From statement A, we know that Pipe A can fill the tank in 40 hours. However, this information is not sufficient as we do not have the data for Pipe B. Hence, statement A alone cannot answer the given question.
From statement B, we know that Pipe B is one third as efficient as pipe A. However, we do not know the rate at which Pipe A fills the tank. Hence, we will not be able to find the rate at which Pipe B fills the cistern. Therefore, statement B alone is not sufficient to answer the question.
Now, if we combine the two statements, we know that Pipe A take 40 hours to fill the cistern.
Pipe B takes 120 hours to fill the cistern.
If they worked alternately, then either Pipe A could have started the cycle or Pipe B could have started the cycle.
If Pipe A started the sequence of filling alternately, then at the end of two hours, the two pipes together would have filled 1/40 + 1/120 = 1/30 th of the tank in an hour. Or the cistern will fill in 30 hours.
If Pipe B started the sequence, then at the end of 2 hours, the two pipes together would have filled 1/120 + 1/40 = 1/30 th of the tank in an hour. Or the cistern will fill in 30 hours.
As the answer obtained irrespective of which pipe started the sequence is the same, the correct answer is (3) - i.e., both the statement are sufficient to answer the question.
Clearly, defence is necessary for the safety of the country, which is of prime importance. So, argument I holds. Also, a country can concentrate on internal progress and development only when it is safe from external aggressions. So, argument II does not hold.
Pollution at ground level is the most hazardious in the way of being injuriousto human and animal life.So,argument 1 alone holds
Free passes given to the railway employees is a privilage to them not their right.So 1 does'nt hold and 2 is vague
Delinking jobs with degrees will diminish the need for higher education as amny of them persue such education for jobs.So, only arg 2 is strong
I is strong because pollution control is highly desirable. II is weak. There may be some inconvenience initially but in fact their families would live better lives in the outskirts.
The age of the person is no criteria for judging his mental capbilities and administrative qualities.So,none of the arguments holds strong
Simply saying that a thing can be abused is a simplistic argument. This applies to everything and is hence weak unless you specify the reason for abuse. Hence I is weak. II is weak because it is just not true.
Comments
There are no comments.Copyright ©CuriousTab. All rights reserved.