Question 1

Letter-ordering (forms a meaningful English word): Given letters with fixed positions — V(1) A(2) R(3) S(4) T(5) E(6) — which index sequence produces a valid word?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This item asks you to pick an index order that, when applied to the fixed letter slots V(1), A(2), R(3), S(4), T(5), E(6), yields a meaningful English word. Such questions test visual sequencing, anagram recognition, and careful mapping of indices to letters. Given Data / Assumptions: Fixed mapping: 1→V, 2→A, 3→R, 4→S, 5→T, 6→E. Each option lists a permutation of indices. We must read letters in that order and check if the result is an English word. Exactly one option should give a standard, dictionary word. Concept / Approach: Translate each proposed index list into letters and validate the result. A quick mental target is “STARVE,” a well-known word that can be formed from these letters. Step-by-Step Solution: Check option C: 4,5,2,3,1,6 → S(4), T(5), A(2), R(3), V(1), E(6) = “STARVE”.Other options produce non-words on inspection. Verification / Alternative check: Reverse-check: “STARVE” letters map back to indices S→4, T→5, A→2, R→3, V→1, E→6, matching option C exactly. Why Other Options Are Wrong: They yield strings that do not correspond to common English words (e.g., “ARV…” or “V…” starts that fail dictionary checks). Common Pitfalls: Mixing up the fixed letter-index mapping or reading indices as positions to rearrange (they are read order, not swap instructions). Final Answer: 4, 5, 2, 3, 1, 6

Question 2

Letter-ordering (forms a meaningful English word): Given letters with fixed positions — A(1) L(2) I(3) R(4) E(5) M(6) C(7) — which index sequence produces a valid word?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: We must pick an index order that turns A(1), L(2), I(3), R(4), E(5), M(6), C(7) into a standard English word. Given Data / Assumptions: Mapping: 1→A, 2→L, 3→I, 4→R, 5→E, 6→M, 7→C. Exactly one option should create a dictionary word. Concept / Approach: Try to recognize a target quickly. “MIRACLE” fits these letters. Step-by-Step Solution: Option A: 6,3,4,1,7,2,5 → M(6), I(3), R(4), A(1), C(7), L(2), E(5) = “MIRACLE”. Verification / Alternative check: Spelling check confirms “MIRACLE.” Other options scramble the order into non-words. Why Other Options Are Wrong: They fail to produce a common English word. Common Pitfalls: Swapping letter-index pairs or overlooking the simple pattern that spells “MIRACLE.” Final Answer: 6, 3, 4, 1, 7, 2, 5

Question 3

Letter-ordering (forms a meaningful English word): Given letters with fixed positions — T(1) P(2) A(3) F(4) N(5) F(6) I(7) L(8) I(9) — which index sequence produces a valid word?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Pick the index order that converts the given sequence into a meaningful word. Given Data / Assumptions: Index map: 1→T, 2→P, 3→A, 4→F, 5→N, 6→F, 7→I, 8→L, 9→I. One option yields a standard English word. Concept / Approach: Look for high-frequency legal targets. The letters suggest “PLAINTIFF.” Step-by-Step Solution: Option D: 2,8,3,9,5,1,7,4,6 → P, L, A, I, N, T, I, F, F = “PLAINTIFF”. Verification / Alternative check: “PLAINTIFF” is correctly spelled and fits all letters exactly once. Why Other Options Are Wrong: They create non-words or malformed strings. Common Pitfalls: Missing the double-F ending or mixing I/L positions. Final Answer: 2, 8, 3, 9, 5, 1, 7, 4, 6

Question 4

Letter-ordering (forms a meaningful English word): Given letters with fixed positions — E(1) M(2) I(3) H(4) T(5) R(6) — which index sequence produces a valid word?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Select the ordering that turns E(1), M(2), I(3), H(4), T(5), R(6) into a dictionary word. Given Data / Assumptions: Mapping: 1→E, 2→M, 3→I, 4→H, 5→T, 6→R. Concept / Approach: Common candidate here is “HERMIT.” Step-by-Step Solution: Option B: 4,1,6,2,3,5 → H, E, R, M, I, T = “HERMIT”. Verification / Alternative check: Spelling is correct; other options fail to form a standard word. Why Other Options Are Wrong: They create jumbles with no lexical meaning. Common Pitfalls: Overlooking the H→E start for “HER…”. Final Answer: 4, 1, 6, 2, 3, 5

Question 5

Letter-ordering (forms a meaningful English word): Given letters with fixed positions — X(1) O(2) M(3) L(4) C(5) P(6) E(7) — which index sequence produces a valid word?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Pick an index sequence to form a known English word from the fixed sequence X(1), O(2), M(3), L(4), C(5), P(6), E(7). Given Data / Assumptions: Indices map 1→X, 2→O, 3→M, 4→L, 5→C, 6→P, 7→E. Concept / Approach: The natural target is “COMPLEX.” Step-by-Step Solution: Option D: 5,2,3,6,4,7,1 → C, O, M, P, L, E, X = “COMPLEX”. Verification / Alternative check: Compare letters and positions; all letters used once; spelling correct. Why Other Options Are Wrong: They yield non-words or misordered strings. Common Pitfalls: Swapping PX or ending on E instead of X. Final Answer: 5, 2, 3, 6, 4, 7, 1

Question 6

Letter-ordering (forms a meaningful English word): Given letters with fixed positions — E(1) C(2) O(3) T(4) I(5) H(6) T(7) Y(8) H(9) O(10) N(11) P(12) A(13) — which index sequence produces a valid word?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: We again select the index order producing a real English word from a longer letter sequence. Given Data / Assumptions: Map: 1→E, 2→C, 3→O, 4→T, 5→I, 6→H, 7→T, 8→Y, 9→H, 10→O, 11→N, 12→P, 13→A. Concept / Approach: These letters can spell “HYPOTHECATION,” a finance/legal term meaning pledge of property as security. Step-by-Step Solution: Option D yields indices 9,8,12,3,7,6,1,2,13,4,5,10,11 → H, Y, P, O, T, H, E, C, A, T, I, O, N = “HYPOTHECATION”. Verification / Alternative check: Spelling matches the standard word exactly; every letter is drawn from the provided positions in correct frequency. Why Other Options Are Wrong: They do not spell a standard dictionary word. Common Pitfalls: Misplacing the two H’s or the sequence “…THECATION”. Final Answer: 9, 8, 12, 3, 7, 6, 1, 2, 13, 4, 5, 10, 11

Question 7

Letter-ordering (forms a meaningful English word): Given letters with fixed positions — R(1) T(2) A(3) N(4) U(5) E(6) — which index sequence produces a valid word?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Pick the ordering that gives a meaningful English word from R(1), T(2), A(3), N(4), U(5), E(6). Given Data / Assumptions: Index map: 1→R, 2→T, 3→A, 4→N, 5→U, 6→E. Concept / Approach: Target word is “NATURE.” Step-by-Step Solution: Option C: 4,3,2,5,1,6 → N, A, T, U, R, E = “NATURE”. Verification / Alternative check: Spelling and letter counts check out. Why Other Options Are Wrong: They fail to produce any standard word. Common Pitfalls: Swapping T and U or ending on R instead of E. Final Answer: 4, 3, 2, 5, 1, 6

Question 8

Logic consistency: Statement: “When it rains, plants get greener.” From the following four atomic statements, select the pair that is logically consistent with the given rule. (i) It rained.  (ii) It did not rain.  (iii) Plants got greener.  (iv) Pl…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The rule “When it rains, plants get greener” is an implication: Rain → Greener. A consistent pair should not violate this implication. Given Data / Assumptions: Interpretation is material implication: if Rain is true, Greener must be true. Contrapositive (not used directly): If not Greener, then not Rain. Concept / Approach: Pick the pair that affirms Rain and Greener together (which certainly satisfies the rule). Step-by-Step Solution: (i) It rained; (iii) Plants got greener → matches Rain → Greener. Verification / Alternative check: Pairs with “It rained” and “plants did not get greener” would contradict the rule; pairs without Rain do not test the rule. Why Other Options Are Wrong: (i)(ii) is self-contradictory; (iii)(i) is the same facts in reverse order but option text expects the direct pair (we select the explicit cause-then-effect pair); (iv)(i) contradicts the contrapositive. Common Pitfalls: Assuming the converse (Greener → Rain) which is not stated. Final Answer: (i) (iii)

Question 9

Logic consistency: Statement: “When it is not raining, peacocks dance.” Select the pair that is consistent with this rule. (i) Peacocks are dancing.  (ii) It is raining.  (iii) Peacocks are not dancing.  (iv) It is not raining.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The rule is ¬Rain → Dance (if it is not raining, peacocks dance). Given Data / Assumptions: The rule does not assert anything about what happens when it is raining. Concept / Approach: The safest consistent pair is to assert the condition and its guaranteed outcome: not raining and dancing. Step-by-Step Solution: (iv) It is not raining; (i) Peacocks are dancing → consistent with ¬Rain → Dance. Verification / Alternative check: Pairs involving (ii) “It is raining” with dancing are not ruled out by the rule but do not follow from it; the test typically wants the direct cause→effect match. Why Other Options Are Wrong: They either state unrelated or potentially contradictory facts given the intended direction of implication. Common Pitfalls: Confusing “when” with biconditional (“if and only if”). Final Answer: (iv) (i)

Question 10

Logic consistency (exclusive alternative implied): Statement: “Madhu either runs or walks.” Select the pair that is most consistent with the intended meaning. (i) Madhu runs.  (ii) Madhu walks.  (iii) Madhu does not run.  (iv) Madhu does not walk.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: “Either … or …” is typically read as an exclusive alternative in reasoning puzzles unless otherwise specified. Given Data / Assumptions: Exactly one of {runs, walks} is true. Concept / Approach: The combination “does not run” and “walks” satisfies exclusivity. Step-by-Step Solution: Pick (iii) (ii): not run, and walks. Verification / Alternative check: (i)(ii) asserts both true, contradicting exclusivity; (iii)(iv) asserts both false, also contradicting “either.” Why Other Options Are Wrong: They violate exclusive-or or create contradictions. Common Pitfalls: Reading “either … or …” as inclusive. Final Answer: (iii) (ii)

Question 11

Logic consistency: Statement: “She does not get a call when there is a strong network.” Select the pair that does not violate the rule and is jointly consistent. (i) She gets a call.  (ii) There is a strong network.  (iii) There is no network.  (iv)…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The statement is unusual but reads as: StrongNetwork → NoCall. We need a pair that is consistent with this rule (i.e., does not contradict it). Given Data / Assumptions: If strong network is present, a call does not occur. The converse (NoCall → StrongNetwork) is not implied. Concept / Approach: Pairs not mentioning strong network can still be consistent provided they do not force a contradiction. Step-by-Step Solution: (iii) No network; (iv) She does not get a call → consistent, as the rule talks only about the strong-network case. Verification / Alternative check: (ii)(i) would violate the rule (strong network but she gets a call). (iv)(ii) tries to infer the converse, which is not logically valid. Why Other Options Are Wrong: They either contradict the implication or rely on unstated converses. Common Pitfalls: Equating “no call” with “strong network” (converse error). Final Answer: (iii) (iv)

Question 12

Logic consistency: Statement: “When Baby wears only sari, Crazy goes bungee jumping.” Select the consistent pair. (i) Baby wore sari.  (ii) Crazy went bungee jumping.  (iii) Baby wore only sari.  (iv) Crazy did not go bungee jumping.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The rule is: OnlySari → Jumps (if Baby wore only sari, then Crazy surely jumped). Given Data / Assumptions: “Only sari” is stronger than “sari.” Concept / Approach: Pick the pair reflecting the condition and its effect (order may be effect–cause in options but should be consistent). Step-by-Step Solution: (ii) Crazy jumped; (iii) Baby wore only sari → consistent with the implication. Verification / Alternative check: Note that (i) “wore sari” alone is not sufficient to guarantee the jump (it must be “only sari”). Why Other Options Are Wrong: They either negate the guaranteed outcome or use an insufficient antecedent. Common Pitfalls: Confusing “sari” with “only sari.” Final Answer: (ii) (iii)

Question 13

Logic consistency: Statement: “If Raman works the late-night shift, his sister makes coffee.” Select the consistent pair. (i) Raman works the late-night shift.  (ii) Raman works the morning shift.  (iii) His sister makes coffee.  (iv) His sister mak…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The implication is LateNight → Coffee. Given Data / Assumptions: Morning shift info is irrelevant to the implication. Concept / Approach: Pick the antecedent and its consequent together. Step-by-Step Solution: (i) Late-night; (iii) Coffee → matches the rule. Verification / Alternative check: No contradictions arise. Why Other Options Are Wrong: They either negate or introduce unrelated facts. Common Pitfalls: Assuming “morning shift” tells us anything about coffee. Final Answer: (i) (iii)

Question 14

Logic consistency: Statement: “All ineligible candidates do not get admission if they submit the form.” Choose the pair that fits this rule. (i) Ineligible student did not get admission.  (ii) Eligible student got admission.  (iii) He submitted the …

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Interpret the statement as: (Ineligible AND Submitted) → NoAdmission. Given Data / Assumptions: The rule requires two conditions (ineligible + submitted) to force the outcome (no admission). Concept / Approach: Pick a pair that coherently includes “submitted” and “no admission” tied to ineligibility. Step-by-Step Solution: (iii) He submitted the form; (i) Ineligible student did not get admission → consistent with the rule. Verification / Alternative check: (i)(iii) (option C) also lists compatible facts but the ordered pair (submitted → no admission for ineligible) is captured by option B as a clean pairing. Why Other Options Are Wrong: They include eligibility or omit the “submitted” trigger. Common Pitfalls: Forgetting the rule is a conjunction in the antecedent. Final Answer: (iii) (i)

Question 15

Logic consistency (disjunction): Statement: “Anu needs no clothes or she goes shopping.” Choose the most consistent pair. (i) Anu needs clothes.  (ii) She goes shopping.  (iii) Anu needs no clothes.  (iv) She does not go shopping.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The statement is a logical OR: (No-need) OR (Shopping). Any situation where at least one is true is consistent. Given Data / Assumptions: Typical everyday reading: if she needs no clothes, she may plausibly skip shopping. Concept / Approach: Select a non-contradictory, natural pair aligning with the disjunction. Step-by-Step Solution: (iii) Needs no clothes; (iv) Does not go shopping → satisfies the OR (first part true). Verification / Alternative check: (iii)(ii) would also satisfy the OR, but (iii)(iv) captures the pragmatic implication often expected in such items. Why Other Options Are Wrong: (iii)(i) is contradictory. Common Pitfalls: Assuming the OR forces the other part false (exclusive); here it is inclusive. Final Answer: (iii) (iv)

Question 16

Logic necessity (“only when”): Statement: “Only when the CM goes out, the roads are cleaned.” Pick the pair that fits the necessity correctly. (i) The roads are cleaned.  (ii) The roads are dirty.  (iii) The CM goes out.  (iv) The CM does not go out.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: “Only when” introduces a necessary condition. “Roads cleaned only when CM goes out” means: RoadsCleaned → CMOut. Given Data / Assumptions: We do not know that CMOut is sufficient; we only know it is necessary for roads to be cleaned. Concept / Approach: Select a pair matching the necessity direction. Step-by-Step Solution: (i) Roads cleaned; (iii) CM goes out → consistent with RoadsCleaned → CMOut. Verification / Alternative check: (iii)(i) treats CMOut as sufficient; the statement does not guarantee that. Why Other Options Are Wrong: They miss the necessity direction or introduce unrelated negatives. Common Pitfalls: Confusing necessary with sufficient conditions. Final Answer: (i) (iii)

Question 17

Logic consistency (disjunction with negation): Statement: “Anu either does not walk or she reads.” Pick a consistent pair. (i) Anu walks.  (ii) Anu does not walk.  (iii) Anu reads.  (iv) Anu does not read.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The statement is (~Walk) OR Read. Any situation with at least one true is acceptable. Given Data / Assumptions: No exclusivity is stated; both can be true simultaneously. Concept / Approach: Choose a pair that makes the disjunction obviously true. Step-by-Step Solution: (ii) Not walk; (iii) Reads → certainly satisfies (~W) OR R (both parts true). Verification / Alternative check: (ii)(iv) would force both (~W) and (~R), which still satisfies the OR (since ~W is true) but is less aligned with common-sense reading tests; (ii)(iii) is the cleanest. Why Other Options Are Wrong: They introduce contradictions or weaker, less direct support. Common Pitfalls: Assuming exclusivity where none is given. Final Answer: (ii) (iii)

Question 18

Logic trigger: Statement: “R and P are sent to play, when Q bawls and S watches.” Choose the pair that states trigger and outcome consistently. (i) R and P are sent to play.  (ii) Q bawls.  (iii) S watches.  (iv) Q bawls and S watches.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The rule: (Q bawls AND S watches) → (R and P sent to play). Given Data / Assumptions: Both conditions together trigger the action. Concept / Approach: State the trigger first, then the outcome. Step-by-Step Solution: (iv) Q bawls & S watches; (i) R and P are sent → consistent implication. Verification / Alternative check: Any pair lacking one of the trigger parts is insufficient. Why Other Options Are Wrong: They reverse direction or omit necessary conditions. Common Pitfalls: Assuming either (ii) or (iii) alone is enough. Final Answer: (iv) (i)

Question 19

Basic syllogism: Statement: “All who study are students.” Pick the pair that is consistent with this rule. (i) Isha studies.  (ii) Isha does not study.  (iii) Isha is a student.  (iv) Isha is not a student.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The syllogism is Study → Student. Given Data / Assumptions: No statement about non-studiers. Concept / Approach: Pick the antecedent and consequent pair. Step-by-Step Solution: (i) Isha studies; (iii) Isha is a student → valid consequence. Verification / Alternative check: Reverse (iii)(i) does not follow as a rule (students may or may not study at present). Why Other Options Are Wrong: They contradict or reverse the implication. Common Pitfalls: Assuming the converse. Final Answer: (i) (iii)

Question 20

Exclusive choice: Statement: “Either Tanu or Anu will go.” Choose the pair that is logically consistent (taking “may go” as possibility, not assertion). (i) Tanu may go.  (ii) Anu will go.  (iii) Tanu will not go.  (iv) Anu will not go.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: “Either … or …” commonly signals exclusivity of actual going, but (i) uses “may,” which is a possibility claim, not a factual assertion. Given Data / Assumptions: We treat “may go” as not committing to the outcome. Exactly one will actually go. Concept / Approach: If (ii) “Anu will go” states the actual outcome, then (i) “Tanu may go” can still be true as a mere possibility statement, even if ultimately she does not go. Step-by-Step Solution: Select (i)(ii) to avoid contradiction while honoring exclusivity in the factual outcome. Verification / Alternative check: Pairs asserting both “will go” and “will not go” for the same person are contradictions and must be rejected. Why Other Options Are Wrong: (ii)(iv) is a direct contradiction for Anu; (iii)(i) contradicts for Tanu; (ii)(i) vs (i)(ii) are equivalent in content—this key uses (i)(ii) in order. Common Pitfalls: Treating “may” as “will.” Final Answer: (i) (ii)

Logical Deduction Questions