 1 Maria Sharapova 12 Mary Pierce 23 Silvia Farina Elia 2 Lindsay Davenport 13 Anastasia Myskina 24 Tatiana Golovin 3 Amelie Mauresmo 14 Alicia Molik 25 Shinobu Asagoe 4 Kim Clijsters 15 Nathalie Dechy 26 Francesca Schiavone 5 Svetlana Kuznetsova 16 Elena Bovina 27 Nicole Vaidisova 6 Elena Dementieva 17 Jelena Jankovic 28 Gisela Dulko 7 Justine Henin 18 Ana Ivanovic 29 Flavia Pennetta 8 Serena Williams 19 Vera Zvonareva 30 Anna Chakvetadze 9 Nadia Petrova 20 Elena Likhovtseva 31 Ai Sugiyama 10 Venus Williams 21 Daniela Hantuchova 32 Anna-lena Groenefeld 11 Patty Schnyder 22 Dinara Safina     If Elena Dementieva and Serena Williams lose in the second round, while Justine Henin and Nadia Petrova make it to the semi-finals, then who would play Maria Sharapova in the quarterfinals, in the event Sharapova reaches quarterfinals? A Dinara SafinaB Justine HeninC Nadia PetrovaD Patty Schnyder
13)
In the table below is the listing of players, seeded from highest (#1) to lowest (#32), who are due to play in an Association of Tennis Players (ATP) tournament for women. This tournament has four knockout rounds before the final, i.e., first round, second round, quarterfinals, and semi-finals. In the first round, the highest seeded player plays the lowest seeded player (seed # 32) which is designated match number 1 of first round; the 2nd seeded player plays the 31st seeded player which is designated match number 2 of the first round, and so on. Thus, for instance, match number 16 of first round is to be played between 16th seeded player and the 17th seeded player. In the second round, the winner of match number 1 of first round plays the winner of match number 16 of first round and is designated match number 1 of second rounD- Similarly, the winner of match number 2 of first round plays the winner of match number 15 of first round, and is designated match number 2 of second rounD- Thus, for instance, match number 8 of the second round is to be played between the winner of match number 8 of first round and the winner of match number 9 of first rounD- The same pattern is followed for later rounds as well. Seed # Name of Player Seed # Name of Player Seed # Name of Player Seed # Name of Player Seed # Name of Player Seed # Name of Player 1 Maria Sharapova 12 Mary Pierce 23 Silvia Farina Elia 2 Lindsay Davenport 13 Anastasia Myskina 24 Tatiana Golovin 3 Amelie Mauresmo 14 Alicia Molik 25 Shinobu Asagoe 4 Kim Clijsters 15 Nathalie Dechy 26 Francesca Schiavone 5 Svetlana Kuznetsova 16 Elena Bovina 27 Nicole Vaidisova 6 Elena Dementieva 17 Jelena Jankovic 28 Gisela Dulko 7 Justine Henin 18 Ana Ivanovic 29 Flavia Pennetta 8 Serena Williams 19 Vera Zvonareva 30 Anna Chakvetadze 9 Nadia Petrova 20 Elena Likhovtseva 31 Ai Sugiyama 10 Venus Williams 21 Daniela Hantuchova 32 Anna-lena Groenefeld 11 Patty Schnyder 22 Dinara Safina     If, in the first round, all even numbered matches (and none of the odd numbered ones) result in upsets, and there are no upsets in the second round, then who could be the lowest seeded player facing Maria Sharapova in semi-finals? A Anastasia MyskinaB Flavia Pennetta C Nadia PetrovaD Svetlana Kuznetsova
14)
In the table below is the listing of players, seeded from highest (#1) to lowest (#32), who are due to play in an Association of Tennis Players (ATP) tournament for women. This tournament has four knockout rounds before the final, i.e., first round, second round, quarterfinals, and semi-finals. In the first round, the highest seeded player plays the lowest seeded player (seed # 32) which is designated match number 1 of first round; the 2nd seeded player plays the 31st seeded player which is designated match number 2 of the first round, and so on. Thus, for instance, match number 16 of first round is to be played between 16th seeded player and the 17th seeded player. In the second round, the winner of match number 1 of first round plays the winner of match number 16 of first round and is designated match number 1 of second rounD- Similarly, the winner of match number 2 of first round plays the winner of match number 15 of first round, and is designated match number 2 of second rounD- Thus, for instance, match number 8 of the second round is to be played between the winner of match number 8 of first round and the winner of match number 9 of first rounD- The same pattern is followed for later rounds as well. Seed # Name of Player Seed # Name of Player Seed # Name of Player Seed # Name of Player Seed # Name of Player Seed # Name of Player 1 Maria Sharapova 12 Mary Pierce 23 Silvia Farina Elia 2 Lindsay Davenport 13 Anastasia Myskina 24 Tatiana Golovin 3 Amelie Mauresmo 14 Alicia Molik 25 Shinobu Asagoe 4 Kim Clijsters 15 Nathalie Dechy 26 Francesca Schiavone 5 Svetlana Kuznetsova 16 Elena Bovina 27 Nicole Vaidisova 6 Elena Dementieva 17 Jelena Jankovic 28 Gisela Dulko 7 Justine Henin 18 Ana Ivanovic 29 Flavia Pennetta 8 Serena Williams 19 Vera Zvonareva 30 Anna Chakvetadze 9 Nadia Petrova 20 Elena Likhovtseva 31 Ai Sugiyama 10 Venus Williams 21 Daniela Hantuchova 32 Anna-lena Groenefeld 11 Patty Schnyder 22 Dinara Safina     If the top eight seeds make it to the quarterfinals, then who, amongst the players listed below, would definitely not play against Maria Sharapova in the final, in case Sharapova reaches the final? A Amelie MauresmoB Elena Dementieva C Kim ClijstersD Lindsay Davenport
15)
Venkat, a stockbroker, invested a part of his money in the stock of four companies—A, B, C and D- Each of these companies belonged to different industries, viz., Cement, Information Technology (IT), Auto, and Steel, in no particular order. At the time of investment, the price of each stock was Rs 100. Venkat purchased only one stock of each of these companies. He was expecting returns of 20%, 10%, 30%, and 40% from the stock of companies A, B, C and D, respectively. Returns are defined as the change in the value of the stock after one year, expressed as a percentage of the initial valuE- During the year, two of these companies announced extraordinarily good results. One of these two companies belonged to the Cement or the IT industry, while the other one belonged to either the Steel or the Auto industry. As a result, the returns on the stocks of these two companies were higher than the initially expected returns. For the company belonging to the Cement or the IT industry with extraordinarily good results, the returns were twice that of the initially expected returns. For the company belonging to the Steel or the Auto industry, the returns on announcement of extraordinarily good results were only one and a half times that of the initially expected returns. For the remaining two companies, which did not announce extraordinarily good results, the returns realized during the year were the same as initially expected. What is the minimum average return Venkat would have earned during the year? A 30%B 31%C 32%D Cannot be determined
16)
Venkat, a stockbroker, invested a part of his money in the stock of four companies—A, B, C and D- Each of these companies belonged to different industries, viz., Cement, Information Technology (IT), Auto, and Steel, in no particular order. At the time of investment, the price of each stock was Rs 100. Venkat purchased only one stock of each of these companies. He was expecting returns of 20%, 10%, 30%, and 40% from the stock of companies A, B, C and D, respectively. Returns are defined as the change in the value of the stock after one year, expressed as a percentage of the initial valuE- During the year, two of these companies announced extraordinarily good results. One of these two companies belonged to the Cement or the IT industry, while the other one belonged to either the Steel or the Auto industry. As a result, the returns on the stocks of these two companies were higher than the initially expected returns. For the company belonging to the Cement or the IT industry with extraordinarily good results, the returns were twice that of the initially expected returns. For the company belonging to the Steel or the Auto industry, the returns on announcement of extraordinarily good results were only one and a half times that of the initially expected returns. For the remaining two companies, which did not announce extraordinarily good results, the returns realized during the year were the same as initially expected. If Venkat earned a 35% return on average during the year, then which of these statements would necessarily be true? I. Company A belonged either to Auto or to Steel Industry. II. Company B did not announce extraordinarily good results. III. Company A announced extraordinarily good results. IV. Company D did not announce extraordinarily good results. A I and II onlyB II and III onlyC III and IV onlyD II and IV only
17)
Venkat, a stockbroker, invested a part of his money in the stock of four companies—A, B, C and D- Each of these companies belonged to different industries, viz., Cement, Information Technology (IT), Auto, and Steel, in no particular order. At the time of investment, the price of each stock was Rs 100. Venkat purchased only one stock of each of these companies. He was expecting returns of 20%, 10%, 30%, and 40% from the stock of companies A, B, C and D, respectively. Returns are defined as the change in the value of the stock after one year, expressed as a percentage of the initial valuE- During the year, two of these companies announced extraordinarily good results. One of these two companies belonged to the Cement or the IT industry, while the other one belonged to either the Steel or the Auto industry. As a result, the returns on the stocks of these two companies were higher than the initially expected returns. For the company belonging to the Cement or the IT industry with extraordinarily good results, the returns were twice that of the initially expected returns. For the company belonging to the Steel or the Auto industry, the returns on announcement of extraordinarily good results were only one and a half times that of the initially expected returns. For the remaining two companies, which did not announce extraordinarily good results, the returns realized during the year were the same as initially expected. If Venkat earned a 38.75% return on average during the year, then which of these statement(s) would necessarily be true? I. Company C belonged either to Auto or to Steel Industry. II. Company D belonged either to Auto or to Steel Industry. III. Company A announced extraordinarily good results. IV. Company B did not announce extraordinarily good results. A I and II onlyB II and III onlyC I and IV onlyD II and IV only
18)
Venkat, a stockbroker, invested a part of his money in the stock of four companies—A, B, C and D- Each of these companies belonged to different industries, viz., Cement, Information Technology (IT), Auto, and Steel, in no particular order. At the time of investment, the price of each stock was Rs 100. Venkat purchased only one stock of each of these companies. He was expecting returns of 20%, 10%, 30%, and 40% from the stock of companies A, B, C and D, respectively. Returns are defined as the change in the value of the stock after one year, expressed as a percentage of the initial valuE- During the year, two of these companies announced extraordinarily good results. One of these two companies belonged to the Cement or the IT industry, while the other one belonged to either the Steel or the Auto industry. As a result, the returns on the stocks of these two companies were higher than the initially expected returns. For the company belonging to the Cement or the IT industry with extraordinarily good results, the returns were twice that of the initially expected returns. For the company belonging to the Steel or the Auto industry, the returns on announcement of extraordinarily good results were only one and a half times that of the initially expected returns. For the remaining two companies, which did not announce extraordinarily good results, the returns realized during the year were the same as initially expected. If Company C belonged to the Cement or the IT industry and did announce extraordinarily good results, then which of these statement(s) would necessarily be true? I. Venkat earned not more than 36.25% return on average. II. Venkat earned not less than 33.75% return on average. III. If Venkat earned 33.75% return on average, Company A announced extraordinarily good results. IV. If Venkat earned 33.75% return on average, Company B belonged either to Auto or to Steel Industry. A I and II onlyB II and IV onlyC II and III onlyD III and IV only
19)
The year is 2089. Beijing, London, New York, and Paris are in contention to host the 2096 Olympics. The eventual winner is determined through several rounds of voting by members of the IOC with each member representing a different city. All the four cities in contention are also represented in IOC. 1. In any round of voting, the city receiving the lowest number of votes in that round gets eliminateD- The survivor after the last round of voting gets to host the event. 2. A member is allowed to cast votes for at most two different cities in all rounds of voting combineD- (Hence, a member becomes ineligible to cast a vote in a given round if both the cities (s)he voted for in earlier rounds are out of contention in that round of voting.) 3. A member is also ineligible to cast a vote in a round if the city (s)he represents is in contention in that round of voting. 4. As long as the member is eligible, (s)he must vote and vote for only one candidate city in any round of voting. The following incomplete table shows the information on cities that received the maximum and minimum votes in different rounds, the number of votes cast in their favour, and the total votes that were cast in those rounds. Round Total votes cast Maximum votes cast Eliminated City Number of Votes City Number of Votes 1   London 30 New York 12 2 83 Paris 32 Beijing 21 3 75           It is also known that: ·      All those who voted for London and Paris in round 1, continued to vote for the same cities in subsequent rounds as long as these cities were in contention. 75% of those who voted for Beijing in round 1, voted for Beijing in round 2 as well. ·      Those who voted for New York in round 1, voted either for Beijing or Paris in round 2. ·      The difference in votes cast for the two contending cities in the last round was 1. ·      50% of those who voted for Beijing in round 1, voted for Paris in round 3. What percentage of members from among those who voted for New York in round 1, voted for Beijing in round 2? A 33.33B 50C 66.67D 75
20)
The year is 2089. Beijing, London, New York, and Paris are in contention to host the 2096 Olympics. The eventual winner is determined through several rounds of voting by members of the IOC with each member representing a different city. All the four cities in contention are also represented in IOC. 1. In any round of voting, the city receiving the lowest number of votes in that round gets eliminateD- The survivor after the last round of voting gets to host the event. 2. A member is allowed to cast votes for at most two different cities in all rounds of voting combineD- (Hence, a member becomes ineligible to cast a vote in a given round if both the cities (s)he voted for in earlier rounds are out of contention in that round of voting.) 3. A member is also ineligible to cast a vote in a round if the city (s)he represents is in contention in that round of voting. 4. As long as the member is eligible, (s)he must vote and vote for only one candidate city in any round of voting. The following incomplete table shows the information on cities that received the maximum and minimum votes in different rounds, the number of votes cast in their favour, and the total votes that were cast in those rounds. Round Total votes cast Maximum votes cast Eliminated City Number of Votes City Number of Votes 1   London 30 New York 12 2 83 Paris 32 Beijing 21 3 75           It is also known that: ·      All those who voted for London and Paris in round 1, continued to vote for the same cities in subsequent rounds as long as these cities were in contention. 75% of those who voted for Beijing in round 1, voted for Beijing in round 2 as well. ·      Those who voted for New York in round 1, voted either for Beijing or Paris in round 2. ·      The difference in votes cast for the two contending cities in the last round was 1. ·      50% of those who voted for Beijing in round 1, voted for Paris in round 3. What is the number of votes cast for Paris in round 1? A 16B 18C 22D 24
21)
The year is 2089. Beijing, London, New York, and Paris are in contention to host the 2096 Olympics. The eventual winner is determined through several rounds of voting by members of the IOC with each member representing a different city. All the four cities in contention are also represented in IOC. 1. In any round of voting, the city receiving the lowest number of votes in that round gets eliminateD- The survivor after the last round of voting gets to host the event. 2. A member is allowed to cast votes for at most two different cities in all rounds of voting combineD- (Hence, a member becomes ineligible to cast a vote in a given round if both the cities (s)he voted for in earlier rounds are out of contention in that round of voting.) 3. A member is also ineligible to cast a vote in a round if the city (s)he represents is in contention in that round of voting. 4. As long as the member is eligible, (s)he must vote and vote for only one candidate city in any round of voting. The following incomplete table shows the information on cities that received the maximum and minimum votes in different rounds, the number of votes cast in their favour, and the total votes that were cast in those rounds. Round Total votes cast Maximum votes cast Eliminated City Number of Votes City Number of Votes 1   London 30 New York 12 2 83 Paris 32 Beijing 21 3 75           It is also known that: ·      All those who voted for London and Paris in round 1, continued to vote for the same cities in subsequent rounds as long as these cities were in contention. 75% of those who voted for Beijing in round 1, voted for Beijing in round 2 as well. ·      Those who voted for New York in round 1, voted either for Beijing or Paris in round 2. ·      The difference in votes cast for the two contending cities in the last round was 1. ·      50% of those who voted for Beijing in round 1, voted for Paris in round 3. What percentage of members from among those who voted for Beijing in round 2 and were eligible to vote in round 3, voted for London? A 33.33B 38.10C 50D 66.67
22)
The year is 2089. Beijing, London, New York, and Paris are in contention to host the 2096 Olympics. The eventual winner is determined through several rounds of voting by members of the IOC with each member representing a different city. All the four cities in contention are also represented in IOC. 1. In any round of voting, the city receiving the lowest number of votes in that round gets eliminateD- The survivor after the last round of voting gets to host the event. 2. A member is allowed to cast votes for at most two different cities in all rounds of voting combineD- (Hence, a member becomes ineligible to cast a vote in a given round if both the cities (s)he voted for in earlier rounds are out of contention in that round of voting.) 3. A member is also ineligible to cast a vote in a round if the city (s)he represents is in contention in that round of voting. 4. As long as the member is eligible, (s)he must vote and vote for only one candidate city in any round of voting. The following incomplete table shows the information on cities that received the maximum and minimum votes in different rounds, the number of votes cast in their favour, and the total votes that were cast in those rounds. Round Total votes cast Maximum votes cast Eliminated City Number of Votes City Number of Votes 1   London 30 New York 12 2 83 Paris 32 Beijing 21 3 75           It is also known that: ·      All those who voted for London and Paris in round 1, continued to vote for the same cities in subsequent rounds as long as these cities were in contention. 75% of those who voted for Beijing in round 1, voted for Beijing in round 2 as well. ·      Those who voted for New York in round 1, voted either for Beijing or Paris in round 2. ·      The difference in votes cast for the two contending cities in the last round was 1. ·      50% of those who voted for Beijing in round 1, voted for Paris in round 3. Which of the following statements must be true? (1) IOC member from New York must have voted for Paris in round 2. (2) IOC member from Beijing voted for London in round 3. A Only 1 B Only 2 C Both 1 and 2 D Neither 1 nor 2
23)
24)
25)
26)
27)
28)
29)
Help Distress (HD) is an NGO involved in providing assistance to people suffering from natural disasters. Currently, it has  37 volunteers. They are involved in three projects: Tsunami Relief (TR) in Tamil Nadu, Flood Relief (FR) in Maharashtra, and Earthquake Relief (ER) in Gujarat. Each volunteer working with Help Distress has to be involved in at least one relief work project. ·      A maximum number of volunteers are involved in the FR project. Among them, the number of volunteers involved in FR project alone is equal to the volunteers having additional involvement in the ER project. ·      The number of volunteers involved in the ER project alone is double the number of volunteers involved in all the three projects. ·      17 volunteers are involved in the TR project. ·      The number of volunteers involved in the TR project alone is one less than the number of volunteers involved in ER project alone. ·      Ten volunteers involved in the TR project are also involved in at least one more project. After some time, the volunteers who were involved in all the three projects were asked to withdraw from one project. As a result, one of the volunteers opted out of the TR project, and one opted out of the ER project, while the remaining ones involved in all the three projects opted out of the FR project. Which of the following statements, then, necessarily follows? A The lowest number of volunteers is now in TR project. B More volunteers are now in FR project as compared to ER project. C More volunteers are now in TR project as compared to ER project. D None of the above
30)
Help Distress (HD) is an NGO involved in providing assistance to people suffering from natural disasters. Currently, it has  37 volunteers. They are involved in three projects: Tsunami Relief (TR) in Tamil Nadu, Flood Relief (FR) in Maharashtra, and Earthquake Relief (ER) in Gujarat. Each volunteer working with Help Distress has to be involved in at least one relief work project. ·      A maximum number of volunteers are involved in the FR project. Among them, the number of volunteers involved in FR project alone is equal to the volunteers having additional involvement in the ER project. ·      The number of volunteers involved in the ER project alone is double the number of volunteers involved in all the three projects. ·      17 volunteers are involved in the TR project. ·      The number of volunteers involved in the TR project alone is one less than the number of volunteers involved in ER project alone. ·      Ten volunteers involved in the TR project are also involved in at least one more project. After the withdrawal of volunteers, as indicated in Question 89, some new volunteers joined the NGO. Each one of them was allotted only one project in a manner such that, the number of volunteers working in one project alone for each of the three projects became identical. At that point, it was also found that the number of volunteers involved in FR and ER projects was the same as the number of volunteers involved in TR and ER projects. Which of the projects now has the highest number of volunteers? A ERB FRC TRD Cannot be determined