Conclusion I is invalid conclusion as relation between Hari and shyam is not given. Conclusion II is valid because if Hari is the son of Suresh, then Suresh will definitely be the father of Hari.
They all are modes of transport.
All are former Indian cricketers.
The tone of the statement implies that, in the speaker's opinion, walking barefoot for miles on dusty roads should be considered adventurous. Hence, the speaker must be assuming I. To convince others about his opinion he makes comparison between walking barefoot rafting gliding. Why? He must be assuming the assumptions III and II also.
Let us assume the present ages of son be Y then his father present age will be Y + 34 years. then
12 years ago, father's age = Y + 34 -12
12 years ago, Son's age = Y - 12
Now according to question,
12 years ago, father's age was 18 times the age of his son. then
18( Y - 12 ) = Y + 34 - 12
? 18Y - 216 = Y + 22
? 17Y = 238
? Y = 14
Hence, present age of his son = 14 years.
As the son of your employee was ill, asking about his son's health is humane. Also, you have to make him understand that informing about the leave is necessary, so that the work can be managed accordingly.
Salt is hydrophilic and attracts water.
Team may consist of the number of spinners more or less than that given in Conclusion I. Hence, Conclusion I does not follow. Secondly, it is not known from the statement that opening batsmen were spinners. Hence, Conclusion II does not follow.
The second argument that the number of questions to be answered is always very large is very generalised. But the first argument that the assessment of objective test is reliable is a strong argument.
Person incharge of a 'Museum' is known as 'Curator' Likewise person incharge of a 'Prison' is called 'Jailor'.
Comments
There are no comments.Copyright ©CuriousTab. All rights reserved.