Question 1

Directions: Find the wrong number in the series.  2880, 480, 92, 24, 8, 4, 4

Accepted Answer

Concept & Logic: The sequence rapidly descends and then plateaus. This usually indicates division by a decreasing integer or sequence. Step-by-Step Solution: 1. Let's find the division ratio between consecutive terms, starting from the left: - 2880 / 480 = 6 (So the rule is divide by 6) 2. Let's test the end of the sequence to confirm: - 8 / 4 = 2 (Rule is divide by 2) - 4 / 4 = 1 (Rule is divide by 1) 3. The pattern of divisors is clearly 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1. 4. Let's apply this division pattern from the beginning: - 2880 / 6 = 480 - 480 / 5 = 96. (The sequence has 92 here, making it the wrong number). 5. Verify the next steps using the corrected number 96: - 96 / 4 = 24 (Matches) - 24 / 3 = 8 (Matches) Exam Strategy & Shortcut: Working from right to left (the smaller numbers) is often faster. 4 × 1 = 4, 4 × 2 = 8, 8 × 3 = 24, 24 × 4 = 96. You hit the wrong number (92) much faster without doing mental division on 2880. Common Pitfall: Trying to find subtraction patterns for numbers scaling down this dramatically, which wastes time. Final Answer: Therefore, the correct answer is 92.

Question 2

Directions: Find the wrong number in the series.  445, 221, 109, 46, 25, 11, 4

Accepted Answer

Concept & Logic: The sequence decreases by roughly half at each step. This implies a logic of division by 2, combined with an addition or subtraction step. Step-by-Step Solution: 1. Because the numbers are halved roughly, let's test the formula (x - c) / 2 = y or working backwards: y × 2 + c = x. Working backwards with multiplication is usually easier. 2. Let's examine the smaller terms (right to left): - 4 × 2 + 3 = 11 - 11 × 2 + 3 = 25 3. The pattern seems to be: multiply the current number by 2 and add 3 to get the preceding number. 4. Let's continue testing this moving left: - 25 × 2 + 3 = 53. (The sequence has 46 here, so 46 is incorrect). 5. Let's verify that 53 fixes the rest of the sequence: - 53 × 2 + 3 = 106 + 3 = 109 (Matches) - 109 × 2 + 3 = 218 + 3 = 221 (Matches) - 221 × 2 + 3 = 442 + 3 = 445 (Matches) Exam Strategy & Shortcut: When division leaves remainders, flip the series and use multiplication. Spotting that (11 × 2) + 3 = 25 takes just a few seconds. Applying it immediately reveals that 46 breaks the rule. Common Pitfall: Trying to strictly apply division from the left side and struggling with the remainders (e.g., (445 - 3) / 2 = 221). Working backwards with multiplication removes fractional math. Final Answer: Therefore, the correct answer is 46.

Question 3

Directions: Find the wrong number in the series.  1, 3, 10, 21, 64, 129, 356, 777

Accepted Answer

Concept & Logic: Identify the pattern governing the transition between consecutive terms in the series. Step-by-Step Solution: 1. Let's analyze the relation between consecutive terms. 2. 1 × 2 + 1 = 3 3. 3 × 3 + 1 = 10 4. 10 × 2 + 1 = 21 5. 21 × 3 + 1 = 64 6. 64 × 2 + 1 = 129 7. 129 × 3 + 1 = 388 (Wait, the given term is 356) 8. Let's check the next term with 388: 388 × 2 + 1 = 777. This matches the last term. 9. So, the pattern is alternate multiplication by 2 and 3, followed by adding 1. 10. The incorrect term is 356; it should be 388. Exam Strategy & Shortcut: When you see numbers growing rapidly but inconsistently, look for alternating patterns or combinations of multiplication and addition. Common Pitfall: Assuming a single simple operation (like constant addition) instead of checking for alternating multiplicative patterns. Final Answer: Therefore, the correct answer is 356.

Question 4

Directions: Find the wrong number in the series.  10, 26, 74, 218, 654, 1946, 5834

Accepted Answer

Concept & Logic: Analyze the rate of growth to determine the multiplier and any constant additions or subtractions. Step-by-Step Solution: 1. The numbers are roughly tripling. Let's test a × 3 relationship. 2. 10 × 3 = 30. To get 26, subtract 4. Pattern hypothesis: × 3 - 4. 3. Test next term: 26 × 3 = 78. Subtract 4 \rightarrow 74. Matches. 4. Next: 74 × 3 = 222. Subtract 4 \rightarrow 218. Matches. 5. Next: 218 × 3 = 654. The formula gives 654 - 4 = 650. The given term is 654. This is a suspect. 6. Let's verify by using the expected term 650 to find the next one: 650 × 3 = 1950. Subtract 4 \rightarrow 1946. Matches the next term in the series! 7. The pattern is confirmed as (previous term × 3) - 4. 8. The wrong number is 654. Exam Strategy & Shortcut: Estimate the multiplier by looking at larger terms. 1946 to 5834 is roughly × 3 (1900 × 3 = 5700). Then test the × 3 hypothesis from the beginning. Common Pitfall: Giving up on a multiplicative pattern if the direct multiple doesn't match perfectly; always remember to look for an added/subtracted constant (ax + b). Final Answer: Therefore, the correct answer is 654.

Question 5

Directions: Find the wrong number in the series.  3, 4, 9, 22.5, 67.5, 202.5, 810

Accepted Answer

Concept & Logic: The presence of decimals (22.5, 67.5) strongly suggests multiplication by fractions or decimals, often starting with 0.5, 1.5, 2.5 etc., or a consistent fractional multiplier. Step-by-Step Solution: 1. Let's look at the later terms where the relationship might be clearer. 2. 202.5 / 67.5 = 3 3. 67.5 / 22.5 = 3 4. It seems there is a constant multiplier of 3 in the latter part of the series. Let's check the rest. 5. Wait, 810 / 202.5 = 4. So the multiplier is not constant. 6. Let's re-examine the multipliers: × 3, × 3, × 4. This doesn't seem like a smooth pattern. 7. Let's try another common pattern: increasing decimal multipliers. Maybe × 1.5, × 2, × 2.5, × 3? Let's test this from the beginning. 3 × 1 = 3 (Given is 4. Let's assume 4 is wrong and should be 3, or the pattern starts differently). Let's try multipliers: 1.5, 2.5, 3.5 etc. 8. Let's look at the transitions again. 22.5 × 3 = 67.5 67.5 × 3 = 202.5 202.5 × 4 = 810 This is strange. Let's try × 1, × 1.5, × 2, × 2.5... If the series is 3, 3, 4.5, 9, 22.5... that doesn't match. 9. Let's try × 1.5, × 2, × 2.5 starting from a different point. 9 × 2.5 = 22.5 22.5 × 3 = 67.5 67.5 × 3 = 202.5 (Still × 3. Breaks a simple increasing pattern). 10. Let's try to find a pattern in 9, 22.5, 67.5, 202.5, 810. 9 × 2.5 = 22.5 22.5 × 3 = 67.5 67.5 × 3 = 202.5 202.5 × 4 = 810 Maybe the multipliers are 1.5, 2, 2.5, 3, 3.5? Let's trace backwards from 810. 810 / 4 = 202.5 202.5 / 3 = 67.5 67.5 / 3 = 22.5 (Pattern of multipliers: ...3, 3, 4. Not consistent.) 11. Let's try another approach. Look at the ratio of consecutive terms. x_n / x_{n-1}. 22.5 / 9 = 2.5 67.5 / 22.5 = 3 202.5 / 67.5 = 3 810 / 202.5 = 4 There might be an error in my assumption or the question itself. Let's reconsider the sequence: 3, 4, 9, 22.5, 67.5, 202.5, 810. Let's try 3 × 1.5 = 4.5. 4.5 × 2 = 9. 9 × 2.5 = 22.5. 22.5 × 3 = 67.5. 67.5 × 3 = 202.5 --- WAIT! 67.5 × 3.5 = 236.25. Let me re-read the numbers. 3, 4, 9, 22.5, 67.5, 202.5, 810. Ah, let's check 202.5 × 4. 200 × 4 = 800, 2.5 × 4 = 10. So 810. The multipliers are: ?, ?, 2.5, 3, 3, 4. This is very irregular. 12. Let's try: × 1.5, × 2, × 2.5, × 3, × 4? Let's reconsider the initial terms. 3 × 1 = 3 + 1 = 4 4 × 2 = 8 + 1 = 9 9 × 2.5 = 22.5 (addition pattern breaks) 13. Let's try: 3 × 1.5 = 4.5 4.5 × 2 = 9 9 × 2.5 = 22.5 22.5 × 3 = 67.5 67.5 × 3.5 = 236.25 (Given is 202.5). Wait, let's look at the options. Option (e) is 202.5. But let's check the next term if 202.5 was 236.25. 236.25 × 4 = 945. Given is 810. What if the wrong term is 4? If series is 3, 4.5, 9, 22.5, 67.5... Multipliers: 1.5, 2, 2.5, 3. Then next is 67.5 × 3 = 202.5. Why × 3 again? Let's re-calculate 67.5 × 3. Yes, it's 202.5. Maybe the pattern of multipliers is 1.5, 2, 2.5, 3, 4? That doesn't make sense. Let's reconsider the multipliers: 22.5 / 9 = 2.5 67.5 / 22.5 = 3 202.5 / 67.5 = 3 810 / 202.5 = 4 This is highly irregular. Let me re-read the image carefully. 3, 4, 9, 22.5, 67.5, 202.5, 810. Is it possible the multiplier is × 1.5, × 2, × 2.5, × 3, × 3.5, × 4? Let's try to fix it. If the multipliers should be 1.5, 2, 2.5, 3, 4 maybe? No. Let's look at: 3, 4.5, 9, 22.5, 67.5, 236.25, 945. That would mean two wrong numbers. Let's re-examine: 67.5 × 3 = 202.5. 202.5 × 4 = 810. Multipliers: ?, ?, 2.5, 3, 3, 4. What if the series is 3 × 1 = 3? No. Let's try 2, 4, 9... No. Let's look at the options again. 4, 9, 22.5, 67.5, 202.5. Suppose the pattern is × 1.5, × 2, × 2.5, × 3. x × 1.5 = y y × 2 = 9 \Rightarrow y = 4.5 x × 1.5 = 4.5 \Rightarrow x = 3. So the beginning of the series should be 3, 4.5, 9, 22.5, 67.5. The given series has 4 instead of 4.5. This makes 4 the wrong number. What about the rest of the series? 67.5, 202.5, 810. 67.5 × 3 = 202.5. 202.5 × 4 = 810. The multipliers are 1.5, 2, 2.5, 3, 3, 4? This seems flawed. Let me re-read the options. Maybe I misread a number. 3, 4, 9, 22.5, 67.5, 202.5, 810. Let's reconsider the multiplier pattern. Maybe it's × 1, × 1.5, × 2, × 2.5, × 3, × 3.5... 3 × 1 = 3 (If 4 is wrong, maybe the second term should be 3?) 3 × 1.5 = 4.5 
eq 9 Let's try another pattern. Maybe difference? 1, 5, 13.5, 45... no. Let's stick with the most promising one: 3 × 1.5 = 4.5. 4.5 × 2 = 9. 9 × 2.5 = 22.5. 22.5 × 3 = 67.5. If 4 is the wrong number, the first few terms work beautifully. The latter terms (202.5, 810) might just have irregular multipliers in the question setter's mind, or there's a typo in the question itself for the later terms. Given the options, 4 is the earliest and most likely intended anomaly if we assume a growing multiplier pattern. Let's assume the intended multipliers were 1.5, 2, 2.5, 3, 3.5, 4. Then 67.5 × 3.5 = 236.25 
eq 202.5. Let's try another pattern. 3 × 0.5 + 2.5 = 4. 4 × 1 + 5 = 9. 9 × 1.5 + 9 = 22.5. 22.5 × 2 + 22.5 = 67.5. 67.5 × 2.5 + ... = 202.5. Let's calculate 67.5 × 2.5 = 168.75. 202.5 - 168.75 = 33.75. Additions: 2.5, 5, 9, 22.5, 33.75. No obvious pattern. Let's go back to 3 × 1.5 = 4.5. The error is right at the beginning. In many such series problems, finding the first clear break in a logical pattern points to the answer. The pattern × 1.5, × 2, × 2.5 for 3, (4.5), 9, 22.5 is very strong. Exam Strategy & Shortcut: Spotting decimals like .5 in the middle of a series is a strong indicator of fractional multipliers (× 1.5, × 2.5, etc.). Test this hypothesis starting from a pair that works, like 9 and 22.5 (9 × 2.5 = 22.5). Work backwards to find the early error. Common Pitfall: Trying to establish an additive pattern when decimals appear in a sequence that is growing significantly. Final Answer: Therefore, the correct answer is 4.

Question 6

Directions: Find the wrong number in the series.  2, 3, 6, 15, 52.5, 157.5, 630

Accepted Answer

Concept & Logic: The sudden appearance of .5 decimals strongly suggests that the terms are being multiplied by fractions or decimals, typically increasing by 0.5. Step-by-Step Solution: 1. Examine the ratios between consecutive terms. 2. 3 / 2 = 1.5 3. 6 / 3 = 2 4. 15 / 6 = 2.5 5. The multipliers are forming a clear sequence: × 1.5, × 2, × 2.5. 6. The next multiplier should be × 3. 7. 15 × 3 = 45. The given term in the series is 52.5. This is highly suspect. 8. Let's test if the expected term 45 restores the rest of the pattern. The next multiplier should be × 3.5. 9. 45 × 3.5 = 157.5. Matches the next term perfectly! 10. Verify the final term with the next multiplier, × 4. 11. 157.5 × 4 = 630. Matches the final term perfectly! 12. The pattern of increasing decimal multipliers is confirmed. The wrong number is 52.5. Exam Strategy & Shortcut: When you see 0.5 in a sequence that is growing, immediately write out the ratios of the first few integers to find the decimal multiplier sequence (× 1.5, × 2, × 2.5). Common Pitfall: Trying to find an additive pattern for the first few integer terms, which completely falls apart once the decimals appear. Final Answer: Therefore, the correct answer is 52.5.

Odd Man Out and Series Questions

Questions

Practice smarter