Question 1

In the following letter analogy, CD is related to PQ in a particular way. Using the same pattern, which pair of letters should complete the analogy CD : PQ :: GH : ?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This letter analogy is based on a fixed shift forward in the alphabet. CD is related to PQ, and we must determine what GH will relate to under the same letter shift. The key is to find a consistent number of positions by which both letters in the first pair move forward to become the second pair. Then, we apply that same shift to the new pair GH. This kind of problem tests careful counting of letter positions and consistent application of a Caesar style transformation. Given Data / Assumptions: First pair: CD : PQ. Second pair: GH : ?. All letters are capital letters from A to Z. The same fixed shift is used for both letters in each pair. Concept / Approach: We convert the letters C, D, P, and Q into their numerical positions in the alphabet and calculate the difference between each pair. If the shift is the same for both letters, we have identified the coding rule. We then add that same number of positions to the letters G and H to obtain the corresponding pair. It is important to track the positions accurately and apply the shift consistently to both letters in GH. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Determine positions for C, D, P, and Q. C = 3, D = 4. P = 16, Q = 17. Step 2: Compute the shifts. From C to P: 3 to 16 is +13. From D to Q: 4 to 17 is also +13. Thus, each letter is shifted forward by 13 positions in the alphabet. Step 3: Apply the same +13 shift to GH. G = 7, H = 8. G plus 13 is 7 + 13 = 20, which is T. H plus 13 is 8 + 13 = 21, which is U. Therefore, GH becomes TU under the same rule. Verification / Alternative check: We can confirm the reasoning by checking whether TU and GH maintain the same distance as PQ and CD. If we subtract 13 from T and U, we should obtain G and H. T is 20; 20 minus 13 is 7, which is G. U is 21; 21 minus 13 is 8, which is H. This backward check confirms that the +13 shift works perfectly for both pairs and that TU is the correct partner for GH in the analogy. Why Other Options Are Wrong: RS, UV, WX, and IJ do not result from adding 13 to G and H; their positions differ by other amounts. Any pair that does not reflect a uniform +13 shift from GH fails to match the pattern established between CD and PQ. Common Pitfalls: Candidates sometimes try to use smaller shifts such as +2 or +3 without checking carefully whether those shifts actually transform CD into PQ. Another common mistake is to forget that the same exact shift must apply to both letters in a pair. In Caesar style analogies, always calculate the numerical positions for each letter, compute the difference for the first pair, and then systematically apply that difference to each letter in the new pair. Final Answer: Using the same +13 shift that maps CD to PQ, GH should be mapped to TU.

Question 2

In the following letter analogy, EF is related to JA in a particular coded way. Using the same coding pattern, which pair of letters should complete the analogy EF : JA :: NO : ?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This analogy uses different shifts for the first and second letters of each pair. The pair EF changes to JA under a specific pattern: the first letter moves forward, while the second letter moves backward by the same number of positions. We must detect this pattern and then apply it to NO to find the correct partner pair. This type of problem checks your ability to handle more than one transformation at the same time. Given Data / Assumptions: First pair: EF : JA. Second pair: NO : ?. All letters are capital letters from A to Z. The relationship for the first and second letters in a pair may differ but must be consistent across both pairs. Concept / Approach: The first step is to write the alphabet positions for E, F, J, and A. By examining the differences, we may find that the first letter of the pair moves forward by a fixed number of positions and the second letter moves backward by the same number of positions. Once we identify that number as 5, we can apply +5 to the first letter of NO and -5 to the second letter to derive the missing pair. This dual shift pattern is common in coding and analogy questions. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Compute positions for EF and JA. E = 5, F = 6. J = 10, A = 1. Step 2: Analyse the shift for the first letter. From E (5) to J (10) is an increase of +5. So the first letter of the coded pair is obtained by adding 5. Step 3: Analyse the shift for the second letter. From F (6) to A (1) is a decrease of 5, that is 6 - 5 = 1. So the second letter of the coded pair is obtained by subtracting 5. Step 4: Apply the same pattern to NO. N is 14. Add 5 to get 19, which is S. O is 15. Subtract 5 to get 10, which is J. Therefore, NO becomes SJ. Verification / Alternative check: We can rewrite the rule as: first coded letter = original first letter + 5, second coded letter = original second letter - 5. For EF, that gives J and A, which matches JA. For NO, that gives S and J, which matches SJ. If we tried any other pattern, such as adding the same value to both letters, we would not reproduce JA from EF. The dual shift pattern is therefore confirmed to be the correct coding rule. Why Other Options Are Wrong: TI, RK, and HU cannot be obtained by applying +5 to N and -5 to O simultaneously. PL uses a backward shift for the first letter and a different shift for the second, which does not match the pattern from EF to JA. Common Pitfalls: A typical mistake is to assume the same shift applies to both letters in a pair and then become confused when that does not map EF to JA. Another pitfall is to only check the transformation for the first letter and ignore the second, which can lead to wrong conclusions about the rule. Always examine both letters and be open to patterns where the first and second letters are treated differently but in a consistent and symmetrical manner. Final Answer: Using the same +5 and -5 pattern, NO is encoded as SJ.

Question 3

In the following number analogy, 17 is related to 493 in a particular way. Using the same pattern, which number should complete the analogy 17 : 493 :: ? : 551?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This problem involves a number analogy where each given number is related to another by multiplication with a constant factor. The pair 17 : 493 suggests that 493 is obtained by multiplying 17 by a specific number. Once we determine this constant multiplier, we can use it to determine which number, when multiplied by the same factor, yields 551. This checks your ability to reverse engineer a simple linear relationship from the result back to the original input. Given Data / Assumptions: First pair: 17 : 493. Second pair: ? : 551. All numbers are positive integers. The transformation is expected to be a simple multiplication by a fixed constant. Concept / Approach: We begin by checking whether 493 is divisible by 17. If it is, the quotient will be the constant that multiplies the first number to give the second. Then, to preserve the analogy, the unknown number should be 551 divided by this same constant. If 551 divides cleanly by that constant, the quotient is our missing number. This approach avoids guesswork and uses straightforward division to recover the pattern. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Compute 493 / 17. 17 * 20 = 340, 17 * 25 = 425, 17 * 29 = 493. So 493 = 17 * 29, and the multiplier is 29. Step 2: Interpret the rule. In the first pair, the second number is the first number multiplied by 29. Step 3: Apply the same rule to the second pair. We require some number x such that x * 29 = 551. Step 4: Compute 551 / 29. 29 * 20 = 580, which is too large. Subtract one group of 29: 580 - 29 = 551. Therefore, 551 = 19 * 29. So the missing number is 19. Verification / Alternative check: We can summarise the pattern as output = input * 29. For the first pair, 17 * 29 = 493, which matches the given number. For the second pair, 19 * 29 = 551, which matches the second number in the analogy. The same multiplier of 29 works for both pairs, which confirms that the pattern is consistent. None of the other options, when multiplied by 29, produce 551, so 19 is uniquely determined. Why Other Options Are Wrong: 13 * 29, 21 * 29, 23 * 29, and 11 * 29 do not equal 551; they yield different products such as 377, 609, 667, and 319 respectively. Because the problem clearly uses a constant multiplier, any number that does not restore 551 through multiplication by 29 breaks the analogy. Common Pitfalls: Some learners may try to decompose 493 and 551 using squares or cubes instead of checking for a simple product with a moderate sized integer. Others might mistakenly divide 551 by 17 or another candidate rather than first confirming the correct multiplier from the 17 : 493 pair. The best approach is systematic: find the factor that links the first pair, then use it as the divisor to recover the unknown number from the second pair. This process is efficient and reliable for similar number analogies. Final Answer: The number that correctly completes the analogy is 19.

Question 4

In this word analogy, Antique is related to Old as a pair of similar meanings. Using the same idea, which word should complete the analogy Antique : Old :: Weak : ?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This analogy focuses on vocabulary and synonyms. Antique and Old are closely related in meaning, because an antique object is typically very old, often with historical value. In the same way, the word Weak should be paired with another word that conveys a similar sense of low strength or vulnerability. The problem tests your ability to choose the option whose meaning aligns most closely with Weak, rather than an opposite or unrelated concept. Given Data / Assumptions: First pair: Antique : Old. Second pair: Weak : ?. Antique is used in the sense of an object that is very old. Weak is used with its usual meaning of lacking strength, power, or firmness. Concept / Approach: The relationship between Antique and Old is that of near synonyms: one describes something that has become old, usually with value, and the other directly states the age characteristic. To preserve the analogy, we must choose a word that is close in meaning to Weak. Weak can describe a person, structure, or argument that lacks strength, is easily damaged, or cannot withstand pressure. Among the given options, we need the word whose core idea is most similar to that lack of strength. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Restate the first pair. Antique and Old both describe age, with Antique being a more specific or stylistic term for something that is very old. Step 2: Clarify the meaning of Weak. Weak means lacking strength, power, or robustness, and can also imply being easily damaged. Step 3: Examine each option. Strong is the direct opposite of Weak and therefore cannot be a synonym. Fragile means easily broken or damaged and often suggests physical or emotional weakness. Convincing refers to the power to persuade and does not correspond to lack of strength. Powerful is another opposite of Weak, indicating strong influence or force. Energetic means full of energy and activity, again the opposite of Weak. Step 4: Choose the closest synonym. Fragile matches the idea of something that is weak or easily broken, so it is the best synonym like Old is for Antique. Verification / Alternative check: We can test the analogy structure by rewriting it with our chosen option. Antique is to Old as Weak is to Fragile. Both pairs now show words with closely related meanings. If we tried Weak : Strong, Weak : Powerful, or Weak : Energetic, the pattern would become one of antonyms instead of synonyms, breaking the similarity found in the first pair. Weak : Convincing also makes no sense semantically. Therefore, only Weak : Fragile preserves the symmetry of meaning with the original pair. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Strong is the opposite of Weak, not a similar term. Convincing relates to persuasiveness and has nothing to do with physical or emotional strength. Powerful expresses great strength or influence, again an antonym of Weak. Energetic suggests high energy levels and activity, which conflicts with the idea of being weak or feeble. Common Pitfalls: A frequent mistake is to focus only on the emotional tone of words and not on their precise meanings. For example, Strong and Powerful may sound attractive as answers, but they reverse the relationship instead of matching it. Another pitfall is to assume that any word with a negative or non positive meaning is suitable, even if it does not express lack of strength. To handle such analogies correctly, always think carefully about whether you are matching or opposing the meaning in the first pair and choose true synonyms rather than vague associations. Final Answer: The word that correctly completes the analogy is Fragile.

Question 5

In the following letter analogy, XY is related to AB in a particular cyclic way around the alphabet. Using the same pattern, which pair of letters should complete the analogy XY : AB :: LM : ?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This analogy uses cyclic movement around the alphabet where letters after Z wrap around to the beginning again. In the pair XY : AB, each letter in XY is shifted forward by a fixed number of positions to reach the corresponding letter in AB. We must identify that shift and then apply it to LM to find the correct pair that completes the analogy. This tests your ability to work with modular arithmetic on the alphabet circle. Given Data / Assumptions: First pair: XY : AB. Second pair: LM : ?. All letters are capital letters from A to Z. After Z, counting continues from A again, forming a cycle. Concept / Approach: We convert X, Y, A, and B into their numerical positions and calculate the forward shift needed to move from the first pair to the second. Because A and B occur after X and Y when counting cyclically, we must use wrap around logic. Once we determine that the shift is +3 positions, we apply the same +3 shift to L and M. The crucial idea is to treat the alphabet as circular rather than stopping at Z. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Determine positions for X, Y, A, and B. X = 24, Y = 25. A = 1, B = 2. Step 2: Find the effective forward shift using wrap around. From X (24) to A (1): moving forward, we pass through Y (25), Z (26), and then A (1). Counting these steps: 24 to 25 is 1, 25 to 26 is 1, 26 to 1 is 1, for a total of 3 steps. From Y (25) to B (2): 25 to 26 is 1, 26 to 1 is 1, 1 to 2 is 1, again total 3 steps. So the rule is: move each letter forward by 3 positions cyclically. Step 3: Apply the same +3 shift to LM. L = 12, plus 3 gives 15, which is O. M = 13, plus 3 gives 16, which is P. Therefore, LM becomes OP. Verification / Alternative check: To verify, we can check the reverse process. If we move O and P backward by 3 positions, we should return to L and M. O (15) minus 3 gives 12, which is L. P (16) minus 3 gives 13, which is M. This exact reversal mirrors how A and B move back to X and Y when we subtract 3 with wrap around. Thus, OP is consistent with the cyclic +3 pattern demonstrated by XY and AB. Why Other Options Are Wrong: PO reverses the order of the letters and does not come from adding 3 to both L and M. RS and TU correspond to larger shifts from LM and cannot be produced by a uniform +3 step. NO would result from a +2 shift on L and M, which does not match the +3 used in the XY to AB transformation. Common Pitfalls: Some students forget to handle the wrap around at Z and mistakenly treat the alphabet as ending there, which can make shifts from X and Y to A and B seem confusing. Another pitfall is to only check the shift for one letter and not verify it for the others. In cyclic alphabet questions, always count steps carefully across Z and ensure that the same number of steps applies position wise to every letter before applying the rule to a new pair. Final Answer: Using the same cyclic +3 shift, LM should be related to OP.

Question 6

In this number analogy question, select the related number pair from the given alternatives: 36 : 12 :: 72 : ?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This is a simple number analogy question from quantitative aptitude and reasoning exams. We are given one pair of numbers, 36 and 12, and asked to extend the same relationship to find the missing number that should pair with 72. Problems like this test your ability to recognise arithmetic patterns such as multiplication, division, and proportional relationships between numbers. Given Data / Assumptions: First pair of numbers: 36 : 12. Second pair of numbers: 72 : ?. We assume the same mathematical rule connects both pairs. Only one option should satisfy the same rule consistently. Concept / Approach: The usual approach in such analogy questions is to check for a simple operation between the first and second numbers in the known pair. We try division, multiplication, and combinations of basic operations to see which pattern works neatly. Once the pattern is discovered for 36 and 12, we apply the same rule to 72 to get the missing number. The key idea is that the rule must be consistent and not artificially adjusted for each pair. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Examine the first pair 36 and 12.Step 2: Compute 36 / 3 = 12, which gives an exact integer result.Step 3: This suggests the rule may be “second number = first number / 3”.Step 4: Apply the same rule to 72: 72 / 3 = 24.Step 5: Check that 24 is present among the answer options and that no other option fits a simpler consistent rule. Verification / Alternative check: We can briefly test other possible patterns to ensure the division by 3 rule is indeed the most natural. For example, 36 - 24 = 12, so a subtraction pattern like “second = first - 24” would not generalise well, because then 72 - 24 = 48, which does not match any intuitive relation with 36 : 12. Similarly, trying multiplication such as first * 2, first * 4, or adding fixed numbers does not produce 12 from 36 in a neat way. Division by 3 is the cleanest and most consistent pattern, and applying it to 72 yields 24, which is one of the options. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Option A (20): There is no simple rule that converts 36 to 12 and 72 to 20 simultaneously by the same arithmetic operation. Option C (17): This is not a result of dividing 72 by any simple factor that also converts 36 to 12, so it breaks the analogy. Option D (16): Again, 16 does not follow from 72 under the rule 36 → 12 by division. It would require a completely different pattern, so it is not consistent. Common Pitfalls: Candidates sometimes look for complicated number patterns when a very simple rule such as multiplication or division is sufficient. Another common mistake is to apply different rules to each pair, which is not allowed in analogy questions. You must always use the same transformation for both pairs. Forgetting this requirement can easily lead to an incorrect choice even if the second pair seems superficially reasonable. Final Answer: The consistent rule is “divide the first number by 3 to obtain the second.” Therefore, 36 : 12 :: 72 : 24, and the correct answer is 24.

Question 7

In this verbal analogy question on places and people in charge, select the related word pair from the given alternatives: Railway Station : Station Master :: School : ?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This is a verbal analogy based on relationships between places and the people who are officially in charge of those places. Recognising such functional relationships is very important for exams like SSC, Bank PO, and other competitive tests. Here, a railway station is managed by a station master, and we need to find which person is similarly responsible for a school. Given Data / Assumptions: First pair: Railway Station : Station Master. Second pair: School : ?. The relationship is “place of work or institution : person who is in charge”. We assume common real-world roles and not imaginary or unusual meanings. Concept / Approach: In analogy questions involving professions and places, the key is to identify the nature of responsibility. A station master is the official who administers and manages operations at a railway station. For a school, the equivalent role is the chief administrator or head of the school. We therefore look for an option that names the person who officially leads and manages a school as an institution, rather than any person who may simply be present there. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Understand the first relation: a station master is in charge of a railway station.Step 2: Recognise that the pattern is “place : head of that place”.Step 3: For a school, the person who is in overall charge is the principal.Step 4: Check the options and identify “Principal” as the only role that clearly denotes the head of a school.Step 5: Confirm that this mirrors the structure “Railway Station : Station Master”. Verification / Alternative check: We can verify by briefly testing each option. A chef is associated with a kitchen or restaurant, a doctor with a hospital or clinic, and a lieutenant with the armed forces, usually under an officer of higher rank. None of these roles is the head of a school. Only the principal fulfills the position of administrative head in most standard school systems, thereby maintaining the same type of relationship as “Station Master” does with “Railway Station”. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Option A (Chef): A chef manages the kitchen in a restaurant or hotel, not a school, so the relationship is incorrect. Option B (Doctor): A doctor works in hospitals or clinics and is not specifically the person in charge of a school. Option C (Lieutenant): This is a military rank and does not refer to the head of a school. Common Pitfalls: Candidates may confuse any professional person associated with education, like a teacher, with the head of the institution. However, the analogy uses “Station Master” which is not just a worker but the official in charge. Therefore, we must match this level of responsibility and choose the person who leads the school as an institution. Being clear about the type of relationship, not just the general domain, helps avoid such mistakes. Final Answer: The correct completion of the analogy is “School : Principal”, so the answer is Principal.

Question 8

In this letter-coding analogy question, select the related code for the word SECOND so that GROUPS : ITQWRU :: SECOND : ?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This question tests your understanding of letter-coding analogies, which are common in verbal reasoning sections of competitive exams. The word GROUPS is coded as ITQWRU, and we must identify how the word SECOND will be coded using the same pattern. Recognising the shift pattern in the alphabet is the key to solving this type of question quickly and accurately. Given Data / Assumptions: Original word 1: GROUPS. Coded word 1: ITQWRU. Original word 2: SECOND. Coded word 2: unknown, to be determined using the same rule. We assume a consistent letter-to-letter transformation, most likely based on positions in the English alphabet. Concept / Approach: In letter-coding questions, the most common approach is to map each letter of the original word to the corresponding letter in the coded form and compute the shift in alphabet positions. Then, we apply the same shift to each letter of the new word. Here, we compare G to I, R to T, O to Q, U to W, P to R, and S to U, and observe a pattern in the movement along the alphabet. If the same shift applies to all positions, we can safely apply it to the word SECOND. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Write positions of letters in GROUPS: G(7), R(18), O(15), U(21), P(16), S(19).Step 2: Write positions of letters in ITQWRU: I(9), T(20), Q(17), W(23), R(18), U(21).Step 3: Compute the shift for each pair: 7→9, 18→20, 15→17, 21→23, 16→18, 19→21. Each shift is +2 along the alphabet.Step 4: Apply the same +2 shift to SECOND: S(19)→U(21), E(5)→G(7), C(3)→E(5), O(15)→Q(17), N(14)→P(16), D(4)→F(6).Step 5: The coded form of SECOND becomes UGEQPF, which matches one of the options exactly. Verification / Alternative check: We verify that the shift is consistent for all letters in the first pair and does not change in the middle of the word. Every letter in GROUPS is advanced by two positions to obtain ITQWRU, confirming that the rule is stable. When we apply this exact rule to SECOND and obtain UGEQPF, we check that this sequence appears as an option. There is no reason to assume any other irregular transformation because that would break the analogy between the two words. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Option A (UGFQPE): Some letters here do not follow a uniform +2 shift from the original positions in SECOND. Option C (UEGQPF): The early letters do not match the required transformation and introduce inconsistent shifts. Option D (UGEQFP): This option changes the order of letters at the end, which does not follow a letter-by-letter shift rule from SECOND. Common Pitfalls: A common mistake is to miscalculate the alphabet positions or to forget that the same shift must apply to every letter. Another pitfall is to focus only on the first few letters and pick an option that appears close without checking the full word. To avoid this, always compute the shift clearly and apply it to all letters. Consistency across every position is the hallmark of the correct code. Final Answer: The code for SECOND that follows the same +2 alphabetical shift as GROUPS → ITQWRU is UGEQPF.

Question 9

In this letter analogy, LETTER is coded as MFUUFS. Using the same pattern, select the related code for AHEAD from the given alternatives.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This problem is a classic letter-coding analogy. The word LETTER is transformed into MFUUFS, and you must find how the word AHEAD will be coded using the same rule. Such questions evaluate your understanding of alphabetical positions and consistent shifting patterns, which are very common in verbal reasoning sections of competitive exams. Given Data / Assumptions: Original word 1: LETTER. Coded word 1: MFUUFS. Original word 2: AHEAD. Coded word 2: unknown, to be determined. We assume a consistent transformation is applied to each letter independently. Concept / Approach: The main idea is to determine how each letter in LETTER is changed to produce MFUUFS. Once we identify the shift between corresponding letters, we apply exactly the same transformation to each letter in AHEAD. If the pattern is a fixed forward shift in the alphabet, the same number of positions must be added to every letter of the new word to maintain the analogy. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Write letter positions for LETTER: L(12), E(5), T(20), T(20), E(5), R(18).Step 2: Write letter positions for MFUUFS: M(13), F(6), U(21), U(21), F(6), S(19).Step 3: For each position, compute the shift: 12→13, 5→6, 20→21, 20→21, 5→6, 18→19. Every letter increases by 1.Step 4: Apply the same +1 shift to AHEAD: A(1)→B(2), H(8)→I(9), E(5)→F(6), A(1)→B(2), D(4)→E(5).Step 5: The resulting coded word is BIFBE, which must be compared with the answer options. Verification / Alternative check: We verify that the pattern for LETTER is uniform across all positions and does not change partway through the word. Since every letter is advanced by exactly one position in the alphabet, applying this rule to AHEAD is fully justified. BIFBE exactly matches option A. None of the other options corresponds to a consistent +1 shift from the letters of AHEAD, which supports our solution as the unique correct answer. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Option B (BIBFE): The internal letter order and shifts do not match the one-step forward rule for every position in AHEAD. Option C (BFIBE): The letters appear rearranged and do not reflect a simple one-position shift for each original letter. Option D (BEFBE): This option contains letters that do not match the required transformation sequence from AHEAD. Common Pitfalls: Students sometimes focus only on the first and last letters or accept near matches without carefully checking every position. Another common error is forgetting that the same shift must apply to each letter, which can lead to picking an option that partially fits but is not fully consistent. Always verify the shift systematically across all letters in both the given and target words. Final Answer: Applying a uniform +1 alphabetical shift to AHEAD gives the coded word BIFBE, which is the correct answer.

Question 10

In this number analogy, select the related number from the given alternatives so that 12 : 48 :: 104 : ?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This is a number analogy question designed to test your ability to detect a simple arithmetic pattern between pairs of numbers. The pair 12 : 48 is given, and you must apply the same relationship to 104 in order to select the correct related number. Such questions often involve basic operations like multiplication, division, or a combination of addition and subtraction. Given Data / Assumptions: First pair: 12 : 48. Second pair: 104 : ?. We assume a single, consistent numerical rule applies to both pairs. Exactly one of the answer choices should satisfy that rule without exceptions. Concept / Approach: The most natural step is to compare 12 and 48 to see how one changes into the other. Here, 48 is exactly four times 12. When such a clean multiplication factor is observed, the usual approach is to apply the same factor to the second starting number, 104. We then check which option matches the product and ensure that no alternate simpler pattern exists that would contradict this reasoning. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Consider the first pair 12 and 48.Step 2: Compute 12 * 4 = 48, which shows a direct multiplication by 4.Step 3: Assume the same rule holds for the second pair: multiply the first number by 4.Step 4: Compute 104 * 4 = 416.Step 5: Check the answer options and identify 416 as the matching value. Verification / Alternative check: We can test whether any alternative simple rule might exist, such as adding a fixed number or multiplying and then adding or subtracting. For example, 12 + 36 = 48 does work, but applying the same idea to 104 as 104 + 36 = 140 does not match any option. Similarly, 12 squared or other more complex transformations do not yield 48 neatly while staying consistent for 104. The cleanest and most consistent pattern is therefore multiplication by 4 for both pairs. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Option A (415): This is close to 416 but does not correspond to 104 multiplied by any simple factor that also maps 12 to 48. Option B (420): This would require a different and less natural rule and does not come from 104 * 4. Option C (480): This looks like 48 * 10 but has no consistent link to the original pair 12 : 48 when applied using the same operation. Common Pitfalls: Candidates sometimes get attracted to large numbers that seem roughly proportional but forget to verify the exact operation. Another pitfall is overcomplicating the pattern with unnecessary steps when a single multiplication is sufficient. In analogy questions, the rule is usually simple and elegant, so always test straightforward operations like multiplication and division first. Final Answer: The rule is “multiply by 4”, so 12 : 48 :: 104 : 416. The correct answer is 416.

Question 11

In this synonym-based analogy, select the related word from the given alternatives so that Exactly : Precisely :: Evidently : ?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This analogy question is based on synonyms, that is, words with very similar meanings. The pair “Exactly : Precisely” shows that each word expresses almost the same idea of complete accuracy. You are asked to find a word that has a similar relationship with “Evidently”. Such questions are common in verbal reasoning and vocabulary sections, and they test how well you understand subtle differences and similarities between English words. Given Data / Assumptions: First pair: Exactly : Precisely. Second pair: Evidently : ?. We assume the first pair is a synonym pair. The second pair must follow the same synonym relationship. Concept / Approach: “Exactly” and “Precisely” both describe an action or description that matches something in a very accurate or correct manner. In the same way, “Evidently” is used when something appears clear from the available evidence or is obvious to see. We must find a word with meaning close to “clearly” or “obviously” that fits well in formal or semi-formal English usage. The correct choice should mirror the synonym relationship seen in the first pair. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Interpret “Exactly : Precisely” as a pair of clear synonyms that both indicate complete accuracy.Step 2: Interpret “Evidently” as “clearly”, “obviously”, or “as can be seen from the evidence”.Step 3: Check each option meaning: “Happily” relates to joy, “Distinctly” suggests clearly but in a more specific or separate sense, “Apparently” means “as far as can be seen” or “seemingly, based on evidence”, and “Hesitatingly” indicates doing something with hesitation.Step 4: Among these, “Apparently” is the closest synonym of “Evidently” in normal usage.Step 5: Therefore, the pair “Evidently : Apparently” mirrors the synonym relationship of “Exactly : Precisely”. Verification / Alternative check: We can verify our choice by substituting the words in sample sentences. For example, “He was evidently tired” and “He was apparently tired” convey nearly the same idea based on observable signs. However, “He was distinctly tired” sounds unusual and does not match typical usage for this context. The synonym pairing of “Evidently” and “Apparently” is widely accepted in standard English, which confirms that this is the intended relationship. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Option A (Happily): This word expresses a mood or emotional state and has no relation to “Evidently”. Option B (Distinctly): While it can sometimes mean “clearly”, it usually emphasises separation or sharpness of perception, and it does not pair as naturally as “Apparently” with “Evidently”. Option D (Hesitatingly): This refers to acting with hesitation or doubt and is not similar in meaning to “Evidently”. Common Pitfalls: A frequent error is to pick a word that occasionally appears near the target word in similar contexts but is not a true synonym. Another pitfall is to focus on vague impressions of meaning instead of considering precise dictionary-like definitions. Always test whether the candidate word can replace the original in typical sentences without changing the main idea. Final Answer: The best synonym-based analogy is “Evidently : Apparently”, so the correct answer is Apparently.

Question 12

In this meaning-based analogy, select the related word from the given alternatives so that Gloomy : Dull :: Merciless : ?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This analogy question tests your understanding of relationships between adjectives that describe mood, attitude, or character. The pair “Gloomy : Dull” suggests that something gloomy is cheerless and therefore dull or depressing. We are asked to extend this style of relationship to the word “Merciless” and select the word that captures a similar connected meaning. Such questions are common in verbal reasoning and vocabulary building for aptitude exams. Given Data / Assumptions: First pair: Gloomy : Dull. Second pair: Merciless : ?. “Gloomy” describes a sad, dark, or depressing mood. “Dull” describes something lacking brightness or liveliness, often linked to a gloomy atmosphere. We must find a word that naturally describes the effect or nature of someone who is merciless. Concept / Approach: The idea is to interpret the first pair as expressing a cause-effect or characteristic relationship. A gloomy environment often feels dull and lifeless. Similarly, a merciless person is someone who shows no mercy, kindness, or compassion. Such a person is likely to be described as harsh or cruel. Among the options, we need to pick the word that best expresses the tough, unkind nature that naturally goes with being merciless. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Understand that “Gloomy” and “Dull” are closely related in terms of mood and atmosphere.Step 2: Interpret “Merciless” as “showing no mercy” and being very severe or cruel.Step 3: Check meanings of the options: “Sympathetic” means understanding and kind, “Calm” refers to peaceful, “Flexible” indicates adaptability, and “Harsh” means very severe and unkind.Step 4: Only “Harsh” naturally follows from the idea of being merciless.Step 5: Conclude that the pair “Merciless : Harsh” mirrors the style of relationship seen in “Gloomy : Dull”. Verification / Alternative check: To verify, imagine sentences such as “He is a merciless ruler” and “He is a harsh ruler”. They convey very similar meanings, both suggesting excessive severity and lack of kindness. The other options fail this test. A merciless person cannot be sympathetic, calm is neutral and does not capture cruelty, and flexible is unrelated to the idea of cruelty. Therefore, “Harsh” is the only option that fits the strength and direction of the original adjective. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Option A (Sympathetic): This is almost the opposite of merciless, since a sympathetic person understands and cares about others. Option B (Calm): Calmness is about emotional steadiness and has no necessary connection to cruelty or mercy. Option C (Flexible): Flexibility refers to adaptability and open-mindedness, not to the level of kindness or harshness. Common Pitfalls: Sometimes candidates pick words that feel generally positive or neutral, thinking that any adjective might fit. However, in analogies, the direction and tone of the relationship matter a lot. Since “Merciless” is strongly negative, the related word must keep that severity. Ignoring this can easily lead to incorrect choices in such vocabulary questions. Final Answer: The correct pair is “Merciless : Harsh”, so the answer is Harsh.

Analogy Questions