📘 Quiz

Solution: Step 1: Analyze Statement I Step 2: Akash is taller than Piyush, Piyush is taller than Manoj, and Manoj is not the shortest. Step 3: Conclusion from I: Nitesh < Manoj < Piyush < Akash Step 4: Analyze Statement II Step 5: Nitesh is smaller than Manoj and Piyush, Nitesh is the shortest, and Piyush is the tallest. Step 6: Conclusion from II: Insufficient to determine Manoj's position as Aakash's height is not compared to others. Step 7: Manoj's position is 2nd tallest based on Statement I alone.

Solution: Step 1: Understand the statement - Athletes using banned substances do not receive special rewards. Step 2: Analyze conclusion I - Athlete X will receive the special reward. Step 3: Since Athlete X used a banned substance, conclusion I does not follow. Step 4: Analyze conclusion II - Athlete X will not receive the special reward. Step 5: Given the statement, conclusion II logically follows. Step 6: Determine the correct answer based on the analysis.

Solution: Step 1: Understand the claim - It dismisses historical debates as pointless due to corroborative evidence. Step 2: Identify the assumption - The claim assumes that without indisputable proof, debates are not worthwhile. Step 3: Evaluate options: Option A implies lack of precise proof in historical debates. Option B suggests historical accuracy needs clear proof. Option C states that debates require indisputable proof. Option D contradicts the claim by suggesting corroborative evidence provides undeniable proof. Step 4: Conclusion - Option C reflects the assumption that debates are only valid with indisputable proof, aligning with the claim's dismissal of historical debates.

Solution: Step 1: Understand the statement and arguments. Step 2: Analyze Argument I - 'No, it is a wasteful practice.' This seems valid as shifting agriculture leaves land bare and moves to another. Step 3: Analyze Argument II - 'Yes, modern methods of farming are too expensive.' This does not directly relate to the merits of shifting agriculture. Step 4: Conclusion - Only Argument I provides a relevant and strong point against shifting agriculture.

Solution: Step 1: Understand the phrasing 'All but nine died'. Step 2: This phrase means 'All died except for nine'. Step 3: Therefore, the number of sheep that did not die (i.e., remained alive) is 9. Step 4: The shepherd was left with 9 sheep.

Solution: Step 1: Understand that the time taken to strike is related to the intervals between strikes, not the strikes themselves. Step 2: If a clock strikes 'N' times, there are (N - 1) intervals between the first and last strike. Step 3: For striking seven times (N=7), there are 7 - 1 = 6 intervals. Step 4: Given that these 6 intervals take 7 seconds. Step 5: Calculate the time taken for one interval: Time per interval = 7 seconds / 6 intervals = 7/6 seconds. Step 6: For striking ten times (N=10), there will be 10 - 1 = 9 intervals. Step 7: Calculate the total time taken for 9 intervals: Total Time = Number of intervals × Time per interval Total Time = 9 × (7/6) seconds. Step 8: Simplify the calculation: Total Time = (3 × 3) × (7 / (3 × 2)) = (3 × 7) / 2 = 21 / 2 = 10.5 seconds. Step 9: Therefore, it will take the clock 10.5 seconds to strike ten times.

Solution: Step 1: Analyze Conclusion I - The statement does not mention warm drinks, so I does not follow. Step 2: Analyze Conclusion II - The statement does not discuss the occasional need for revitalization, so II does not follow. Step 3: Analyze Conclusion III - The statement directly links cold beverages to instant revitalization, so III follows. Step 4: Analyze Conclusion IV - As a consequence of III, non-cold beverages not revitalizing follows, so IV follows. Step 5: Only III and IV logically follow the statement.

Solution: Step 1: Analyze Argument I, which supports encouraging exports to earn foreign currency for imports. Step 2: Analyze Argument II, which opposes export encouragement due to potential resource scarcity. Step 3: Evaluate the strength of each argument based on logical reasoning and relevance to the economic situation. Step 4: Determine that Argument I directly addresses the economic necessity of earning foreign currency. Step 5: Conclude that Argument I is stronger because it presents a pragmatic approach to managing economic resources. Step 6: Select the correct answer based on the analysis of both arguments.