In a certain code language, the word STYLE is written as ELTYS. According to the same rearrangement rule, how is the word FRUIT written in that code language?

Introduction / Context:
This item tests coding and decoding where letters of a word are rearranged according to a pattern, rather than replaced individually by other symbols. We are told how STYLE becomes ELTYS and asked to apply the same rearrangement to FRUIT. This reinforces the idea that coding questions can use permutations of letter positions, not only alphabet shifts, and encourages systematic observation of letter order.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Original word: STYLE.
• Coded word: ELTYS.
• Target word to code: FRUIT.
• The coding rule involves changing the order of letters, and the same ordering must be applied to the new word.
• No letter substitution or numeric conversion is mentioned, so only position changes are assumed.

Concept / Approach:
The main idea is to compare the positions of letters in STYLE with their positions in ELTYS. If we label the original letters as positions 1 to 5, we can map which original position moves to which coded position. Once we know the mapping of indices, we apply that pattern to any other word of the same length. This is a pure position permutation, so the actual letter values do not matter, only their order in the sequence.

Step-by-Step Solution:
Step 1: Write STYLE with position numbers: S(1), T(2), Y(3), L(4), E(5).Step 2: Write ELTYS with position numbers relative to the original word: E is original position 5, L is 4, T is 2, Y is 3, and S is 1.Step 3: Conclude that the coding rule reorders the letters in the sequence of positions 5, 4, 2, 3, 1.Step 4: Apply the same position mapping to FRUIT, whose letters at positions are F(1), R(2), U(3), I(4), T(5).Step 5: Take the letters in the order 5, 4, 2, 3, 1: 5 gives T, 4 gives I, 2 gives R, 3 gives U, and 1 gives F.Step 6: Combine these letters to form the coded word TIRUF.

Verification / Alternative check:
To verify, we can check that applying the reverse permutation to ELTYS restores STYLE. If we map coded positions 1 to 5 back to original positions 3, 4, 2, 5, 1 respectively, we recover S, T, Y, L, E. Similarly, mapping FRUIT to TIRUF is consistent with using the same index pattern. Because the pattern depends only on positions, this check confirms the method is correct and the answer TIRUF is reliable.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
The options TIUFR and TIURF involve mixing letters of FRUIT in different orders that do not follow the exact 5, 4, 2, 3, 1 sequence derived from the example. The option GSVJU is completely unrelated to the letters of FRUIT and suggests a different type of substitution cipher, which is not supported by the question statement. The additional distractor TRUF I does not even present the letters as a clean contiguous code word. Only TIRUF exactly respects the positional mapping illustrated by STYLE and ELTYS.

Common Pitfalls:
Many candidates attempt to find alphabetic shifts between S and E, T and L, and so on, but quickly discover that the differences are inconsistent. This often leads to confusion. The correct approach is to track positions, not letter distances. Another common mistake is to mislabel positions and inadvertently use a slightly different ordering like 5, 4, 3, 2, 1, which would give a simple reversal but not match the example. Carefully writing indices under each letter avoids these pitfalls.

Final Answer:
Using the same position rearrangement rule that maps STYLE to ELTYS, the word FRUIT is coded as TIRUF.