Using Statement I: From the line "Yasir sits on the immediate right of Abhay as well as Kavita" we
can conclude that one of Abhay and Kavita is facing towards the centre and the outside So, all friends are Not facing the centre.
Required percentage |
|
|||||||
|
||||||||
= 79.54% ![]() |
Total number of employees in 2003 = Employees of (Production deptt.+ Sales deptt.+ Procurement deptt.+ Administration & Accounts deptt. + Research & Development deptt.)
Total number of employees in 2003 =150 + 25 + 50 + 45 + 75 = 345
Total number of employees in 2005 = (Production deptt.+ Sales deptt.+ Procurement deptt.+ Administration & Accounts deptt.+ Research & Development deptt.)
Total number of employees in 2005 = 450 + 65 + 30 + 90+ 73 = 708
Hence, it was the year 2005 when total number of employees in the factory became nearly double the total number of employees working in the factory during 2003.
Required difference = Number of B type tyres in 1994 - Number of B type tyres in 1995
Required difference = ( 27.5 ? 22.5 ) Million = 5 Million = 5000000.
Given :- Total population in 1988 = 146947 , increase = 11630
Total population in 1989 = Total population in 1988 + increase = 146947 + 11630 = 158577
? The number of children in 1989 = Total population in 1989 ? ( Total number of men in 1989 + Total number of women in 1989 )
= 158577 ? (70391 + 62516) = 25670.
Increase in taxation in between the financial years 2005-06 and 2006-07
= Rs. (2400 - 1730) = RS. 670 crores
Average of the total taxation during the years = total taxation for all the years / 6.
Average of the total taxation during the years = 600 + 725 + 1260 + 1730 + 2400 + 625 = 7390/6 = 1231.7 crores
Let the 7 consecutive whole numbers be (n ± 3), (n ± 2), (n ± 1), n.
Now i we consider Statement I alone
Product of these 7 integers = 702800
Since 702800 = 24 52 (251)(7), it cannot be the product of 7 consecutive whole numbers. Hence I alone is insufficient.
Now if we consider Statement II alone
Given that their sum = 105 = 7n or n = 15 and then 7 consecutive integers are 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 So, II alone is sufficient.
Since sum is 360 hence P + Q + R + S = 360
From statement I alone we will get P = (Q + R + S)/3 from this we can find the value of P hence statement I alone is sufficient enough.
From statement II alone we can not find the value of P.
For Delhi = | 94 + 48 + 82 + 90 + 70 | = | 384 | = 76.8. |
5 | 5 |
For H.P. = | 82 + 65 + 70 + 86 + 75 | = | 378 | = 75.6. |
5 | 5 |
For U.P. = | 78 + 85 + 48 + 70 + 80 | = | 361 | = 72.2. |
5 | 5 |
For Punjab = | 85 + 70 + 65 + 84 + 60 | = | 364 | = 72.8. |
5 | 5 |
For Haryana = | 75 + 75 + 55 + 60 + 75 | = | 340 | = 68. |
5 | 5 |
Clearly, this average is maximum for Delhi.
From I: If all of them face the centre, it means if A sits second to the left of B, then B should sit second to the right of A. But here Amit and Arun are different persons. Hence all of them do not face the centre
From II: Again suppose of them face the centre like KEN. Ali sits third to the left of ken. Now, if Amit sits on the left of Ali obviously ken should be his neighbour. But the statement says otherwise. Hence our assumption is disproved. All of them do not face the centre.
Comments
There are no comments.Copyright ©CuriousTab. All rights reserved.