I cannot be inferred because we do not know whether the decision of the jury was unanimous. It is possible that this member of the jury was had a dissenting opinion. II does not follow because it states just the contrary of what the statement says.
NA
Backbone is the supporting bone.
Solve all option one by one.
Change the symbol in given question.
From option (D),
4 A 3 M 2 L 4 D 2 M 6
4 + 3 X 2 < 4 ÷ 2 x 6
Apply the BODMAS Rule.
10 < 12
First is the instrument used to measure the second.
After replacing all the symbol from question.
44 x 9 ÷ 12 - 6 x 4 + 16 = ?
Apply BODMAS rule,
? 44 x 9 x 1/12 - 24 + 16 = ?
? 33 - 24 + 16 = ?
? 49 - 24 = ?
? ? = 25
The advertisement is based on the following assumptions:
* Learners want to solve more and more question in less time.
* Learners want to solve DI without written steps.
* It is possible to solve Quantitative Aptitude in 3 seconds.
* Penalty in case of failure of claime will make a positive impact on readers of the ad; etc.
Hence, I is not implicit. II is obvious. That is why the advertisement goes like this.
All arguments stated do not strongly support the statement because if there are few banks in place of several small banks, then security for investor cannot be ensured. Also, it cannot help to consolidate the entire banking industry.
Argument I does not follow because it does not tell any thing about the quantity of liquor. Argument II is strong because it goes into reason and points out the negative effect of excess liquor.
Rules
(i) (2-digit odd number) + (2-digit odd number)
(ii) 2-digit even number ? 2-digit perfect square odd number then, (odd number) - (Even number)
(iii) (3-digit number) ÷ (2-digit number)
(iv) (Prime number) + (Even number)
(v) (Even number) x (Even number)
Solution:
2nd Row 45 17 81 ? 45 + 17 = 62 [rule (i)]
? 81 - 62 = 19 [rule (ii)]
1st Row 345 23 X ? 345 23 19
? 345 ÷ 23 = 15 [rule (iii)]
? 345 ÷ 15 + 19 [rule (i)]
? Resultant of first row = 34
Comments
There are no comments.Copyright ©CuriousTab. All rights reserved.