The relation of forest to population can't be derived from the statement. Hence I does not follow. From the second sentence and from the tone of the statement II can be derived. Hence follows.
From given statements, we can conclude that
N > C < T < L= P > Q .....(1)
Here given that C > Y but in eq(1) we got that C < T < T <= P => Y is definitely less than P.
So only conclusion B is True.
From both statements we cannot conclude the train catched by Harish
Since he missed at 4.15 and train coes at 4.30, 4.45, 5.00,...
But in B given that he didn't catch the train at 4.45 and after that.
So both statements A & B together are not sufficient to answer the question.
From statement B,
As the value of L = 0, the value of KL = 0.
Hence only statement B is sufficient.
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.
There is no indication that Indian scientists are incapable of developing enzymes. There could be any number of reasons why Indian scientists used Russian enzymes.
So conclusion A does not follow.
In addition, cost is not discussed in the passage at all. There is no mention of a correlation between cost and extraction of proteins.
Thus, conclusion B does not follow either.
Since half of the four children are girls, two must be boys. It is not clear which children have blue or brown eyes. So only statement (b) follows.
All locks are bangles + All bangles are cars = A + A = A
= All locks are cars => Some cars are locks.
Hence conclusion (a) follows.
All keys are locks + All locks are bangles = A + A = A
= All keys are bangles => some bangles are keys.
Hence conclusion (b) follows.
All keys are bangles + All bangles are cars = A + A = A
= All keys are cars => Some cars are keys.
Hence conclusion (C) follows.
Thus all a, b and c follows.
The sum of square of two no is 116 i.e no lie 1-11, because 11x11 =121 which is greater than 116
again after cheaking all possible pair of no only 4 and 10 satisfy this condsn , again the progression is of positive integer so 10 cant not be 1st term
so the 1st term is 4,
but from the 2nd we cant able to find the 1st term
so only 1st statement is sufficient to answer the question
For the given problem there are three possiblities.
Father's age can be = 36, 31, 29
Mother's age = 32, 27, 25
Son's age = 8, 3, 1.
By using only B it can be calculated.
According to the statement, National Aluminium Company has moved Georgia from a position of shortage in the past to self-sufficiency in the present. This means that previously, Georgia had to import aluminium. So, I follows. Also, it can be deduced that if production increases at the same rate, Georgia can export it in future. So, II also follows.
Comments
There are no comments.Copyright ©CuriousTab. All rights reserved.