📘 Quiz

Solution: Step 1: Understand the given information: The ratio of Vinod's salary (V) to Javed's salary (J) is V:J = 4:3. This can be expressed as V = 4x and J = 3x for some multiplier x. Step 2: Analyze Statement I: 'Javed's salary is 75% that of Vinod's salary'. This translates to J = 0.75V, or J = (3/4)V, which is equivalent to V:J = 4:3. This statement merely rephrases the information already provided and does not give any concrete value. Therefore, Statement I alone is not sufficient. Step 3: Analyze Statement II: 'Javed's salary is Rs 4500'. This gives a concrete value for Javed's salary, J = 4500. Step 4: Using the ratio V:J = 4:3 and J = 4500, we can set up the equation (V / 4500) = (4 / 3). Step 5: Solve for V: V = (4/3) * 4500 = 4 * 1500 = 6000. Step 6: Since Statement II allows us to calculate Vinod's salary, Statement II alone is sufficient. Step 7: Therefore, Statement II alone is sufficient while Statement I alone is not sufficient.

Solution: Step 1: Represent the statements using Venn diagrams or logical notation: - Statement 1: Some Actors are Singers (A ∩ S ≠ ∅) - Statement 2: All Singers are Dancers (S ⊆ D) Step 2: Evaluate Conclusion 1: "Some actors are dancers." - From Statement 1, there's an overlap between Actors and Singers. From Statement 2, all elements in the Singers set are also in the Dancers set. - Therefore, the actors that are singers must also be dancers. This conclusion logically follows. Step 3: Evaluate Conclusion 2: "No singer is actor." - Statement 1 explicitly states "Some actors are singers", which means there is at least one singer who is an actor. This directly contradicts the conclusion. - This conclusion does not logically follow. Step 4: Based on the analysis, only Conclusion (1) follows.

Solution: Step 1: Represent the statements using Venn diagrams or logical notation: - Statement 1: Some Papers are Pens (Pa ∩ Pe ≠ ∅) - Statement 2: All Pencils are Pens (Pc ⊆ Pe) Step 2: Evaluate Conclusion 1: "Some pens are pencils." - From Statement 2 (All Pencils are Pens), if all members of the Pencils category are also members of the Pens category, it implies that some members of the Pens category are Pencils. This is a valid immediate inference. - This conclusion logically follows. Step 3: Evaluate Conclusion 2: "Some pens are papers." - Statement 1 directly states "Some papers are pens". This is logically equivalent to "Some pens are papers". - This conclusion logically follows. Step 4: Based on the analysis, both Conclusion (1) and Conclusion (2) follow.

Solution: Step 1: Let the amount of money Suman has be S, Vivek's money be V, and Tarun's money be T. Step 2: From Statement I, we know: S = T - 20 (Suman has 20 rupees less than Tarun). Step 3: From Statement II, we know: V = T + 30 (Vivek has 30 rupees more than Tarun). Step 4: To find the combined amount (V + S), substitute the expressions from both statements: V + S = (T + 30) + (T - 20). Step 5: Simplify the expression: V + S = 2T + 10. Step 6: Since the value of T (Tarun's money) is unknown, the exact combined amount of Vivek and Suman cannot be determined. Step 7: Therefore, neither Statement I nor Statement II alone or together is sufficient to answer the question.

Solution: Step 1: Analyze Statement I. It describes an existing situation: load-shedding in rural/semi-urban areas. This is an effect of an ongoing power crisis. Step 2: Analyze Statement II. It describes a future prediction: load-shedding *will be extended* to urban areas *if* the power crisis is not overcome. This is also an effect of the power crisis, or a potential future effect if the crisis persists. Step 3: Evaluate direct causal links. Statement I (current load-shedding) does not directly cause Statement II (prediction of future load-shedding in urban areas). Statement II is a conditional statement about a potential future scenario. Step 4: Consider a common cause. Both statements are directly related to the overarching issue of a 'power crisis'. Statement I describes its current manifestation, and Statement II describes its potential escalation. The core 'power crisis' is the common cause for both the existing load-shedding and the prediction of its extension. Step 5: Conclude the relationship. Both statements are effects of some common cause (the underlying power crisis).

Solution: Step 1: Analyze Statement I. It states an observation: the literacy rate has been increasing. This is an effect, indicating progress in education. Step 2: Analyze Statement II. It describes an action taken by the district administration: conducting extensive training programs for literacy workers. This is an initiative designed to improve literacy efforts. Step 3: Determine the causal link. Extensive training programs for literacy workers (Statement II) would equip them better to perform their duties, making the literacy drive more effective. An effective literacy drive would directly lead to an increase in the literacy rate (Statement I). The phrase 'for the last four years' aligns with 'conducted extensive training programme' suggesting a sustained effort leading to the observed effect. Step 4: Conclude the relationship. Statement II is the cause, and Statement I is its effect.

Solution: Step 1: Represent the statements using Venn diagrams or logical notation: - Statement 1: All Harmoniums are Instruments (H ⊆ I) - Statement 2: All Instruments are Flutes (I ⊆ F) Step 2: Evaluate Conclusion 1: "All the flutes are instruments." - From Statement 2, 'Instruments' is a subset of 'Flutes'. This does not imply that 'Flutes' is a subset of 'Instruments'. There can be flutes that are not instruments. - This conclusion does not logically follow. Step 3: Evaluate Conclusion 2: "All the harmoniums are flutes." - From Statement 1 (H ⊆ I) and Statement 2 (I ⊆ F), if all harmoniums are instruments and all instruments are flutes, then it logically follows that all harmoniums are flutes (H ⊆ F). - This conclusion logically follows. Step 4: Based on the analysis, only Conclusion (2) follows.

Solution: Step 1: Analyze Statement I: The police increased vigilance. This is a proactive measure or intervention aimed at preventing crime. Step 2: Analyze Statement II: Petty crimes reduced considerably. This is an outcome or consequence. Step 3: Determine the causal link: Increased police presence and surveillance (vigil) are standard methods for deterring criminal activity. A significant reduction in crime following such an increase in vigilance strongly suggests a direct causal relationship. Step 4: Conclude that Statement I (increased police vigil) is the cause, and Statement II (reduction in petty crimes) is its effect.

Solution: Step 1: Analyze Statement I. This statement describes a natural phenomenon (deficient rainfall) caused by meteorological conditions. It's an environmental event. Step 2: Analyze Statement II. This statement describes an economic decision/projection (lowered GDP growth estimate) based on various economic indicators and forecasts. Step 3: Evaluate direct causation between I and II. While deficient rainfall can impact agricultural output and thus contribute to lower GDP, it is not the sole cause, nor is Statement I itself a cause of Statement II in an exclusive or direct manner. Furthermore, Statement II is not the cause of Statement I. Step 4: Evaluate for a common cause. There is no readily apparent single common cause that would lead to both a meteorological event and a government's economic forecast revision. Step 5: Conclude the relationship. Both statements are effects or observations resulting from their own distinct and independent sets of causes. Statement I results from atmospheric conditions, and Statement II results from complex economic analysis and various influencing factors (one of which *could* be rainfall, but not as the definitive, singular cause implied by a direct cause-effect relationship between the statements).

Solution: Step 1: Analyze Statement I. It describes a government policy: offering tax benefits on small savings (for investment/accrual) but taxing withdrawals. This policy is designed to encourage certain investment behavior while also collecting revenue. Step 2: Analyze Statement II. It describes a public investment trend: people investing more in small savings over the equity market to avail tax benefits. This is a behavioral response. Step 3: Evaluate direct causal links. While the *existence* of tax benefits (part of Statement I) *explains* why people might invest in small savings (Statement II), Statement I as a *decision* (the government *has decided*) does not necessarily cause Statement II (people *have been* investing). It's more likely that the government's decision in Statement I is a *response* to existing investment patterns or a desire to *promote* small savings, and people's behavior in Statement II is a response to *existing* or *anticipated* tax benefits. The phrasing suggests two separate, though related, facts. Step 4: Conclude the relationship. Both statements are effects of independent causes. Statement I (government policy) is an effect of the government's economic objectives and analysis of investment trends. Statement II (people's investment behavior) is an effect of the available tax benefits (which could have existed before this specific 'decision' in Statement I, or is a response to the overall tax landscape). They are not direct cause-and-effect of each other as phrased.

Solution: Step 1: Analyze Statement I: Modern life is characterized by speed, demands, and variety, leading to stress. This is a general observation about societal conditions. Step 2: Analyze Statement II: There is an increasing trend of suicide cases among teenagers. This is a specific social trend or outcome. Step 3: Evaluate for direct cause-effect: While the stressful environment described in Statement I could contribute to the issue in Statement II, it is more accurate to view both as consequences of deeper, interconnected societal pressures rather than one directly causing the other in a simple linear fashion. Step 4: Consider a common cause: The stressors of modern life (as described in Statement I) and the rise in teenage suicides (Statement II) can both be seen as effects of underlying societal factors such as increased academic pressure, social media influence, family dynamics, economic uncertainty, or a general decline in mental health support systems. These broader issues contribute to both the overall stressful environment and the specific tragic outcome. Step 5: Conclude that both statements are effects of some common, complex societal causes.

Solution: Step 1: Analyze Statement I: "Rahul at present is 25 years younger to his mother." This can be expressed as: Rahul's Age = Mother's Age - 25. This statement alone is not sufficient to determine Rahul's birth year, as the mother's age is unknown. Step 2: Analyze Statement II: "Rahul's brother, who was born in 1964, is 35 years younger to his mother." This statement indicates the brother's birth year is 1964. It can be expressed as: Brother's Age = Mother's Age - 35. This statement alone is not sufficient to determine Rahul's birth year, as Rahul's age or direct relation to the brother is not given. Step 3: Combine Statement I and Statement II. From Statement I, we have: Mother's Age = Rahul's Age + 25. From Statement II, we have: Mother's Age = Brother's Age + 35. Equating the expressions for Mother's Age: Rahul's Age + 25 = Brother's Age + 35. Solving for Rahul's Age: Rahul's Age = Brother's Age + 35 - 25 = Brother's Age + 10. This shows Rahul is 10 years older than his brother. Step 4: Calculate Rahul's birth year. Since Rahul's brother was born in 1964, and Rahul is 10 years older, Rahul was born 10 years earlier. Rahul's Birth Year = 1964 - 10 = 1954. Step 5: Conclusion: Both Statement I and Statement II are required to determine Rahul's birth year. Therefore, 'Both I and II are sufficient'.

Solution: Step 1: Analyze Statement I. It describes a government action: importing large quantities of sugar. This increases the supply of sugar in the market. Step 2: Analyze Statement II. It describes an economic outcome: a sharp fall in domestic sugar prices. This is typically a result of increased supply or decreased demand. Step 3: Determine the causal link. According to basic economic principles, when the supply of a commodity (like sugar) significantly increases due to large imports (Statement I), and demand remains constant or increases less proportionally, the prices of that commodity in the domestic market tend to fall (Statement II). Therefore, the imports directly cause the price drop. Step 4: Conclude the relationship. Statement I is the cause, and Statement II is its effect.

Solution: Step 1: Analyze Statement I: People falling sick from sweets. This is an effect, likely caused by issues such as food contamination or poor hygiene at the shop. Step 2: Analyze Statement II: Flooding in the locality. This is an effect, likely caused by heavy rainfall, inadequate drainage, or other environmental factors. Step 3: Evaluate for cause-effect or common cause: There is no clear causal link between people falling sick from sweets and a flood. One does not directly cause the other, nor do they appear to share an immediate common cause. While a flood could indirectly affect hygiene, the statements present two distinct problems. Step 4: Conclude that both statements describe effects that arise from separate, unrelated causes.

Solution: Step 1: Analyze Statement I. 'It was 10% more than the boxes sold on the earlier day i.e. Sunday.' This gives a percentage relationship (Monday sales = Sunday sales + 10% of Sunday sales). Statement I alone is insufficient as Sunday's sales are unknown. Step 2: Analyze Statement II. 'Every third visitor to the shop purchased the box and 1500 visitors were there on Sunday.' From this, Sunday's sales can be calculated: (1/3) * 1500 = 500 boxes. Statement II alone is insufficient for Monday's sales. Step 3: Combine Statement I and Statement II. From Statement II, Sunday's sales = 500 boxes. From Statement I, Monday's sales = 500 + (0.10 * 500) = 500 + 50 = 550 boxes. Step 4: Conclude. Both Statement I and Statement II together are sufficient to determine the number of gift boxes sold on Monday.

Solution: Step 1: Understand Statement I. A rising standard of living for a significant portion of society, like the middle class, implies increased consumer spending, demand for goods and services, and overall economic activity. Step 2: Understand Statement II. Remarkable growth in the Indian Economy refers to a significant increase in its GDP and other economic indicators. Step 3: Evaluate the causal link. An increase in consumption and economic activity (implied by Statement I) directly contributes to and drives national economic growth (Statement II). Step 4: Conclude that Statement I (rising standard of living) is a direct cause, and Statement II (remarkable economic growth) is its effect.

Solution: Step 1: Represent the statements using Venn diagrams or logical notation: - Statement 1: Some Ants are Parrots (A ∩ P ≠ ∅) - Statement 2: All Parrots are Apples (P ⊆ Ap) Step 2: Evaluate Conclusion 1: "All the apples are parrots." - From Statement 2, 'Parrots' is a subset of 'Apples'. This does not imply that 'Apples' is a subset of 'Parrots'. There can be apples that are not parrots. - This conclusion does not logically follow. Step 3: Evaluate Conclusion 2: "Some ants are apples." - From Statement 1, there's an overlap between Ants and Parrots. From Statement 2, all elements in the Parrots set are also in the Apples set. - Therefore, the ants that are parrots must also be apples. This conclusion logically follows. Step 4: Based on the analysis, only Conclusion (2) follows.

Solution: Step 1: Analyze Statement I. It describes a situation where schools were closed for a significant part of the week. This is an effect, likely due to an external cause like a natural disaster, health emergency, or civic unrest. Step 2: Analyze Statement II. It describes parents withdrawing children from local schools. This is an effect, possibly due to concerns about the quality of education, safety, or convenience. Step 3: Evaluate direct causal links. While prolonged school closures (Statement I) *could* lead parents to consider withdrawing children, it is not an immediate or universal cause for *many* parents to do so. Parents might withdraw children for various reasons unrelated to a specific week's closure (e.g., relocating, dissatisfaction with curriculum). The closure itself might be temporary, whereas withdrawal is a more permanent decision. Step 4: Conclude the relationship. Both statements are effects, but their causes are likely independent. The cause for school closure (e.g., floods, epidemic) is independent of the various potential causes for parents to withdraw their children (e.g., moving, finding better schooling elsewhere, safety concerns beyond just this week's closure).

Solution: Step 1: Analyze Statement I. It describes a situation: a sharp increase in the prices of essential commodities. This is an economic condition that can provoke public or political reactions. Step 2: Analyze Statement II. It describes an action: an opposition party calling for a general strike to protest government policy. This is a political response. Step 3: Determine the causal link. A sharp rise in the prices of essential goods (Statement I) is a common reason for public discontent and political opposition, leading to protests against government economic policies. Therefore, the price increase directly causes the opposition's call for a strike. Step 4: Conclude the relationship. Statement I is the cause, and Statement II is its effect.