Question 1

Data Sufficiency — Nitin's rank from the top in a class of 40  Statements: I. There are ten students between Nitin and Deepak. II. Deepak is twentieth from the top. Choose the correct sufficiency option.

Accepted Answer

Apply the gap I: With a gap of 10 students, Nitin could be 10 ranks above or below Deepak. Without Deepak's rank ⇒ insufficient. II: Deepak is 20th, but Nitin's relation to Deepak is unknown ⇒ insufficient. Together: Nitin could be 10th or 30th from the top, both valid in a class of 40 ⇒ still not unique. Answer Neither I nor II is sufficient.

Question 2

Data Sufficiency — determine Sunny's current facing direction  Statements: I. If Sunny turns to his right and again turns to his right, he will be facing North. II. If Sunny walks some distance, turns left, walks again, he will face towards the left…

Accepted Answer

From Statement I Two right turns = 180° turn. If after those turns Sunny faces North, then currently he must be facing South. ⇒ sufficient. From Statement II After walking and turning left, Sunny ends up facing the direction which is to the left of Dinesh (who faces South). Left of South is East. This gives a post-turn direction, not his current facing direction ⇒ insufficient. Answer I alone is sufficient while II alone is not sufficient. (Sunny is facing South now.)

Question 3

Data Sufficiency — school assignment for T among {B, C, D, E, F}  Statements: I. T does not study in the same school as either R or J. II. R and J study in schools D and F respectively. Choose the correct sufficiency option.

Accepted Answer

Combine the information From II: R = D, J = F. From I: T ≠ R and T ≠ J ⇒ T is not in D or F ⇒ T ∈ {B, C, E}. Conclusion Three possibilities remain; neither statement alone (nor together) pinpoints a unique school. Neither I nor II is sufficient.

Question 4

Data Sufficiency — Relationships: How is Divya related to Shaloo?  Statement I: Divya's mother is the sister of Shaloo's father. Statement II: Shaloo is the daughter of Divya's grandfather's only child.  Decide which statement(s) are sufficient to d…

Accepted Answer

GivenI: Divya's mother (DM) is sister of Shaloo's father (SF).II: Shaloo is the daughter of Divya's grandfather's only child.ApproachTest each statement independently to see if it yields a unique relationship.Using Statement I aloneDM and SF are siblings ⇒ children of siblings are cousins.Therefore, Divya and Shaloo are cousins. Statement I is sufficient.Using Statement II alone“Divya's grandfather's only child” is Divya's single parent. Shaloo is that person’s daughter ⇒ Shaloo and Divya have the same parent.Therefore, Shaloo is Divya’s sister. Statement II is sufficient.ConclusionEach statement independently gives a definite relationship (though different family setups); hence either statement alone is sufficient for the question format.

Question 5

Data Sufficiency — Sales computation: How many New Year's greeting cards were sold this year in your shop?  Statement I: Last year 2,935 cards were sold. Statement II: This year's sales were 1.2 times last year's sales.  Decide which statement(s) ar…

Accepted Answer

Why not I alone?I gives only last year’s number (2,935), not this year’s ratio ⇒ insufficient.Why not II alone?II gives a multiplier (1.2×) but no base number ⇒ insufficient.Combine I + IIThis year = 1.2 × 2,935 = (12/10) × 2,935 = 3522 cards.Final AnswerBoth statements together are sufficient (and they yield 3,522).

Question 6

Data Sufficiency — Birthday date: On which day in April is Gautam's birthday?  Statement I: Gautam was born exactly 28 years after his mother was born. Statement II: His mother will be 55 years, 4 months, and 5 days on August 18 of this year.  Decid…

Accepted Answer

From Statement IIMother's birthday = Aug 18 − 4 months − 5 days = April 13 (same calendar year).II alone gives only the mother’s April date, not Gautam’s.From Statement IGautam is born exactly 28 years after his mother ⇒ same date of the month, 28 years later.I alone gives a relative offset but no concrete April date.Combine I + IIMother's birthday is April 13 ⇒ Gautam's birthday is also April 13 (28 years later).Final AnswerBoth statements together are sufficient.

Question 7

Data Sufficiency — Coding language: What is the code for the word ‘‘is’’?  Statement I: ‘‘shi tu ke’’ means ‘‘pen is blue’’. Statement II: ‘‘ke si re’’ means ‘‘this is wonderful’’ in the same code language.  Decide which statement(s) are sufficient …

Accepted Answer

LogicFrom I: {shi, tu, ke} ↔ {pen, is, blue}.From II: {ke, si, re} ↔ {this, is, wonderful}.Common English word: ‘‘is’’; common code token: ke.Why both?Neither I nor II alone pins ‘‘is’’ uniquely; together they do.Final AnswerBoth statements together are sufficient.

Question 8

Data Sufficiency — Linear arrangement: Among A, B, C, D and E standing in a single row, who is in the middle?  Statement I: C, who is third to the left of D, is to the immediate right of A and second to the left of E. Statement II: C is second to th…

Accepted Answer

Using Statement ILet positions be 1–5 (left→right). ‘‘C is 3 left of D’’ and ‘‘C is right of A’’ and ‘‘C is 2 left of E’’ give a unique order: A(1) – C(2) – B(3) – E(4) – D(5). Middle = B.Using Statement IIE is 3 right of A and not at an end ⇒ A(1), E(4). ‘‘C is 2 left of E’’ ⇒ C(2). ‘‘D at an end’’ with A already at 1 ⇒ D(5). Remaining B(3). Middle = B.ConclusionEach statement alone determines the middle person.

Question 9

Data Sufficiency — Comparing weights: Among A, B, C, D, E, and F, who is the heaviest?  Statement I: A and D are heavier than B, E, and F, but neither A nor D is the heaviest. Statement II: A is heavier than D but lighter than C.  Decide which state…

Accepted Answer

From Statement IA, D > (B, E, F), and neither A nor D is the heaviest ⇒ the only remaining candidate is C. Sufficient.From Statement IIC > A > D, but nothing about B, E, F relative to C ⇒ not sufficient.Final AnswerStatement I alone is sufficient.

Question 10

Data Sufficiency – Coding-decoding (identify the code for a specific word) Question: How is the word 'No' coded in the given language? Statements (to be considered independently unless combining is necessary): I. 'Ne Pa Sic Lo' means 'But No None An…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:This is a data sufficiency (DS) question from coding–decoding. You must decide whether Statement I, Statement II, either alone, both together, or neither provides enough information to identify how the word 'No' is coded. Do not solve for the entire code language; only determine sufficiency.Given Data / Assumptions:Codes are one-to-one with words within each sentence.From the question: four coded sentences with meanings are provided, split as two in Statement I and two in Statement II.Goal: identify the exact code for 'No' and judge which statement(s) are sufficient.Concept / Approach:In coding–decoding DS, compare sentences that share several words. The common words across those sentences map to the common codes. The leftover code then maps to the leftover word. Check each statement independently first.Step-by-Step Solution:Statement I: 'Ne Pa Sic Lo' = 'But No None And' and 'Pa Lo Le Ne' = 'If None And But'.Common codes across these two are {Ne, Pa, Lo}. Common words are {But, None, And}. Therefore these three codes correspond to {But, None, And} in some order.The remaining code in the first sentence is 'Sic' and the remaining word is 'No'. Hence, 'No' = 'Sic'. Statement I alone is sufficient.Statement II: 'Le Se Ne Sic' = 'If No None Will' and 'Le Pi Se Be' = 'Not None If All'.Common codes are {Le, Se}; common words are {If, None}. Thus {Le, Se} map to {If, None} in some order. The other two codes in the first of these sentences are {Ne, Sic}, mapping to {No, Will}, but which is which cannot be decided using Statement II alone. Therefore Statement II alone is not sufficient.Verification / Alternative check:Why Other Options Are Wrong:II alone is sufficient: incorrect; ambiguity remains between 'No' and 'Will'.Either I or II is sufficient: incorrect because II is not sufficient.Neither I nor II is sufficient: incorrect; I is sufficient.Both I and II are sufficient: overly strong; I already suffices.Common Pitfalls:Assuming that shared codes must preserve order across sentences, or that you must decode every word. Only sufficiency about 'No' matters.Final Answer:I alone is sufficient while II alone is not sufficient

Question 11

Data Sufficiency – Ordering by height (find the middle position) Question: Who among P, Q, T, V, and M stands exactly in the middle when arranged in ascending order of height? Statements: I. V is taller than Q but shorter than M. II. T is taller tha…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:This DS problem asks for the exact person at the middle position when five people are ordered by height (shortest to tallest). We must judge whether each statement independently, or both together, determine the middle person uniquely.Given Data / Assumptions:Set of persons: P, Q, T, V, M (all distinct).Ascending order means position 3 of 5 (middle) from shortest to tallest.No two persons have exactly the same height (standard assumption unless stated otherwise).Concept / Approach:Translate each statement into inequality chains and see whether a complete linear order results. If a single statement leaves multiple possible lineups, it is not sufficient. If the combination gives a unique lineup, both together are sufficient.Step-by-Step Solution:From Statement I: M > V > Q. P and T are unplaced relative to these three, so I alone is not sufficient.From Statement II: P > T > M and T > Q. V is unplaced, so II alone is not sufficient.Combine I and II: From II we know P > T > M, and Q is below T. From I we know M > V > Q. M above V and V above Q are consistent with Q below T. Thus a complete order emerges: P > T > M > V > Q (tallest to shortest).Therefore, in ascending order (shortest → tallest): Q, V, M, T, P. The middle (3rd) is M.Verification / Alternative check:Try to construct any alternative consistent ordering that changes the middle. All constraints force V between M and Q and T above M but below P, leaving no flexibility; M must be in the middle.Why Other Options Are Wrong:I alone or II alone: each leaves at least one person's position undetermined; the middle can vary.Either I or II: false since neither alone suffices.Neither I nor II: false because together they fix a unique order.Common Pitfalls:Mixing up ascending with descending order; ignoring that five distinct heights imply a unique middle position once the chain is fully specified.Final Answer:Both I and II are sufficient

Question 12

Data Sufficiency – Coding-decoding (identify the code for 'good') Question: In the coded sentence 'sin co bye' meaning 'He is good', which codeword stands for 'good'? Statements: I. In the same code, 'co mot det' means 'They are good'. II. In the sa…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:We are asked to find the unique codeword for 'good' given one reference sentence (from the question) and additional coded sentences as statements. As a DS item, we judge whether each statement alone is enough, given the base sentence 'sin co bye' = 'He is good'.Given Data / Assumptions:Base: 'sin co bye' → 'He is good'.Statement I: 'co mot det' → 'They are good'.Statement II: 'sin mic bye' → 'He is honest'.Each codeword maps to exactly one word within the context.Concept / Approach:Use intersection logic. When two coded sentences share exactly one English word, the shared word corresponds to the shared code. Alternatively, when two sentences share multiple words, eliminate them and map the leftover code to the leftover word.Step-by-Step Solution:Using Statement I with the base sentence: common English word is 'good'. The common code between 'sin co bye' and 'co mot det' is 'co'. Hence 'good' = 'co'. I alone is sufficient.Using Statement II with the base sentence: common English words are 'He' and 'is'. The common codes between the two are 'sin' and 'bye'. Eliminate those, and the remaining word in the base is 'good' which must correspond to the remaining code 'co'. II alone is also sufficient.Verification / Alternative check:Both statements independently lead to the same mapping 'good' = 'co'. No conflict arises, confirming sufficiency for either.Why Other Options Are Wrong:I alone or II alone only: each is in fact sufficient, but saying only one works is too restrictive.Neither: incorrect because each single statement works.Both together: true but stronger than needed; DS requires the minimally sufficient choice.Common Pitfalls:Assuming order of words matters; it does not. Forgetting that the base sentence from the question itself is always available while assessing each statement.Final Answer:Either I or II is sufficient

Question 13

Data Sufficiency – Numerical coding (identify the code for 'water') Question: What is the numerical code for the word 'water'? Statements: I. The code for 'give me water' is '719'. II. The code for 'you can bring water for me' is '574186'.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:Here we must determine whether the information given in either statement identifies the exact numeral for the word 'water'. This is a classic DS test of intersection/overlap reasoning when multiple words repeat across sentences.Given Data / Assumptions:I: 'give me water' → '719' (a 3-word sentence producing a 3-digit string).II: 'you can bring water for me' → '574186' (a 6-word sentence producing a 6-digit string).Each distinct word maps to exactly one distinct digit in the immediate context.Concept / Approach:Compare sentences to find the shared words and the shared digits. If exactly one shared word corresponds to exactly one shared digit, we can identify that mapping. If two words are shared and two digits are shared, ambiguity remains unless we have a tie-breaker.Step-by-Step Solution:Common words between I and II are 'me' and 'water' (two words).Digits in I are {7, 1, 9}. Digits in II are {5, 7, 4, 1, 8, 6}. The shared digits are {7, 1} (two digits).Thus, {'me', 'water'} must map to {7, 1} in some order. With only these statements, it is impossible to decide which of 7 or 1 stands for 'water' and which stands for 'me'.Statement I alone gives three digits for three words; without an additional sentence, you cannot isolate 'water'. Statement II alone introduces many new words and does not resolve the ambiguity.Verification / Alternative check:Attempting to assign 'water' = 7 forces 'me' = 1 and vice versa; both assignments are consistent with all given information, proving insufficiency.Why Other Options Are Wrong:I alone or II alone: each clearly leaves multiple possibilities.Either I or II: false; neither identifies a unique code.Both I and II: still ambiguous because two shared words correspond to two shared digits.Common Pitfalls:Assuming the left-to-right order of words matches the order of digits; that assumption is not stated, so it cannot be used in DS. Only overlap logic is valid.Final Answer:Neither I nor II is sufficient

Question 14

Data Sufficiency – Counting visitors (passes allow up to 3 guests) Question: How many visitors saw the exhibition yesterday in total? Statements: I. Each entry pass holder can take up to three persons with him/her. II. In all, 243 passes were sold y…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:This DS problem involves maximum-capacity reasoning. A pass holder may bring guests, but the actual number of guests per pass can vary from 0 to the stated maximum. We must judge sufficiency to compute the total visitors.Given Data / Assumptions:I: Each pass allows up to 3 accompanying persons.II: 243 passes were sold yesterday.Visitor count includes pass holders themselves plus any accompanying persons.Concept / Approach:To determine an exact total, we need both the number of passes and the actual number of companions used per pass. A bound such as 'up to 3' only provides a range, not a fixed value.Step-by-Step Solution:From I alone: No count of passes is given, so the total visitors are indeterminate.From II alone: With 243 passes, the total could be as low as 243 (if no guests came) or as high as 243 * 4 = 972 (if every pass holder brought 3 guests). The exact number is unknown.Combining I and II still leaves a wide range. Without the actual distribution of guests per pass, we cannot determine the precise total.Verification / Alternative check:Construct two valid scenarios with the same 243 passes: (a) Nobody brings a guest → 243 visitors; (b) Everyone brings 3 guests → 972 visitors. Both conform to the statements yet yield different totals, proving insufficiency.Why Other Options Are Wrong:I alone or II alone: each clearly lacks essential information.Either I or II: false since neither alone suffices.Both I and II: still not enough because 'up to 3' does not fix a unique number.Common Pitfalls:Assuming 'up to 3' means 'exactly 3'; that would change the problem completely but is not stated. DS demands using only given facts.Final Answer:Neither I nor II is sufficient

Question 15

Data Sufficiency – Ranks from top and bottom (class strength inference) Question: Gaurav ranks 18th from the top in his class. What is his rank from the last? Statements: I. There are 47 students in the class. II. Jatin, who ranks 10th from the top …

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:This DS item tests rank conversion using total class size. If you know the class strength N and a student's rank from the top r, the rank from the bottom is N − r + 1. We assess whether each statement alone gives N.Given Data / Assumptions:Known from the question: Gaurav is 18th from the top.I: Class size N = 47.II: Jatin is 10th from the top and 38th from the bottom.Concept / Approach:The conversion formula is rank_from_bottom = N − rank_from_top + 1. So we only need to know N. Either a direct statement of N or an inference that yields N is sufficient.Step-by-Step Solution:Using I alone: N = 47. Then Gaurav's rank from the bottom = 47 − 18 + 1 = 30. Hence I alone is sufficient.Using II alone: For any student, rank_top + rank_bottom − 1 = N. So N = 10 + 38 − 1 = 47. With N known, Gaurav's rank from the bottom is again 47 − 18 + 1 = 30. Hence II alone is also sufficient.Verification / Alternative check:Both methods yield the same class size (47) and hence the same answer (30 from the last), confirming each statement's sufficiency independently.Why Other Options Are Wrong:I alone or II alone only: both are sufficient, not just one.Neither: false because each alone suffices.Both: stronger than necessary in DS.Common Pitfalls:Omitting the +1 in the conversion formula; mixing up top vs bottom ranks; assuming tie ranks (not stated).Final Answer:Either I or II is sufficient

Question 16

Data Sufficiency – Determine P’s rank from the bottom (n = 30) Question: In a class of 30 students, what is the rank of P from the bottom? Statements: I. M is third from the top and there are five students between M and P. II. K is fourth from the b…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:This DS question asks for P’s bottom rank in a class of 30. Each statement provides relative positioning that may allow a unique absolute rank for P. We check each independently.Given Data / Assumptions:Total students N = 30 (given in the question text).I: M is 3rd from the top; there are exactly five students between M and P.II: K is 4th from the bottom; there are exactly 17 students between K and P.No ties; positions are integers 1..30 from the top.Concept / Approach:If there are x students between two ranks r1 and r2, then |r1 − r2| = x + 1. Use this to derive P's top rank and convert to bottom rank by N − r_top + 1.Step-by-Step Solution:Using I alone: M is 3rd from the top. With five between M and P, |rank_M − rank_P| = 6. So rank_P could be 3 + 6 = 9 from the top or 3 − 6 which is invalid. Thus rank_P(top) = 9. Hence rank_P(bottom) = 30 − 9 + 1 = 22. I alone is sufficient.Using II alone: K is 4th from the bottom ⇒ from the top K is 30 − 4 + 1 = 27th. With 17 between K and P, |27 − rank_P| = 18 ⇒ rank_P(top) = 27 − 18 = 9 (since 27 + 18 exceeds 30). Thus rank_P(bottom) = 22. II alone is also sufficient.Verification / Alternative check:Both statements independently yield the same unique rank for P (9th from the top, 22nd from the bottom), confirming each suffices.Why Other Options Are Wrong:I alone only / II alone only: both are sufficient, not just one.Neither: false because each alone works.Both: true but not the minimally sufficient DS choice.Common Pitfalls:Misinterpreting 'between' (remember to add 1 when converting to rank difference); forgetting to convert bottom to top ranks correctly.Final Answer:Either I or II is sufficient

Question 17

Data Sufficiency – Linear arrangement of five buildings (find the middle) Question: In a row of five buildings P, Q, R, S and T, which building is exactly in the middle? Statements: I. Buildings S and Q are at the two extreme ends of the row. II. Bu…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:This is a DS problem on linear arrangements. We must determine if the given constraints uniquely identify the building in the central (3rd) position of a row of five distinct buildings.Given Data / Assumptions:Buildings: P, Q, R, S, T arranged left-to-right in a straight row.Exactly five positions; no duplicates.Middle means the 3rd position from the left.Concept / Approach:Check each statement's implications separately, then together. If more than one valid lineup satisfies the statements but yields different middles, the information is insufficient.Step-by-Step Solution:Using I alone: S and Q occupy the two ends (order unknown). The middle could be P or R or T. Multiple possibilities ⇒ not sufficient.Using II alone: T is somewhere to the right of R (not necessarily adjacent). Without fixed end positions, the middle varies widely ⇒ not sufficient.Using I and II together: The ends are S and Q. The remaining middle three positions are some permutation of P, R, T with the constraint R left of T. Examples: (1) S R P T Q → middle is P; (2) S P R T Q → middle is R. Both satisfy I and II but give different middles. Therefore, even together the statements are not sufficient.Verification / Alternative check:Systematically enumerate permutations of the three middle buildings under R–left–of–T and confirm that the 3rd position changes across valid arrangements.Why Other Options Are Wrong:I alone / II alone / Both: none of these fix a unique middle building; multiple solutions persist.Either I or II: false because neither alone suffices.Common Pitfalls:Assuming 'to the right' means 'immediately to the right'. It does not; without adjacency, many orders remain possible.Final Answer:Neither I nor II is sufficient

Question 18

Data Sufficiency — Speeches over a two-day programme: How many total speeches were delivered in the two days? Statements: I. 18 speakers were invited to give at least one speech (maximum two each), but one-sixth of the speakers could not come. II. O…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:This is a classic data sufficiency problem. We must decide whether each statement (individually or together) gives enough information to compute the exact number of speeches delivered over two days, without necessarily calculating the numerical value unless required for sufficiency.Given Data / Assumptions:Each invited speaker can deliver a minimum of 1 and a maximum of 2 speeches.Statement I: 18 invited; one-sixth absent.Statement II: One-third of the speakers (who attended) gave 2 speeches each.We interpret “speakers” in Statement II as those who actually attended and spoke.Concept / Approach:Compute the number of attendees from Statement I, then use Statement II to split attendees into two groups: those who delivered 2 speeches and those who delivered exactly 1 speech. Sum to get total speeches. Check sufficiency of each statement alone and then together.Step-by-Step Solution:Absent speakers = (1/6) * 18 = 3.Attendees = 18 − 3 = 15.From Statement II: Speakers giving two speeches = (1/3) * 15 = 5.Speakers giving one speech = 15 − 5 = 10.Total speeches = (5 * 2) + (10 * 1) = 10 + 10 = 20.Verification / Alternative check:Statement I alone leaves ambiguity because we do not know how many selected the 2-speech option. Statement II alone lacks the base number of attendees. Only together do they yield a unique total of 20.Why Other Options Are Wrong:I alone: Insufficient—missing the 1-vs-2 split.II alone: Insufficient—missing the total attendees.Either alone: False; each lacks complementary information.Neither alone: False because together they are sufficient.Common Pitfalls:Assuming “one-third” applies to the invited (18) instead of the attendees (15).Forgetting to account for absentees before applying the two-speech proportion.Final Answer:Both I and II are sufficient

Question 19

Data Sufficiency — Ordering by height among five friends: Who is the tallest? Statements: I. D is taller than A and C. II. B is shorter than E but taller than D.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:We have a ranking (taller/shorter) puzzle with five people: A, B, C, D, E. The objective is to determine the tallest person using the given pairwise relations. In data sufficiency, we judge whether each statement alone or together is enough to reach a unique conclusion.Given Data / Assumptions:I: D > A and D > C (D is taller than A and C).II: E > B > D (E taller than B; B taller than D).All five friends are A, B, C, D, E; no ties unless implied (none implied here).Concept / Approach:Combine inequalities to build a chain. If one person is shown to be taller than all others, the tallest is identified. Otherwise, insufficiency remains.Step-by-Step Solution:From I: D is above A and C → D > A, D > C.From II: E > B > D; combined with I gives E > B > D > A and D > C.Thus E is taller than B, D, A, and C. No statement suggests anyone taller than E.Therefore, E is uniquely tallest.Verification / Alternative check:Statement I alone mentions nothing about B and E, so tallest cannot be fixed. Statement II alone says nothing about A and C relative to E; one of them could exceed E. Together, the chain proves E is taller than all five.Why Other Options Are Wrong:I alone: Insufficient—B and E unknown.II alone: Insufficient—A and C could be taller.Either alone: Not enough.Neither alone: Incorrect because together they work.Common Pitfalls:Assuming transitivity without writing the chain; writing it out prevents overlooking someone.Assuming a person not mentioned is automatically shorter or taller—never assume beyond given relations.Final Answer:Both I and II are sufficient

Question 20

Data Sufficiency — Departure time today: At what time did the train leave today? Statements: I. The train normally leaves on time. II. The scheduled departure is at 14:30.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:The task is to determine today’s actual departure time. Data sufficiency asks whether the statements individually or together allow a definite answer without extra assumptions (like “today was routine”).Given Data / Assumptions:I: The train “normally” leaves on time (a general tendency, not a guarantee for today).II: The timetable lists scheduled departure at 14:30.We cannot infer today’s punctuality unless explicitly stated.Concept / Approach:Distinguish between normative information (usually, normally) and fact for the specific day in question. Schedules provide intended times; actual operations can differ due to delays or advancements.Step-by-Step Solution:Statement I only says “normally on time.” It does not say “today it left on time.”Statement II only provides the scheduled time 14:30.Even when combined, we still lack confirmation that today adhered to the schedule.Therefore, we cannot determine the exact departure time for today.Verification / Alternative check:If Statement I had said “today it left on time,” then with II we could conclude 14:30. But “normally” is not “today.” Hence insufficiency remains even after combining.Why Other Options Are Wrong:I alone: Insufficient—no specific confirmation for today.II alone: Insufficient—timetable ≠ actual.Either or both: Still cannot fix today’s actual time.Common Pitfalls:Equating “normally” with “always” or “today.”Assuming punctuality without explicit evidence.Final Answer:Neither I nor II is sufficient

Data Sufficiency Questions

Questions

Practice smarter