Question no.1

Read the following passage and answer the questions that follow.

Machine learning – a kind of sub-field of artificial intelligence (AI) – is a means of training algorithms to discern empirical relationships within immense reams of data. Run a purpose-built algorithm by a pile of images of moles that might or might not be cancerous. Then show it images of diagnosed melanoma. Using analytical protocols modelled on the neurons of the human brain, in an iterative process of trial and error, the algorithm figures out how to discriminate between cancers and freckles. It can approximate its answers with a specified and steadily increasing degree of certainty, reaching levels of accuracy that surpass human specialists. Similar processes that refine algorithms to recognise or discover patterns in reams of data are now running right across the global economy: medicine, law, tax collection, marketing and research science are among the domains affected. Welcome to the future, say the economist Erik Brynjolfsson and the computer scientist Tom Mitchell: machine learning is about to transform our lives in something like the way that steam engines and then electricity did in the 19th and 20th centuries.

Signs of this impending change can still be hard to see. Productivity statistics, for instance, remain worryingly unaffected. This lag is consistent with earlier episodes of the advent of new ‘general purpose technologies. In past cases, technological innovation took decades to prove transformative. But ideas often move ahead of social and political change. Some of the ways in which machine learning might upend the status quo are already becoming apparent in political economy debates.

The discipline of political economy was created to make sense of a world set spinning by steam-powered and then electric industrialisation. Its central question became how best to regulate economic activity. Centralised control by government or industry, or market freedoms – which optimised outcomes? By the end of the 20th century, the answer seemed, emphatically, to be market-based order. But the advent of machine learning is reopening the state vs market debate. Which between state, firm or market is the better means of coordinating supply and demand? Old answers to that question are coming under new scrutiny. In an eye-catching paper in 2017, the economists Binbin Wang and Xiaoyan Li at Sichuan University in China argued that big data and machine learning give centralised planning a new lease of life. The notion that markets coordination of supply and demand encompassed more information than any single intelligence could handle would soon be proved false by 21st-century AI.

How seriously should we take such speculations? Might machine learning bring us full-circle in the history of economic thought, to where measures of economic centralisation and control – condemned long ago as dangerous utopian schemes – return, boasting new levels of efficiency, to constitute a new orthodoxy?

A great deal turns on the status of tacit knowledge. On this much the champions of a machine learning-powered revival of command economies and their critics agree. Tacit knowledge is the kind of cognition we refer to when we say that we know more than we can tell. How do you ride a bike? No one can say with any precision. Supervision helps, but a beginner has to figure it out for herself. How do you know that a spot is a freckle and not a cancer? A specialist cannot teach a medical student simply by spelling out her thinking in words. The student has to practise under supervision until she has mastered the skill for herself. Can robots assimilate tacit knowledge? Mid-20th-century arguments against centralised planning assumed that they could not. Some of the achievements of machine learning – such as eclipsing specialist doctors at spotting cancer – suggest otherwise.

What is the main issue that the author is trying to highlight via the passage?

Explanation

Answer - C

Let us refer to the passage

“Machine learning – a kind of sub-field of artificial intelligence (AI) – is a means of training algorithms to discern empirical relationships within immense reams of data.
Some of the ways in which machine learning might upend the status quo are already becoming apparent in political economy debates.
But the advent of machine learning is reopening the state vs market debate.
Might machine learning bring us full-circle in the history of economic thought, to where measures of economic centralisation and control – condemned long ago as dangerous utopian schemes – return, boasting new levels of efficiency, to constitute a new orthodoxy?”
The author starts the passage by explaining what machine learning is and from the above-mentioned excerpt we can see that the author is explaining how machine learning may bring about changes in political debates and the political world.
This is best captured in Option C, hence it is the correct answer.

Option A cannot be the answer as the author does mention that productivity statistics have remained unaffected so far, but this is not the main issue that the author is highlighting. The main focus of the passage is on the potential impact of machine learning on political economy.

Option B  cannot be the answer because, while the passage does mention the possibility of a revival of command economies based on new levels of efficiency brought by machine learning, the author is not presenting this as a utopian world. Rather, the passage is discussing the potential implications of machine learning for economic coordination and regulation, and the challenges and opportunities that this presents.

Option D cannot be the answer as because, while the author does suggest that machine learning has the potential to transform many aspects of our lives, the passage primarily focuses on the impact of machine learning on political economy debates and the potential for a revival of command economies.

Marks: 0.00

Negative Marks: 0.00

Difficulty Level: Hard

Trivia: 6.00% users answered right

Subject: Verbal Ability and Reading Comprehension

Result: Unanswered

Question no.2

Read the following passage and answer the questions that follow.

Machine learning – a kind of sub-field of artificial intelligence (AI) – is a means of training algorithms to discern empirical relationships within immense reams of data. Run a purpose-built algorithm by a pile of images of moles that might or might not be cancerous. Then show it images of diagnosed melanoma. Using analytical protocols modelled on the neurons of the human brain, in an iterative process of trial and error, the algorithm figures out how to discriminate between cancers and freckles. It can approximate its answers with a specified and steadily increasing degree of certainty, reaching levels of accuracy that surpass human specialists. Similar processes that refine algorithms to recognise or discover patterns in reams of data are now running right across the global economy: medicine, law, tax collection, marketing and research science are among the domains affected. Welcome to the future, say the economist Erik Brynjolfsson and the computer scientist Tom Mitchell: machine learning is about to transform our lives in something like the way that steam engines and then electricity did in the 19th and 20th centuries.

Signs of this impending change can still be hard to see. Productivity statistics, for instance, remain worryingly unaffected. This lag is consistent with earlier episodes of the advent of new ‘general purpose technologies. In past cases, technological innovation took decades to prove transformative. But ideas often move ahead of social and political change. Some of the ways in which machine learning might upend the status quo are already becoming apparent in political economy debates.

The discipline of political economy was created to make sense of a world set spinning by steam-powered and then electric industrialisation. Its central question became how best to regulate economic activity. Centralised control by government or industry, or market freedoms – which optimised outcomes? By the end of the 20th century, the answer seemed, emphatically, to be market-based order. But the advent of machine learning is reopening the state vs market debate. Which between state, firm or market is the better means of coordinating supply and demand? Old answers to that question are coming under new scrutiny. In an eye-catching paper in 2017, the economists Binbin Wang and Xiaoyan Li at Sichuan University in China argued that big data and machine learning give centralised planning a new lease of life. The notion that markets coordination of supply and demand encompassed more information than any single intelligence could handle would soon be proved false by 21st-century AI.

How seriously should we take such speculations? Might machine learning bring us full-circle in the history of economic thought, to where measures of economic centralisation and control – condemned long ago as dangerous utopian schemes – return, boasting new levels of efficiency, to constitute a new orthodoxy?

A great deal turns on the status of tacit knowledge. On this much the champions of a machine learning-powered revival of command economies and their critics agree. Tacit knowledge is the kind of cognition we refer to when we say that we know more than we can tell. How do you ride a bike? No one can say with any precision. Supervision helps, but a beginner has to figure it out for herself. How do you know that a spot is a freckle and not a cancer? A specialist cannot teach a medical student simply by spelling out her thinking in words. The student has to practise under supervision until she has mastered the skill for herself. Can robots assimilate tacit knowledge? Mid-20th-century arguments against centralised planning assumed that they could not. Some of the achievements of machine learning – such as eclipsing specialist doctors at spotting cancer – suggest otherwise.

Which of the following is NOT an example of tacit knowledge?

Explanation

Answer – B

Let us refer to the passage

“Tacit knowledge is the kind of cognition we refer to when we say that we know more than we can tell. How do you ride a bike? No one can say with any precision. Supervision helps, but a beginner has to figure it out for herself. How do you know that a spot is a freckle and not a cancer? A specialist cannot teach a medical student simply by spelling out her thinking in words. The student has to practise under supervision until she has mastered the skill for herself”

The important aspect of Tacit Knowledge is that one who possesses it cannot explain with precision as to how they possess that knowledge. In the case of Option B, one can easily explain with precision about counting numbers thus it cannot be an example of tacit knowledge.

Hence, Option B is the correct answer.

Marks: 0.00

Negative Marks: 0.00

Difficulty Level: Easy

Trivia: 38.00% users answered right

Subject: Verbal Ability and Reading Comprehension

Result: Unanswered

Question no.3

Read the following passage and answer the questions that follow.

Machine learning – a kind of sub-field of artificial intelligence (AI) – is a means of training algorithms to discern empirical relationships within immense reams of data. Run a purpose-built algorithm by a pile of images of moles that might or might not be cancerous. Then show it images of diagnosed melanoma. Using analytical protocols modelled on the neurons of the human brain, in an iterative process of trial and error, the algorithm figures out how to discriminate between cancers and freckles. It can approximate its answers with a specified and steadily increasing degree of certainty, reaching levels of accuracy that surpass human specialists. Similar processes that refine algorithms to recognise or discover patterns in reams of data are now running right across the global economy: medicine, law, tax collection, marketing and research science are among the domains affected. Welcome to the future, say the economist Erik Brynjolfsson and the computer scientist Tom Mitchell: machine learning is about to transform our lives in something like the way that steam engines and then electricity did in the 19th and 20th centuries.

Signs of this impending change can still be hard to see. Productivity statistics, for instance, remain worryingly unaffected. This lag is consistent with earlier episodes of the advent of new ‘general purpose technologies. In past cases, technological innovation took decades to prove transformative. But ideas often move ahead of social and political change. Some of the ways in which machine learning might upend the status quo are already becoming apparent in political economy debates.

The discipline of political economy was created to make sense of a world set spinning by steam-powered and then electric industrialisation. Its central question became how best to regulate economic activity. Centralised control by government or industry, or market freedoms – which optimised outcomes? By the end of the 20th century, the answer seemed, emphatically, to be market-based order. But the advent of machine learning is reopening the state vs market debate. Which between state, firm or market is the better means of coordinating supply and demand? Old answers to that question are coming under new scrutiny. In an eye-catching paper in 2017, the economists Binbin Wang and Xiaoyan Li at Sichuan University in China argued that big data and machine learning give centralised planning a new lease of life. The notion that markets coordination of supply and demand encompassed more information than any single intelligence could handle would soon be proved false by 21st-century AI.

How seriously should we take such speculations? Might machine learning bring us full-circle in the history of economic thought, to where measures of economic centralisation and control – condemned long ago as dangerous utopian schemes – return, boasting new levels of efficiency, to constitute a new orthodoxy?

A great deal turns on the status of tacit knowledge. On this much the champions of a machine learning-powered revival of command economies and their critics agree. Tacit knowledge is the kind of cognition we refer to when we say that we know more than we can tell. How do you ride a bike? No one can say with any precision. Supervision helps, but a beginner has to figure it out for herself. How do you know that a spot is a freckle and not a cancer? A specialist cannot teach a medical student simply by spelling out her thinking in words. The student has to practise under supervision until she has mastered the skill for herself. Can robots assimilate tacit knowledge? Mid-20th-century arguments against centralised planning assumed that they could not. Some of the achievements of machine learning – such as eclipsing specialist doctors at spotting cancer – suggest otherwise.

Which of the following can be definitely inferred from the last paragraph?

Explanation

Answer – A

Let us refer to the passage

Option A - “Might machine learning bring us full-circle in the history of economic thought, to where measures of economic centralisation and control – condemned long ago as dangerous utopian schemes – return, boasting new levels of efficiency, to constitute a new orthodoxy? A great deal turns on the status of tacit knowledge. On this much the champions of a machine learning-powered revival of command economies and their critics agree.”

From the above-mentioned excerpt we can infer this option to be true. Hence, Option A is the correct answer.

Option B - “Mid-20th-century arguments against centralised planning assumed that they could not. Some of the achievements of machine learning – such as eclipsing specialist doctors at spotting cancer – suggest otherwise.”

From the above-mentioned excerpt we cannot infer this option to be true. Hence, Option B is incorrect.

Option C - The passage does not suggest that tacit knowledge is becoming the skill of machines. The passage discusses the achievements of machine learning in some specific areas, but it does not suggest that machines are becoming better than humans at all aspects of tacit knowledge.

From the above-mentioned excerpt we cannot infer this option to be true. Hence, Option C is incorrect.

Option D -  The passage does not suggest that machines will definitely rule the world one day.

From the above-mentioned excerpt we cannot infer this option to be true. Hence, Option D is incorrect.

Marks:

Negative Marks: 0.00

Difficulty Level: Easy

Trivia: 49.00% users answered right

Subject: Verbal Ability and Reading Comprehension

Result: Unanswered

Question no.4

Read the following passage and answer the questions that follow.

Machine learning – a kind of sub-field of artificial intelligence (AI) – is a means of training algorithms to discern empirical relationships within immense reams of data. Run a purpose-built algorithm by a pile of images of moles that might or might not be cancerous. Then show it images of diagnosed melanoma. Using analytical protocols modelled on the neurons of the human brain, in an iterative process of trial and error, the algorithm figures out how to discriminate between cancers and freckles. It can approximate its answers with a specified and steadily increasing degree of certainty, reaching levels of accuracy that surpass human specialists. Similar processes that refine algorithms to recognise or discover patterns in reams of data are now running right across the global economy: medicine, law, tax collection, marketing and research science are among the domains affected. Welcome to the future, say the economist Erik Brynjolfsson and the computer scientist Tom Mitchell: machine learning is about to transform our lives in something like the way that steam engines and then electricity did in the 19th and 20th centuries.

Signs of this impending change can still be hard to see. Productivity statistics, for instance, remain worryingly unaffected. This lag is consistent with earlier episodes of the advent of new ‘general purpose technologies. In past cases, technological innovation took decades to prove transformative. But ideas often move ahead of social and political change. Some of the ways in which machine learning might upend the status quo are already becoming apparent in political economy debates.

The discipline of political economy was created to make sense of a world set spinning by steam-powered and then electric industrialisation. Its central question became how best to regulate economic activity. Centralised control by government or industry, or market freedoms – which optimised outcomes? By the end of the 20th century, the answer seemed, emphatically, to be market-based order. But the advent of machine learning is reopening the state vs market debate. Which between state, firm or market is the better means of coordinating supply and demand? Old answers to that question are coming under new scrutiny. In an eye-catching paper in 2017, the economists Binbin Wang and Xiaoyan Li at Sichuan University in China argued that big data and machine learning give centralised planning a new lease of life. The notion that markets coordination of supply and demand encompassed more information than any single intelligence could handle would soon be proved false by 21st-century AI.

How seriously should we take such speculations? Might machine learning bring us full-circle in the history of economic thought, to where measures of economic centralisation and control – condemned long ago as dangerous utopian schemes – return, boasting new levels of efficiency, to constitute a new orthodoxy?

A great deal turns on the status of tacit knowledge. On this much the champions of a machine learning-powered revival of command economies and their critics agree. Tacit knowledge is the kind of cognition we refer to when we say that we know more than we can tell. How do you ride a bike? No one can say with any precision. Supervision helps, but a beginner has to figure it out for herself. How do you know that a spot is a freckle and not a cancer? A specialist cannot teach a medical student simply by spelling out her thinking in words. The student has to practise under supervision until she has mastered the skill for herself. Can robots assimilate tacit knowledge? Mid-20th-century arguments against centralised planning assumed that they could not. Some of the achievements of machine learning – such as eclipsing specialist doctors at spotting cancer – suggest otherwise.

The author of the passage is most probably a/an:

Explanation

Answer – B

Let us refer to the passage

“Machine learning – a kind of sub-field of artificial intelligence (AI) – is a means of training algorithms to discern empirical relationships within immense reams of data.

Similar processes that refine algorithms to recognise or discover patterns in reams of data are now running right across the global economy:

Some of the ways in which machine learning might upend the status quo are already becoming apparent in political economy debates.

The notion that market coordination of supply and demand encompassed more information than any single intelligence could handle would soon be proved false by 21st-century AI.

Can robots assimilate tacit knowledge? Mid-20th-century arguments against centralised planning assumed that they could not. Some of the achievements of machine learning – such as eclipsing specialist doctors at spotting cancer – suggest otherwise.”

From the above-mentioned excerpt we can see that the author tries to determine the impact of machine learning on the economy. Hence, Option B is the correct answer.

Marks: 0.00

Negative Marks: 0.00

Difficulty Level: Medium

Trivia: 19.00% users answered right

Subject: Verbal Ability and Reading Comprehension

Result: Unanswered

Question no.9

Read the following passage and answer the questions that follow.

We’ll start with a natural thought. Many of our alternative energy technologies are already highly developed. Solar panels, for example, represent a good option today, and are appearing more and more on the roofs of houses and businesses. It’s tempting to think that a rebooted society could simply pick up where we leave off. Why couldn’t our civilisation 2.0 just start with renewables?

Well, it could, in a very limited way. If you find yourself among the survivors in a post-apocalyptic world, you could scavenge enough working solar panels to keep your lifestyle electrified for a good long while. Without moving parts, photovoltaic cells require little maintenance and are remarkably resilient. They do deteriorate over time, though, from moisture penetrating the casing and from sunlight itself degrading the high-purity silicon layers. The electricity generated by a solar panel declines by about 1 percent every year so, after a few generations, all our hand-me-down solar panels will have degraded to the point of uselessness. Then what?

New ones would be fiendishly difficult to create from scratch. Solar panels are made from thin slices of extremely pure silicon, and although the raw material is common sand, it must be processed and refined using complex and precise techniques – the same technological capabilities, more or less, that we need for modern semiconductor electronics components. These techniques took a long time to develop, and would presumably take a long time to recover. So photovoltaic solar power would not be within the capability of a society early in the industrialisation process.

Perhaps, though, we were on the right track by starting with electrical power. Most of our renewable-energy technologies produce electricity. In our own historical development, it so happens that the core phenomena of electricity were discovered in the first half of the 1800s, well after the early development of steam engines. Heavy industry was already committed to combustion-based machinery, and electricity has largely assumed a subsidiary role in the organisation of our economies ever since. But could that sequence have run the other way? Is there some developmental requirement that thermal energy must come first?

On the face of it, it’s not beyond the bounds of possibility that a progressing society could construct electrical generators and couple them to simple windmills and waterwheels, later progressing to wind turbines and hydroelectric dams. In a world without fossil fuels, one might envisage an electrified civilisation that largely bypasses combustion engines, building its transport infrastructure around electric trains and trams for long-distance and urban transport. I say ‘largely’. We couldn’t get round it all together.

While the electric motor could perhaps replace the coal-burning steam engine for mechanical applications, society, as we’ve already seen, also relies upon thermal energy to drive the essential chemical and physical transformations it needs. How could an industrialising society produce crucial building materials such as iron and steel, brick, mortar, cement and glass without resorting to deposits of coal?

You can of course create heat from electricity. We already use electric ovens and kilns. Modern arc furnaces are used for producing cast iron or recycling steel. The problem isn’t so much that electricity can’t be used to heat things.

An alternative is to generate high temperatures using solar power directly. Rather than relying on photovoltaic panels, concentrated solar thermal farms use giant mirrors to focus the sun’s rays onto a small spot. The heat concentrated in this way can be exploited to drive certain chemical or industrial processes, or else to raise steam and drive a generator.

Which time period is being talked about by the author in the passage?

Explanation

Answer - B

Let us refer to the passage 

“It’s tempting to think that a rebooted society could simply pick up where we leave off. Why couldn’t our civilisation 2.0 just start with renewables? Well, it could, in a very limited way. If you find yourself among the survivors in a post-apocalyptic world, you could scavenge enough working solar panels to keep your lifestyle electrified for a good long while. Without moving parts, photovoltaic cells require little maintenance and are remarkably resilient. They do deteriorate over time, though, from moisture penetrating the casing and from sunlight itself degrading the high-purity silicon layers. The electricity generated by a solar panel declines by about 1 percent every year so, after a few generations, all our hand-me-down solar panels will have degraded to the point of uselessness. Then what?”

The author explicitly points out a post-apocalyptic world as a reference in the passage then goes on to discuss renewable energy in this world. Hence, Option B is the correct answer.

Marks: 0.00

Negative Marks: 0.00

Difficulty Level: Medium

Trivia: 22.00% users answered right

Subject: Verbal Ability and Reading Comprehension

Result: Unanswered

Question no.10

Read the following passage and answer the questions that follow.

We’ll start with a natural thought. Many of our alternative energy technologies are already highly developed. Solar panels, for example, represent a good option today, and are appearing more and more on the roofs of houses and businesses. It’s tempting to think that a rebooted society could simply pick up where we leave off. Why couldn’t our civilisation 2.0 just start with renewables?

Well, it could, in a very limited way. If you find yourself among the survivors in a post-apocalyptic world, you could scavenge enough working solar panels to keep your lifestyle electrified for a good long while. Without moving parts, photovoltaic cells require little maintenance and are remarkably resilient. They do deteriorate over time, though, from moisture penetrating the casing and from sunlight itself degrading the high-purity silicon layers. The electricity generated by a solar panel declines by about 1 percent every year so, after a few generations, all our hand-me-down solar panels will have degraded to the point of uselessness. Then what?

New ones would be fiendishly difficult to create from scratch. Solar panels are made from thin slices of extremely pure silicon, and although the raw material is common sand, it must be processed and refined using complex and precise techniques – the same technological capabilities, more or less, that we need for modern semiconductor electronics components. These techniques took a long time to develop, and would presumably take a long time to recover. So photovoltaic solar power would not be within the capability of a society early in the industrialisation process.

Perhaps, though, we were on the right track by starting with electrical power. Most of our renewable-energy technologies produce electricity. In our own historical development, it so happens that the core phenomena of electricity were discovered in the first half of the 1800s, well after the early development of steam engines. Heavy industry was already committed to combustion-based machinery, and electricity has largely assumed a subsidiary role in the organisation of our economies ever since. But could that sequence have run the other way? Is there some developmental requirement that thermal energy must come first?

On the face of it, it’s not beyond the bounds of possibility that a progressing society could construct electrical generators and couple them to simple windmills and waterwheels, later progressing to wind turbines and hydroelectric dams. In a world without fossil fuels, one might envisage an electrified civilisation that largely bypasses combustion engines, building its transport infrastructure around electric trains and trams for long-distance and urban transport. I say ‘largely’. We couldn’t get round it all together.

While the electric motor could perhaps replace the coal-burning steam engine for mechanical applications, society, as we’ve already seen, also relies upon thermal energy to drive the essential chemical and physical transformations it needs. How could an industrialising society produce crucial building materials such as iron and steel, brick, mortar, cement and glass without resorting to deposits of coal?

You can of course create heat from electricity. We already use electric ovens and kilns. Modern arc furnaces are used for producing cast iron or recycling steel. The problem isn’t so much that electricity can’t be used to heat things.

An alternative is to generate high temperatures using solar power directly. Rather than relying on photovoltaic panels, concentrated solar thermal farms use giant mirrors to focus the sun’s rays onto a small spot. The heat concentrated in this way can be exploited to drive certain chemical or industrial processes, or else to raise steam and drive a generator.

“The problem isn’t so much that electricity can’t be used to heat things.” What could be the problem then?

Explanation

Answer - A

Let us refer to the passage

“How could an industrialising society produce crucial building materials such as iron and steel, brick, mortar, cement and glass without resorting to deposits of coal? You can of course create heat from electricity. We already use electric ovens and kilns. Modern arc furnaces are used for producing cast iron or recycling steel. The problem isn’t so much that electricity can’t be used to heat things. An alternative is to generate high temperatures using solar power directly. Rather than relying on photovoltaic panels, concentrated solar thermal farms use giant mirrors to focus the sun’s rays onto a small spot. The heat concentrated in this way can be exploited to drive certain chemical or industrial processes, or else to raise steam and drive a generator.”

In the above-mentioned excerpt the author gives a solution to generate more heat, that has to be the problem with electricity. This is perfectly captured in Option A, hence it is the correct answer.

Marks: 0.00

Negative Marks: 0.00

Difficulty Level: Easy

Trivia: 36.00% users answered right

Subject: Verbal Ability and Reading Comprehension

Result: Unanswered

Question no.11

Read the following passage and answer the questions that follow.

We’ll start with a natural thought. Many of our alternative energy technologies are already highly developed. Solar panels, for example, represent a good option today, and are appearing more and more on the roofs of houses and businesses. It’s tempting to think that a rebooted society could simply pick up where we leave off. Why couldn’t our civilisation 2.0 just start with renewables?

Well, it could, in a very limited way. If you find yourself among the survivors in a post-apocalyptic world, you could scavenge enough working solar panels to keep your lifestyle electrified for a good long while. Without moving parts, photovoltaic cells require little maintenance and are remarkably resilient. They do deteriorate over time, though, from moisture penetrating the casing and from sunlight itself degrading the high-purity silicon layers. The electricity generated by a solar panel declines by about 1 percent every year so, after a few generations, all our hand-me-down solar panels will have degraded to the point of uselessness. Then what?

New ones would be fiendishly difficult to create from scratch. Solar panels are made from thin slices of extremely pure silicon, and although the raw material is common sand, it must be processed and refined using complex and precise techniques – the same technological capabilities, more or less, that we need for modern semiconductor electronics components. These techniques took a long time to develop, and would presumably take a long time to recover. So photovoltaic solar power would not be within the capability of a society early in the industrialisation process.

Perhaps, though, we were on the right track by starting with electrical power. Most of our renewable-energy technologies produce electricity. In our own historical development, it so happens that the core phenomena of electricity were discovered in the first half of the 1800s, well after the early development of steam engines. Heavy industry was already committed to combustion-based machinery, and electricity has largely assumed a subsidiary role in the organisation of our economies ever since. But could that sequence have run the other way? Is there some developmental requirement that thermal energy must come first?

On the face of it, it’s not beyond the bounds of possibility that a progressing society could construct electrical generators and couple them to simple windmills and waterwheels, later progressing to wind turbines and hydroelectric dams. In a world without fossil fuels, one might envisage an electrified civilisation that largely bypasses combustion engines, building its transport infrastructure around electric trains and trams for long-distance and urban transport. I say ‘largely’. We couldn’t get round it all together.

While the electric motor could perhaps replace the coal-burning steam engine for mechanical applications, society, as we’ve already seen, also relies upon thermal energy to drive the essential chemical and physical transformations it needs. How could an industrialising society produce crucial building materials such as iron and steel, brick, mortar, cement and glass without resorting to deposits of coal?

You can of course create heat from electricity. We already use electric ovens and kilns. Modern arc furnaces are used for producing cast iron or recycling steel. The problem isn’t so much that electricity can’t be used to heat things.

An alternative is to generate high temperatures using solar power directly. Rather than relying on photovoltaic panels, concentrated solar thermal farms use giant mirrors to focus the sun’s rays onto a small spot. The heat concentrated in this way can be exploited to drive certain chemical or industrial processes, or else to raise steam and drive a generator.

The author is most likely to AGREE with which of the following statement(s)?

A. Electricity generation would ultimately prove to be pivotal for a society starting from scratch.

B. Human race cannot survive without fossil fuels in a post-apocalyptic world.

C. Solar power would prove to be the ultimate source of energy in a post-apocalyptic world.

Explanation

Answer - A

Statement A -  “Perhaps, though, we were on the right track by starting with electrical power. Most of our renewable-energy technologies produce electricity. In our own historical development, it so happens that the core phenomena of electricity were discovered in the first half of the 1800s, well after the early development of steam engines. Heavy industry was already committed to combustion-based machinery, and electricity has largely assumed a subsidiary role in the organisation of our economies ever since. But could that sequence have run the other way? Is there some developmental requirement that thermal energy must come first?”

Based on the above-mentioned excerpt we can infer this statement to be correct.

Statement B - The whole passage talks about renewable energy thus this is an extreme statement only talking about fossil fuels. Hence, this statement is incorrect.

Statement C – “But could that sequence have run the other way? Is there some developmental requirement that thermal energy must come first?” 

Based on the above-mentioned excerpt we can infer this statement to be incorrect.

Hence, Option A is the correct answer.

Marks: 0.00

Negative Marks: 0.00

Difficulty Level: Medium

Trivia: 22.00% users answered right

Subject: Verbal Ability and Reading Comprehension

Result: Unanswered

Question no.12

Read the following passage and answer the questions that follow.

We’ll start with a natural thought. Many of our alternative energy technologies are already highly developed. Solar panels, for example, represent a good option today, and are appearing more and more on the roofs of houses and businesses. It’s tempting to think that a rebooted society could simply pick up where we leave off. Why couldn’t our civilisation 2.0 just start with renewables?

Well, it could, in a very limited way. If you find yourself among the survivors in a post-apocalyptic world, you could scavenge enough working solar panels to keep your lifestyle electrified for a good long while. Without moving parts, photovoltaic cells require little maintenance and are remarkably resilient. They do deteriorate over time, though, from moisture penetrating the casing and from sunlight itself degrading the high-purity silicon layers. The electricity generated by a solar panel declines by about 1 percent every year so, after a few generations, all our hand-me-down solar panels will have degraded to the point of uselessness. Then what?

New ones would be fiendishly difficult to create from scratch. Solar panels are made from thin slices of extremely pure silicon, and although the raw material is common sand, it must be processed and refined using complex and precise techniques – the same technological capabilities, more or less, that we need for modern semiconductor electronics components. These techniques took a long time to develop, and would presumably take a long time to recover. So photovoltaic solar power would not be within the capability of a society early in the industrialisation process.

Perhaps, though, we were on the right track by starting with electrical power. Most of our renewable-energy technologies produce electricity. In our own historical development, it so happens that the core phenomena of electricity were discovered in the first half of the 1800s, well after the early development of steam engines. Heavy industry was already committed to combustion-based machinery, and electricity has largely assumed a subsidiary role in the organisation of our economies ever since. But could that sequence have run the other way? Is there some developmental requirement that thermal energy must come first?

On the face of it, it’s not beyond the bounds of possibility that a progressing society could construct electrical generators and couple them to simple windmills and waterwheels, later progressing to wind turbines and hydroelectric dams. In a world without fossil fuels, one might envisage an electrified civilisation that largely bypasses combustion engines, building its transport infrastructure around electric trains and trams for long-distance and urban transport. I say ‘largely’. We couldn’t get round it all together.

While the electric motor could perhaps replace the coal-burning steam engine for mechanical applications, society, as we’ve already seen, also relies upon thermal energy to drive the essential chemical and physical transformations it needs. How could an industrialising society produce crucial building materials such as iron and steel, brick, mortar, cement and glass without resorting to deposits of coal?

You can of course create heat from electricity. We already use electric ovens and kilns. Modern arc furnaces are used for producing cast iron or recycling steel. The problem isn’t so much that electricity can’t be used to heat things.

An alternative is to generate high temperatures using solar power directly. Rather than relying on photovoltaic panels, concentrated solar thermal farms use giant mirrors to focus the sun’s rays onto a small spot. The heat concentrated in this way can be exploited to drive certain chemical or industrial processes, or else to raise steam and drive a generator.

The source of the passage is most probably a/an:

Explanation

Answer - A

Blog – This refers to an expression of personal thoughts.

Nonfiction book – This has to be a writing of a formal tone.

Newspaper – An article will be argumentative, formal and have multiple supporting arguments.

Research journal – A research journal will have multiple research oriented supportive points and extremely educational language.

The passage has an informal tone with the author expressing his own opinions and thoughts on the matter. Hence, Option A is the correct answer.

Marks: 0.00

Negative Marks: 0.00

Difficulty Level: Hard

Trivia: 33.00% users answered right

Subject: Verbal Ability and Reading Comprehension

Result: Unanswered

Question no.13

Read the following passage and answer the questions that follow.

In ancient Greek mythology, Diana was a patroness of virgins and goddess of the hunt, and any man who trespassed upon her privacy was likely to be punished by death. In our less supernal era, Princess Diana had been a virgin cynically used by the so-called “royal family” of Britain, of whom her husband Prince Charles was the most manipulative. And she was the one to be hunted, both symbolically and with a terrifying literalness, to her death. If Diana had possessed any flickering consciousness in these last minutes of her life, it would have been of those human jackals known as paparazzi gloating over their prey: the bitterly ironic end of the hunt.

But wasn’t the princess complicit in her fate? Didn’t she, by courting the tabloid media, not only bring her fate upon herself, but deserve it? So, commentators have begun to speculate, with that instinct for blaming the victim that characterizes the most puritanical sense of justice. By refusing to live a lie for the sake of patriarchal order, Princess Diana exposed the hypocrisy of the Establishment to the glare of commoners. She did not, or could not, play the role of Prince Charles’ wife, but chose rather to live by the truth. And the bad luck, the repeated “poor judgment” of the princess in choosing lovers—isn’t this too a symptom of a complicit fate? Isn’t such chronic behaviour the result of self-loathing?

In fact, the hunt that resulted in Princess Diana’s death began almost 20 years ago. When Diana was in her late teens, and Prince Charles was turning 30, royal courtiers were casting about for a worthy (i.e., unsullied, virginal) bride for the heir to the throne. It would not matter, evidently, that these courtiers, like the members of the royal family, knew of Charles’ semi-secret relationship with the married woman Camilla Parker Bowles. The princess-to-be was required to be virginal in every sense—to be ignorant of the very conditions of her marriage. With the cruel logic of those fairy tales that don’t end happily, the princess-to-be was intended as a sacrifice to the Establishment. Of Diana at the time of the wedding, it was said by a former classmate that she was “one of the few virgins of her age around. She was a complete romantic, and she was saving herself for the love of her life, which she knew would come one day.” There is no evidence that Diana would have behaved other than devotedly to her husband and family if she hadn’t been forced to acknowledge that her husband wasn’t only having a clandestine affair with another man’s wife, but had been having this affair for years.

The drama in the princess’s life had exclusively to do, it seems, with her often desperate search for love. This hope to be loved is in fact a wish to be loved for “what I am.” Yet for one of Diana’s statuses, to be loved would be as difficult as manning a canoe through treacherous Whitewater rapids; for most people, paddling in calmer waters, with no distractions, no temptations, no ravenous paparazzi, no billionaire playboys pressing $205,000 diamond rings into our hands, this quest for love is not nearly so difficult. The paradox of the celebrity’s quest is that she must realize that her “admirers” are drawn to her for the very reasons that the crowd is drawn to her; yet she wants to believe that, no, in fact she is loved for herself. (Most of us know we are only loved for ourselves—for what else is there?)

What does the author imply by “The princess-to-be was required to be virginal in every sense.”

Explanation

Answer - A

Let us refer to the passage

“When Diana was in her late teens, and Prince Charles was turning 30, royal courtiers were casting about for a worthy (i.e., unsullied, virginal) bride for the heir to the throne. It would not matter, evidently, that these courtiers, like the members of the royal family, knew of Charles’ semi-secret relationship with the married woman Camilla Parker Bowles. The princess-to-be was required to be virginal in every sense—to be ignorant of the very conditions of her marriage.”

From the above-mentioned excerpt we can understand what is meant by the princess having to be virginal in every sense, it means that the princess had to be oblivious about the situations involving her marriage for it to be a successful one. Hence, Option A is the correct answer.

Marks: 0.00

Negative Marks: 0.00

Difficulty Level: Medium

Trivia: 25.00% users answered right

Subject: Verbal Ability and Reading Comprehension

Result: Unanswered

Question no.14

Read the following passage and answer the questions that follow.

In ancient Greek mythology, Diana was a patroness of virgins and goddess of the hunt, and any man who trespassed upon her privacy was likely to be punished by death. In our less supernal era, Princess Diana had been a virgin cynically used by the so-called “royal family” of Britain, of whom her husband Prince Charles was the most manipulative. And she was the one to be hunted, both symbolically and with a terrifying literalness, to her death. If Diana had possessed any flickering consciousness in these last minutes of her life, it would have been of those human jackals known as paparazzi gloating over their prey: the bitterly ironic end of the hunt.

But wasn’t the princess complicit in her fate? Didn’t she, by courting the tabloid media, not only bring her fate upon herself, but deserve it? So, commentators have begun to speculate, with that instinct for blaming the victim that characterizes the most puritanical sense of justice. By refusing to live a lie for the sake of patriarchal order, Princess Diana exposed the hypocrisy of the Establishment to the glare of commoners. She did not, or could not, play the role of Prince Charles’ wife, but chose rather to live by the truth. And the bad luck, the repeated “poor judgment” of the princess in choosing lovers—isn’t this too a symptom of a complicit fate? Isn’t such chronic behaviour the result of self-loathing?

In fact, the hunt that resulted in Princess Diana’s death began almost 20 years ago. When Diana was in her late teens, and Prince Charles was turning 30, royal courtiers were casting about for a worthy (i.e., unsullied, virginal) bride for the heir to the throne. It would not matter, evidently, that these courtiers, like the members of the royal family, knew of Charles’ semi-secret relationship with the married woman Camilla Parker Bowles. The princess-to-be was required to be virginal in every sense—to be ignorant of the very conditions of her marriage. With the cruel logic of those fairy tales that don’t end happily, the princess-to-be was intended as a sacrifice to the Establishment. Of Diana at the time of the wedding, it was said by a former classmate that she was “one of the few virgins of her age around. She was a complete romantic, and she was saving herself for the love of her life, which she knew would come one day.” There is no evidence that Diana would have behaved other than devotedly to her husband and family if she hadn’t been forced to acknowledge that her husband wasn’t only having a clandestine affair with another man’s wife, but had been having this affair for years.

The drama in the princess’s life had exclusively to do, it seems, with her often desperate search for love. This hope to be loved is in fact a wish to be loved for “what I am.” Yet for one of Diana’s statuses, to be loved would be as difficult as manning a canoe through treacherous Whitewater rapids; for most people, paddling in calmer waters, with no distractions, no temptations, no ravenous paparazzi, no billionaire playboys pressing $205,000 diamond rings into our hands, this quest for love is not nearly so difficult. The paradox of the celebrity’s quest is that she must realize that her “admirers” are drawn to her for the very reasons that the crowd is drawn to her; yet she wants to believe that, no, in fact she is loved for herself. (Most of us know we are only loved for ourselves—for what else is there?)

“But wasn’t the princess complicit in her fate?” Why does the author think that the princess was complicit in her fate?

Explanation

Answer - C

Let us refer to the passage

“If Diana had possessed any flickering consciousness in these last minutes of her life, it would have been of those human jackals known as paparazzi gloating over their prey: the bitterly ironic end of the hunt. But wasn’t the princess complicit in her fate? Didn’t she, by courting the tabloid media, not only bring her fate upon herself, but deserve it? So commentators have begun to speculate, with that instinct for blaming the victim that characterizes the most puritanical sense of justice.”

The author talks about how princess Diana reached her bitter end and the author refers to the paparazzi as hungry jackals. Then he goes on to tell that she was complicit in this bitter end by wooing the media by talking about her personal life which in turn made them into hungry jackals.
This is best captured in Option C, hence it is the correct answer.

Marks: 0.00

Negative Marks: 0.00

Difficulty Level: Easy

Trivia: 19.00% users answered right

Subject: Verbal Ability and Reading Comprehension

Result: Unanswered

Question no.15

Read the following passage and answer the questions that follow.

In ancient Greek mythology, Diana was a patroness of virgins and goddess of the hunt, and any man who trespassed upon her privacy was likely to be punished by death. In our less supernal era, Princess Diana had been a virgin cynically used by the so-called “royal family” of Britain, of whom her husband Prince Charles was the most manipulative. And she was the one to be hunted, both symbolically and with a terrifying literalness, to her death. If Diana had possessed any flickering consciousness in these last minutes of her life, it would have been of those human jackals known as paparazzi gloating over their prey: the bitterly ironic end of the hunt.

But wasn’t the princess complicit in her fate? Didn’t she, by courting the tabloid media, not only bring her fate upon herself, but deserve it? So, commentators have begun to speculate, with that instinct for blaming the victim that characterizes the most puritanical sense of justice. By refusing to live a lie for the sake of patriarchal order, Princess Diana exposed the hypocrisy of the Establishment to the glare of commoners. She did not, or could not, play the role of Prince Charles’ wife, but chose rather to live by the truth. And the bad luck, the repeated “poor judgment” of the princess in choosing lovers—isn’t this too a symptom of a complicit fate? Isn’t such chronic behaviour the result of self-loathing?

In fact, the hunt that resulted in Princess Diana’s death began almost 20 years ago. When Diana was in her late teens, and Prince Charles was turning 30, royal courtiers were casting about for a worthy (i.e., unsullied, virginal) bride for the heir to the throne. It would not matter, evidently, that these courtiers, like the members of the royal family, knew of Charles’ semi-secret relationship with the married woman Camilla Parker Bowles. The princess-to-be was required to be virginal in every sense—to be ignorant of the very conditions of her marriage. With the cruel logic of those fairy tales that don’t end happily, the princess-to-be was intended as a sacrifice to the Establishment. Of Diana at the time of the wedding, it was said by a former classmate that she was “one of the few virgins of her age around. She was a complete romantic, and she was saving herself for the love of her life, which she knew would come one day.” There is no evidence that Diana would have behaved other than devotedly to her husband and family if she hadn’t been forced to acknowledge that her husband wasn’t only having a clandestine affair with another man’s wife, but had been having this affair for years.

The drama in the princess’s life had exclusively to do, it seems, with her often desperate search for love. This hope to be loved is in fact a wish to be loved for “what I am.” Yet for one of Diana’s statuses, to be loved would be as difficult as manning a canoe through treacherous Whitewater rapids; for most people, paddling in calmer waters, with no distractions, no temptations, no ravenous paparazzi, no billionaire playboys pressing $205,000 diamond rings into our hands, this quest for love is not nearly so difficult. The paradox of the celebrity’s quest is that she must realize that her “admirers” are drawn to her for the very reasons that the crowd is drawn to her; yet she wants to believe that, no, in fact she is loved for herself. (Most of us know we are only loved for ourselves—for what else is there?)

Why does the author say that the women find a role model in Princess Diana?

Explanation

Answer - C

Let us refer to the passage

“Yet for one of Diana’s statuses, to be loved would be as difficult as manning a canoe through treacherous Whitewater rapids; for most people, paddling in calmer waters, with no distractions, no temptations, no ravenous paparazzi, no billionaire playboys pressing $205,000 diamond rings into our hands, this quest for love is not nearly so difficult. The paradox of the celebrity’s quest is that she must realize that her “admirers” are drawn to her for the very reasons that the crowd is drawn to her; yet she wants to believe that, no, in fact she is loved for herself. (Most of us know we are only loved for ourselves—for what else is there?)”

In the above-mentioned excerpt the author talks about how the crowd is drawn to her just like her admirers (media) because of the fact she loved herself and had the courage to do so against all the events surrounding her life.

This is best captured in Option C, hence it is the correct answer.

Marks: 0.00

Negative Marks: 0.00

Difficulty Level: Hard

Trivia: 39.00% users answered right

Subject: Verbal Ability and Reading Comprehension

Result: Unanswered

Question no.16

Read the following passage and answer the questions that follow.

In ancient Greek mythology, Diana was a patroness of virgins and goddess of the hunt, and any man who trespassed upon her privacy was likely to be punished by death. In our less supernal era, Princess Diana had been a virgin cynically used by the so-called “royal family” of Britain, of whom her husband Prince Charles was the most manipulative. And she was the one to be hunted, both symbolically and with a terrifying literalness, to her death. If Diana had possessed any flickering consciousness in these last minutes of her life, it would have been of those human jackals known as paparazzi gloating over their prey: the bitterly ironic end of the hunt.

But wasn’t the princess complicit in her fate? Didn’t she, by courting the tabloid media, not only bring her fate upon herself, but deserve it? So, commentators have begun to speculate, with that instinct for blaming the victim that characterizes the most puritanical sense of justice. By refusing to live a lie for the sake of patriarchal order, Princess Diana exposed the hypocrisy of the Establishment to the glare of commoners. She did not, or could not, play the role of Prince Charles’ wife, but chose rather to live by the truth. And the bad luck, the repeated “poor judgment” of the princess in choosing lovers—isn’t this too a symptom of a complicit fate? Isn’t such chronic behaviour the result of self-loathing?

In fact, the hunt that resulted in Princess Diana’s death began almost 20 years ago. When Diana was in her late teens, and Prince Charles was turning 30, royal courtiers were casting about for a worthy (i.e., unsullied, virginal) bride for the heir to the throne. It would not matter, evidently, that these courtiers, like the members of the royal family, knew of Charles’ semi-secret relationship with the married woman Camilla Parker Bowles. The princess-to-be was required to be virginal in every sense—to be ignorant of the very conditions of her marriage. With the cruel logic of those fairy tales that don’t end happily, the princess-to-be was intended as a sacrifice to the Establishment. Of Diana at the time of the wedding, it was said by a former classmate that she was “one of the few virgins of her age around. She was a complete romantic, and she was saving herself for the love of her life, which she knew would come one day.” There is no evidence that Diana would have behaved other than devotedly to her husband and family if she hadn’t been forced to acknowledge that her husband wasn’t only having a clandestine affair with another man’s wife, but had been having this affair for years.

The drama in the princess’s life had exclusively to do, it seems, with her often desperate search for love. This hope to be loved is in fact a wish to be loved for “what I am.” Yet for one of Diana’s statuses, to be loved would be as difficult as manning a canoe through treacherous Whitewater rapids; for most people, paddling in calmer waters, with no distractions, no temptations, no ravenous paparazzi, no billionaire playboys pressing $205,000 diamond rings into our hands, this quest for love is not nearly so difficult. The paradox of the celebrity’s quest is that she must realize that her “admirers” are drawn to her for the very reasons that the crowd is drawn to her; yet she wants to believe that, no, in fact she is loved for herself. (Most of us know we are only loved for ourselves—for what else is there?)

The author would AGREE that:

Explanation

Answer - C

Let us refer to the passage

“She did not, or could not, play the role of Prince Charles’ wife, but chose rather to live by the truth. And the bad luck, the repeated “poor judgment” of the princess in choosing lovers—isn’t this too a symptom of a complicit fate? Isn’t such chronic behaviour the result of self-loathing?”

The above-mentioned excerpt is best captured in Option C, hence it is the correct answer.

Marks:

Negative Marks: 0.00

Difficulty Level: Hard

Trivia: 3.00% users answered right

Subject: Verbal Ability and Reading Comprehension

Result: Unanswered

Question no.22

The following question consists of a paragraph which is followed by four options. Among the given options, choose the one which captures the essence of the paragraph accurately and clearly.

Moral panic about the depravity of the heavy has seeped into many aspects of life, confusing even the erudite. Earlier this month, for example, the American evolutionary psychologist Geoffrey Miller expressed the zeitgeist in this tweet: ‘Dear obese PhD applicants: if you don’t have the willpower to stop eating carbs, you won’t have the willpower to do a dissertation. #truth.’ Businesses are moving to profit on the supposed weaknesses of their customers. Meanwhile, governments no longer presume that their citizens know what they are doing when they take up a menu or a shopping cart. Yesterday’s fringe notions are becoming today’s rules for living — such as New York City’s recent attempt to ban large-size cups for sugary soft drinks, or Denmark’s short-lived tax surcharge on foods that contain more than 2.3 percent saturated fat, or Samoa Air’s 2013 ticket policy, in which a passenger’s fare is based on his weight because: ‘You are the master of your air ‘fair’, you decide how much (or how little) your ticket will cost.’

Explanation

Answer – B

“Meanwhile, governments no longer presume that their citizens know what they are doing when they take up a menu or a shopping cart. Yesterday’s fringe notions are becoming today’s rules for living — such as New York City’s recent attempt to ban large-size cups for sugary soft drinks, or Denmark’s short-lived tax surcharge on foods that contain more than 2.3 percent saturated fat, or Samoa Air’s 2013 ticket policy, in which a passenger’s fare is based on his weight because: ‘You are the master of your air ‘fair’, you decide how much (or how little) your ticket will cost.’”

The whole passage focuses on various actions taken by authorities across the world.

This is perfectly captured in Option B, hence it is the correct answer.

Marks: 0.00

Negative Marks: 0.00

Difficulty Level: Medium

Trivia: 53.00% users answered right

Subject: Verbal Ability and Reading Comprehension

Result: Unanswered

Question no.6

Read the following information carefully and answer the questions based on it

The table below provides partial details of the percentage wise distribution of all the expenses under different heads by husband and wife and both husband and wife together

What is the ratio of expenditure of Wife to husband on clothes, food and house rent combined?

Explanation

Answer - D

Assume W and H stands for Wife and husband respectively

10% W + 15%H = 13% of (W+H)

10%W + 15%h = 13%W + 13%H

2%H = 3%W

H/W = 3/2

So, the ratio of their income is 3:2 for husband and wife

Let’s assume Husband earns 300x and wife earns 200x per annum

After calculation for blank entries the final table will look like below (The new entries are marked with yellow)

Required ratio is = (20x + 24x + 30x) / ( 45x + 30x + 12.5x) = 74x/87.5x = 148/175

Marks: 0.00

Negative Marks: 0.00

Difficulty Level: Medium

Trivia: 13.00% users answered right

Subject: Data Interpretation and Logical Reasoning

Result: Unanswered

Question no.7

Read the following information carefully and answer the questions based on it

The table below provides partial details of the percentage wise distribution of all the expenses under different heads by husband and wife and both husband and wife together

If the total amount spent on house rent is 32500 INR then what is the husband's expenditure on jewellery?

Explanation

Answer - C

Assume W and H stands for Wife and husband respectively

10% W + 15%H = 13% of (W+H)

10%W + 15%h = 13%W + 13%H

2%H = 3%W

H/W = 3/2

So, the ratio of their income is 3:2 for husband and wife

Let’s assume Husband earns 300x and wife earns 200x per annum

After calculation for blank entries the final table is look like below (The new entries are marked with yellow)

65x is 32500 then 9x = 4500

Marks: 0.00

Negative Marks: 0.00

Difficulty Level: Medium

Trivia: 14.00% users answered right

Subject: Data Interpretation and Logical Reasoning

Result: Unanswered

Question no.8

Read the following information carefully and answer the questions based on it

The table below provides partial details of the percentage wise distribution of all the expenses under different heads by husband and wife and both husband and wife together

What percentage of total income (both husband and wife) does the couple spend on medical expenses ?

Explanation

Answer - A

Assume W and H stands for Wife and husband respectively

10% W + 15%H = 13% of (W+H)

10%W + 15%h = 13%W + 13%H

2%H = 3%W

H/W = 3/2

So, the ratio of their income is 3:2 for husband and wife

Let’s assume Husband earns 300x and wife earns 200x per annum

After calculation for blank entries the final table is look like below (The new entries are marked with yellow)

Marks:

Negative Marks: 0.00

Difficulty Level: Medium

Trivia: 14.00% users answered right

Subject: Data Interpretation and Logical Reasoning

Result: Unanswered

Question no.16

Read the following information carefully and answer the questions based on it.

Five friends got different ranks among 1 to 5 (1 being the best and 5 being the worst performance) in three different subjects – History, Economics and Geography. No one got the same rank in any of the subjects and for every rank in every subject there was a different person. Further we know following about them

1. Hitanshi was the best performer in Economics. In none of the subject, Hemlata and Harish got 4^th rank.

2. Harish scored better ranks in History and Economics than Hemlata.

3. Neither Hemlata nor Himani was the best performer in any of the given subjects. Himani was also not the poorest in any of the subject.

4. Hemlata got 2^nd rank in Geography, Himani got 4^th rank in History and Harish got 5^th rank in geography.

5. The rank of Hemlata in economics is same as the rank of Harshini in history.

Who among the following  did not get 2^nd rank in any of the subjects?

Explanation

Answer - B

From the available information the below table is formed 

From the 3rd point, Hemlata and Himani were not the best performers in any of the subjects. So Harish and Harshini got first rank in history and geography in any order. But Harish got 5^th rank in Geography so his first rank has to be history and hence Harshini got 1^st rank in geography.

Now, Himani got 4^th rank in history so her rank in geography cannot be 4^th. So in geography, Himani got 3^rd and Hitanshi got 4^th rank.

Now, Himani did not get 5^th rank in any subject and she has already scored 4^th and 3^rd rank in different subjects. So her rank in economics is either 1^st or 2^nd but 1^st rank got by Hitanshi so Himani got 2^nd rank in Economics 

Harish and Hemlata did not get 4^th rank in any of the subjects so Harshini got 4^th rank in Economics. Harish scored 5^th in geography so his rank in economics was 3^rd and Hemlata got 5^th rank in economics. So Harshini got 5^th rank in history (because of point 5)

Hence, Hemlata got 3^rd rank in History and Hitanshi got 2^nd rank in History

Marks: 0.00

Negative Marks: 0.00

Difficulty Level: Medium

Trivia: 42.00% users answered right

Subject: Data Interpretation and Logical Reasoning

Result: Unanswered

Question no.17

Read the following information carefully and answer the questions based on it.

Five friends got different ranks among 1 to 5 (1 being the best and 5 being the worst performance) in three different subjects – History, Economics and Geography. No one got the same rank in any of the subjects and for every rank in every subject there was a different person. Further we know following about them

1. Hitanshi was the best performer in Economics. In none of the subject, Hemlata and Harish got 4^th rank.

2. Harish scored better ranks in History and Economics than Hemlata.

3. Neither Hemlata nor Himani was the best performer in any of the given subjects. Himani was also not the poorest in any of the subject.

4. Hemlata got 2^nd rank in Geography, Himani got 4^th rank in History and Harish got 5^th rank in geography.

5. The rank of Hemlata in economics is same as the rank of Harshini in history.

Which of the following rank Harish did not get?

Explanation

Answer - D

From the available information the below table is formed 

From the 3rd point, Hemlata and Himani were not the best performers in any of the subjects. So Harish and Harshini got first rank in history and geography in any order. But Harish got 5^th rank in Geography so his first rank has to be history and hence Harshini got 1^st rank in geography  

Now, Himani got 4^th rank in history so her rank in geography cannot be 4^th. So in geography Himani got 3^rd and Hitanshi got 4^th rank

Now, Himani did not get 5^th rank in any subject and she has already scored 4^th and 3^rd rank in different subjects. So her rank in economics is either 1^st or 2^nd but 1^st rank got by Hitanshi so Himani got 2^nd rank in Economics 

Harish and Hemlata did not get 4^th rank in any of the subjects so Harshini got 4^th rank in Economics. Harish scored 5^th in geography so his rank in economics was 3^rd and Hemlata got 5^th rank in economics. So Harshini got 5^th rank in history (because of point 5)

Hence, Hemlata got 3^rd rank in History and Hitanshi got 2^nd rank in History

Marks: 0.00

Negative Marks: 0.00

Difficulty Level: Medium

Trivia: 45.00% users answered right

Subject: Data Interpretation and Logical Reasoning

Result: Unanswered

Question no.18

Read the following information carefully and answer the questions based on it.

Five friends got different ranks among 1 to 5 (1 being the best and 5 being the worst performance) in three different subjects – History, Economics and Geography. No one got the same rank in any of the subjects and for every rank in every subject there was a different person. Further we know following about them

1. Hitanshi was the best performer in Economics. In none of the subject, Hemlata and Harish got 4^th rank.

2. Harish scored better ranks in History and Economics than Hemlata.

3. Neither Hemlata nor Himani was the best performer in any of the given subjects. Himani was also not the poorest in any of the subject.

4. Hemlata got 2^nd rank in Geography, Himani got 4^th rank in History and Harish got 5^th rank in geography.

5. The rank of Hemlata in economics is same as the rank of Harshini in history.

Which of the following got 5^th rank in History?

Explanation

Answer - C

From the available information the below table is formed 

From the 3rd point, Hemlata and Himani were not the best performers in any of the subjects. So Harish and Harshini got first rank in history and geography in any order. But Harish got 5^th rank in Geography so his first rank has to be history and hence Harshini got 1^st rank in geography  

Now, Himani got 4^th rank in history so her rank in geography cannot be 4^th. So in geography Himani got 3^rd and Hitanshi got 4^th rank

Now, Himani did not get 5^th rank in any subject and she has already scored 4^th and 3^rd rank in different subjects. So her rank in economics is either 1^st or 2^nd but 1^st rank got by Hitanshi so Himani got 2^nd rank in Economics 

Harish and Hemlata did not get 4^th rank in any of the subjects so Harshini got 4^th rank in Economics. Harish scored 5^th in geography so his rank in economics was 3^rd and Hemlata got 5^th rank in economics. So Harshini got 5^th rank in history (because of point 5)

Hence, Hemlata got 3^rd rank in History and Hitanshi got 2^nd rank in History

Marks: 0.00

Negative Marks: 0.00

Difficulty Level: Medium

Trivia: 57.00% users answered right

Subject: Data Interpretation and Logical Reasoning

Result: Unanswered

Question no.19

Read the following information carefully and answer the questions based on it.

Five friends got different ranks among 1 to 5 (1 being the best and 5 being the worst performance) in three different subjects – History, Economics and Geography. No one got the same rank in any of the subjects and for every rank in every subject there was a different person. Further we know following about them

1. Hitanshi was the best performer in Economics. In none of the subject, Hemlata and Harish got 4^th rank.

2. Harish scored better ranks in History and Economics than Hemlata.

3. Neither Hemlata nor Himani was the best performer in any of the given subjects. Himani was also not the poorest in any of the subject.

4. Hemlata got 2^nd rank in Geography, Himani got 4^th rank in History and Harish got 5^th rank in geography.

5. The rank of Hemlata in economics is same as the rank of Harshini in history.

In which of the subjects Harshini was the second worst performer?

Explanation

Answer - A

From the available information the below table is formed 

From the 3rd point, Hemlata and Himani were not the best performers in any of the subjects. So Harish and Harshini got first rank in history and geography in any order. But Harish got 5^th rank in Geography so his first rank has to be history and hence Harshini got 1^st rank in geography  

Now, Himani got 4^th rank in history so her rank in geography cannot be 4^th. So in geography Himani got 3^rd and Hitanshi got 4^th rank

Now, Himani did not get 5^th rank in any subject and she has already scored 4^th and 3^rd rank in different subjects. So her rank in economics is either 1^st or 2^nd but 1^st rank got by Hitanshi so Himani got 2^nd rank in Economics 

Harish and Hemlata did not get 4^th rank in any of the subjects so Harshini got 4^th rank in Economics. Harish scored 5^th in geography so his rank in economics was 3^rd and Hemlata got 5^th rank in economics. So Harshini got 5^th rank in history (because of point 5)

Hence, Hemlata got 3^rd rank in History and Hitanshi got 2^nd rank in History

Marks: 0.00

Negative Marks: 0.00

Difficulty Level: Medium

Trivia: 54.00% users answered right

Subject: Data Interpretation and Logical Reasoning

Result: Unanswered

Question no.20

Read the following information carefully and answer the questions based on it.

Five friends got different ranks among 1 to 5 (1 being the best and 5 being the worst performance) in three different subjects – History, Economics and Geography. No one got the same rank in any of the subjects and for every rank in every subject there was a different person. Further we know following about them

1. Hitanshi was the best performer in Economics. In none of the subject, Hemlata and Harish got 4^th rank.

2. Harish scored better ranks in History and Economics than Hemlata.

3. Neither Hemlata nor Himani was the best performer in any of the given subjects. Himani was also not the poorest in any of the subject.

4. Hemlata got 2^nd rank in Geography, Himani got 4^th rank in History and Harish got 5^th rank in geography.

5. The rank of Hemlata in economics is same as the rank of Harshini in history.

If the best performer is the one who has got the least sum of the ranks in the given subjects, then who was the best performer?

Explanation

Answer - B

From the available information the below table is formed 

From the 3rd point, Hemlata and Himani were not the best performers in any of the subjects. So Harish and Harshini got first rank in history and geography in any order. But Harish got 5^th rank in Geography so his first rank has to be history and hence Harshini got 1^st rank in geography  

Now, Himani got 4^th rank in history so her rank in geography cannot be 4^th. So in geography Himani got 3^rd and Hitanshi got 4^th rank

Now, Himani did not get 5^th rank in any subject and she has already scored 4^th and 3^rd rank in different subjects. So her rank in economics is either 1^st or 2^nd but 1^st rank got by Hitanshi so Himani got 2^nd rank in Economics 

Harish and Hemlata did not get 4^th rank in any of the subjects so Harshini got 4^th rank in Economics. Harish scored 5^th in geography so his rank in economics was 3^rd and Hemlata got 5^th rank in economics. So Harshini got 5^th rank in history (because of point 5)

Hence, Hemlata got 3^rd rank in History and Hitanshi got 2^nd rank in History

The sum of ranks is as follows : 

Harish= 9

Hemlata = 10

Himani = 9

Hitanshi =7

Harshini= 10

Marks: 0.00

Negative Marks: 0.00

Difficulty Level: Medium

Trivia: 55.00% users answered right

Subject: Data Interpretation and Logical Reasoning

Result: Unanswered

Question no.1

If f(x) = 7x + 8 and g(x) = 8x – 7 and 2*(f(g(m))) = 3g(4f(m)) then find out the value of |m|. (Write you answer upto two decimal point)

Explanation

Answer - 1.48

2*(fog(m) = 3g(4f(m))

2*f(8m-7) = 3*g*(4*(7m+8))

2*(7(8m-7)+8) = 3*g*(28m+32))

2*(56m-41) = 3*(8(28m + 32)-7)

112m – 82 = 672m + 747

560m = - 829

m = -1.48

|m| = 1.48

Marks: 0.00

Negative Marks: 0.00

Difficulty Level: Easy

Trivia: 10.00% users answered right

Subject: Quantitative Ability

Result: Unanswered

Question no.2

If log₄(1-16^x) = x – 8  then which of the following is true        

Explanation

Answer - D

log₄(1-16^x) = x – 8

1 – 2^4x = 4^x-8

1 – 2^4x = 2^2x-16

1 = 2^2x-16 + 2^4x

Marks: 0.00

Negative Marks: 0.00

Difficulty Level: Easy

Trivia: 26.00% users answered right

Subject: Quantitative Ability

Result: Unanswered

Question no.3

If the sides of the triangle are 14, 11 and x then find out how many values x can take such that triangle is scalene triangle

Explanation

Answer - D

The sides of the triangle are 11, 14 and x

Scalene triangle means all the sides are different

Using sum of other two sides is greater than other principle,

14 – 11 < x < 14 + 11

3 < x < 25

x can take any integer value from 4 to 24 except 11 and 14

So, possible solutions are 21 – 2 = 19

Marks: 0.00

Negative Marks: 0.00

Difficulty Level: Easy

Trivia: 21.00% users answered right

Subject: Quantitative Ability

Result: Unanswered

Question no.4

In a classroom the average age of boys is 14 and average age of girls is 12.5. Which of the following cannot be the age of the teacher if the average age of class is increased by 0.6 with her. the ratio of boys to girls is 3:2

Explanation

Answer - A

Let’s assume number of boys and girls be 3x and 2x respectively

Total age of boys and girls = 14*3x + 2x * 12.5 = 42x + 25x = 67x

Average of class = 67x/5x = 13.4

With teacher average increase by 2 and let y be the age of teacher

(67x + y)/(5x + 1) – 13.4 = 0.6

(67x + y)/(5x + 1) – 13.4 = 0.6

(67x + y)/(5x + 1) = 0.6+13.4

67x + y = 70x + 14

y – 3x = 14

y = 3x + 14

x = (y – 14)/3

Since x is an integer y-14 should be divisible by 3

Only option A does not satisfy the above condition

Marks: 0.00

Negative Marks: 0.00

Difficulty Level: Medium

Trivia: 18.00% users answered right

Subject: Quantitative Ability

Result: Unanswered

Question no.5

In a circle PT is a tangent. A and C are the points on the circle. The measurement of PA = 10, CD = 9 and PT = 20. If AB and CD are chords of circle then find out PB + PD (PA < PB and PD > PC)

Explanation

Answer - A

PT is tangent so it follows PT² = PA * PB = PC * PD

PT² = PA * (PA + AB)

20² = 10 * (10 + x )

40 = 10 + x

x = 30

So AB = 30

PB = 40

Same way.

PT² = PC * PD

400 = PC * (PC + CD)

400 = y² + 9y

y = -25 or y = 16

So, PC = 16

PD = 25

PB + PD = 25 + 40 = 65

Marks: 0.00

Negative Marks: 0.00

Difficulty Level: Medium

Trivia: 13.00% users answered right

Subject: Quantitative Ability

Result: Unanswered

Question no.6

Find out the sum of 6 + 11 + 18 + 27 +…….up to 10 terms 

Explanation

Answer - C

S = 6 + 11 + 18 + 27 +…….up to 10 terms

S = 3*2 – 0 + 4*3 – 1 + 5*4 – 2 …..10 terms

S = 6 +

S = 6 +

S = 6 +

S = 6 + n(n+1)(2n+1)/6 + 4*n*(n+1)/2 + 6n

S = 6 + 9*10*19/6 + 4*9*10/2 + 6*9

S = 6 + 285 + 180 + 54 = 525

Marks: 0.00

Negative Marks: 0.00

Difficulty Level: Medium

Trivia: 44.00% users answered right

Subject: Quantitative Ability

Result: Unanswered

Question no.7

The number 12C00AB0 ,where A,B,C are natural numbers is divisible by 96. If A,B,C ≠ 0 then find out the least possible value of A+B+C .

Explanation

Answer - 6

Here the number is divisible by 96 so it must be divisible by 32 and 3

For any number to be divisible by 3 means sum of addition of its digits must be divisible by 3

For 32, last 5 digits must be divisible by 32

Last 5 digits 00AB0

Now, the unit digit is 0 so the number is multiple of 5 also

Hence possible combination of (A, B) are (0,0),(1, 6), (3, 2), (4, 8), (6, 4), (8, 0) and (9, 6)

If  A,B,C ≠ 0, then the least possible value of (A,B) is (3, 2) and if we take C = 1 then we get the required answer .

(Reason – first two digits are 1 and 2 so their addition is 3. Now, A + B + C is also divisible by 3 because of total 6)

So, the required answer is 3 + 2 + 1 = 6

Marks: 0.00

Negative Marks: 0.00

Difficulty Level: Hard

Trivia: 9.00% users answered right

Subject: Quantitative Ability

Result: Unanswered

Question no.8

Find out the number of value for which function ^12-xC_x+2 is defined, where x is a natural number

Explanation

Answer - C

^12-xC_x+2 is only defined when x +2 ≤ 12-x

2x ≤ 10

x ≤ 5

and 0 ≤ x+2

-2 ≤ x

x can take 5 values i.e. 1,2,3,4,5 since it is also given x is a natural number 

Marks: 0.00

Negative Marks: 0.00

Difficulty Level: Easy

Trivia: 21.00% users answered right

Subject: Quantitative Ability

Result: Unanswered

Question no.9

Find out the number of three digit numbers which are divisible by both 3 and 5 but not by 6

Explanation

Answer - 30

We need to find the number of three digit numbers which are divisible by 3 and 5 means 15 but not divisible by 6

So, the number should be divisible by 15 but not by even multiples of 15.

The least three digit number which is divisible by 15 is 105 and the highest number is 990

990 = 105 + (n-1)*15

885 = (n-1)*15

59 = n-1

n = 60

Since the first term is odd and the last term is even, there are exactly half  odd terms and half even terms. 

Total required number of numbers = 60 /2 = 30

Marks: 0.00

Negative Marks: 0.00

Difficulty Level: Medium

Trivia: 12.00% users answered right

Subject: Quantitative Ability

Result: Unanswered

Question no.11

In a race of 1000 meter Manisha beats Pooja by 100 and Pooja beats Stacy by 200 meter. Find out the distance (in meters) by which Manisha will beat Stacy

Explanation

Answer - 280

Ratio of speed of Manisha and Pooja is 10:9 because when Manisha completes the race Pooja covers only 900 meters

Ratio of speed of Pooja and Stacy is 10:8 or 5:4 because of the same logic given above

So, When Pooja covers 900 meters, Stacy covers (4/5*900) = 720 meters

So, Manisha beats Stacy by(1000-720) meters = 280 m

Marks: 0.00

Negative Marks: 0.00

Difficulty Level: Easy

Trivia: 29.00% users answered right

Subject: Quantitative Ability

Result: Unanswered

Question no.13

A certain sum of money becomes 8 times in 3 years interest being compounded yearly. Find out the number of years it would take to become 5 times at the same rate of interest but interest being counted on simple interest basis

Explanation

Answer - 4

Let P, R and N be the principal, rate of interest and number of years

A = P(1+(R/100)^N

A = 8P in 3 years

8P = P(1+(R/100)³

8 = (1+(R/100)³

2 = (1 + (R/100))

1 = R/100

R = 100%

Now 5 times money becomes when it earns interest equal to 4 times of principal

I = PRN/100

4P = PRN/100

N = 4

So, money becomes 5 times after 4 years

Marks: 0.00

Negative Marks: 0.00

Difficulty Level: Medium

Trivia: 21.00% users answered right

Subject: Quantitative Ability

Result: Unanswered

Question no.14

If a rectangle with length l and breadth b has area equal to the area of square of side a then which of the following relation is true

Explanation

Answer  - C

Area of rectangle = l*b

Area of square = a²

l*b = a²

\({\sqrt{lb}}=a\)

This shows a is the geometric mean of l and b

Marks: 0.00

Negative Marks: 0.00

Difficulty Level: Easy

Trivia: 45.00% users answered right

Subject: Quantitative Ability

Result: Unanswered

Question no.15

If f(x) =  where x is not equal to -9/7 then find out f^-1(x)

Explanation

Answer - C

f(x) =

Take y = 

7xy + 9y = 4x + 7

7xy – 4x = 7 – 9y

x (7y – 4) = 7 – 9y

x =  

So, f^-1(x) =

Marks: 0.00

Negative Marks: 0.00

Difficulty Level: Medium

Trivia: 16.00% users answered right

Subject: Quantitative Ability

Result: Unanswered

Question no.16

In a circular race A and B start at the same point with the speed of 36 kmph and 54 kmph respectively. The length of the race is 900 meter. Find out the time difference of their meeting for the first time if they start in the same direction and opposite direction

Explanation

Answer - B

Converting speed of A and B in m/s

Speed of A = 36kmph*5/18 = 10 m/s

Speed of B = 54 kmph*5/18 = 15 m/s

Time taken by them to meet when they are running in the same direction = 900/(15-10) = 900/5 = 180 s

Time taken by them to meet when they are running in the opposite direction 900(15+10) = 900/25 = 36 s

Actual time difference is = 180 – 36 = 144 s

Marks: 0.00

Negative Marks: 0.00

Difficulty Level: Medium

Trivia: 37.00% users answered right

Subject: Quantitative Ability

Result: Unanswered

Question no.18

In an interview, if two or more interviewers select candidates, then he or she will get selected. Find out the probability that Mridvika is selected if her odds in favour of selection with interviewer 1 is 3:4, her odds in favour of rejection with interviewer 2 is 2:5 and her odds in favour of selection with interviewer 3 is 4:5

Explanation

Answer - A

Mridvika is selected when either two out of three in favour or all three are in favour

Odds in favour for interviewer 1 (I-1) – 3/7

Odds in favour for interviewer 2 (I-2) – 5/7

Odds in favour for interviewer 3 (I-3) – 4/9

Probability of Mridvika got selected is

(I-1) * (I-2) * (Not I-3) + (I-2) * (I-3) * (Not I-1) + (I-3) * (I-1) * (Not I-2) + (I-1) * (I-2) *(I-3)

=\(({3\over7}*{5\over7}*{5\over9})+({5\over7}*{4\over9}*{4\over7})+({3\over7}*{4\over9}*{2\over7})+({5\over7}*{4\over9})\)

= \({75\over441}+{80\over441}+{24\over441}+{60\over441}\)

= \({239\over441}\)

Marks: 0.00

Negative Marks: 0.00

Difficulty Level: Medium

Trivia: 6.00% users answered right

Subject: Quantitative Ability

Result: Unanswered

Question no.20

A seller sells a mixture of rice and earns 20% profit. Find out the ratio in which two quantities of rice, priced at Rs. 20/kg and Rs. 16/kg mixed. If the selling price is Rs. 19.8

Explanation

Answer - C

The selling price is 19.8 and profit is 20%

So, Cost price = 19.8/1.2 = 16.5

So using concept of mixture and alligation

Quantity of Rs. 20/Quantity of Rs. 16 = (16.5-16)/(20-16.5) = 0.5/3.5 = 1:7

So, the required ratio is 1:7

Marks: 0.00

Negative Marks: 0.00

Difficulty Level: Easy

Trivia: 47.00% users answered right

Subject: Quantitative Ability

Result: Unanswered

Question no.21

When a number is increased by 12 and then by the same percentage as in the previous case then the final number is 54. Find out the highest possible such number

Explanation

Answer - 24

Let the number be x

After increment of 12 the number becomes x + 12

 Now another increase of same percentage and number becomes 54

(x+12) + (x+12)*(12/x) = 54

x + 12 + (x+12)*12/x = 54

x² + 12x + 12x + 144 = 54x

x² – 30x + 144 = 0

(x-24) or (x-6) = 0

 x = 24 or 6

Marks: 0.00

Negative Marks: 0.00

Difficulty Level: Medium

Trivia: 5.00% users answered right

Subject: Quantitative Ability

Result: Unanswered