📣🎊🎉 Today Overall slot Questions🎉🎊📣
🔝🔝🔝🔝🔝🔝🔝🔝🔝🔝🔝🔝🔝🔝🔝🔝
IBPS PO 2017 Prelims – 7 Oct
Number Series:
17,98,26,89,35,?
2,17,89,359,1079,?
3,5,15,45,113,?
7,4.5,5.5,12,49,?
3240,540,108,27,?,4.5
7, 7, 13, 37, 97, ?
3.25, 6.5, 19.5, 78, 390, ?
68, 117, 61, 124, 54, ?
3, 5, 13, 43, 177, ?
9, 3.5, 2.5, 4, 15, ?
Approximation:
√80.997 – √25.001 * √120.98 + √16.02 =?55.01 – 345.02/22.99 = 2*?
(184.002 – 29/5) * 29.997 = ?
√(3099.985 / 62.001 + 14.001) = ?
111.999 * 51 / 14.02 = 11.002 + ?
Miscellaneous:
1. Simple interest on the sum A @ 11% per annum and compound interest on Sum
B which is 400 more than A in 2yrs is 140% more of simple interest of
A .. find value of A.
2. Ranjeet has three varieties of rice costing 18 rs. /kg., 22 rs. /kg. and 40 rs./kg. Find the possible ratio in which
he should mix these three varieties so that on selling mixture at 32 rs./kg. he may get a profit of 28%
3.A, B, C, D are four members of a family whose sum of ages is 176. Four years ago the ratio of A:B:C:D is 11:9:4:16. What is A’s percentage?
Syllogism:
1. Statement
All remarks are feedbacks
Some feedbacks are words
No word is a digit
Conclusion:-
some feedbacks are definitely not digits
All digits being feedbacks is a possibility
2.All remarks are feedbacks
Some feedbacks are words
No word is a digit
Conclusion:-
All remarks being words is a possibility
At least some remarks are digits
3.Statement
Some files are boxes
All boxes are cottons
No cotton is a plastic
Conclusion:-
No file is a plastic
Some files are plastics
4. Some desks are chairs
Some chairs are seats
No seat is a table
Conclusion:-
All desks can never be tables
Some chairs are definitely not tables
5.All routes are ways
All ways are paths
Some ways are bridges
Conclusion:-
Atleast some bridges are routes
All routes being bridges is a possibility.
Inequalities:
1.L>I=N>P;I≥R>K;N≤E<Z
(i) E>P (ii) R<L
2.S>A=N≥D; A≥L>E; M≤L≤D
(i) S>E (i) L<S
3. P≥V≥R<=E<Y; G≥E>N
(i)P>N (ii) G≥Y
4.L>I=N>P; I≥R>K; N≤E<Z
(i) K>N (ii) I<Z
Reading Comprehension:
The effects of the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression are forcing changes on state governments and the U.S. economy that could linger for decades. By one Federal Reserve estimate, the country lost almost an entire year’s worth of economic activity – nearly $14 trillion – during the recession from 2007 to 2009.The deep and persistent losses of the recession forced states to make broad cuts in spending and public workforces. For businesses, the recession led to changes in expansion plans and worker compensation. And for individual Americans, it has meant a future postponed, as fewer buy houses and start families. Five years after the financial crash, the country is still struggling to recover. “In the aftermath of [previous] recessions there were strong recoveries. That is not true this time around,” said Gary Burtless, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. “This is more like the pace getting out of the Great Depression.” For years, housing served as the backbone of economic growth and as an investment opportunity that propelled generations of Americans into the middle class. But the financial crisis burst the housing bubble and devastated the real estate market, leaving millions facing foreclosure, millions more underwater, and generally stripping Americans of years’ worth of accumulated wealth.
Anthony B. Sanders, a professor of real estate finance at George Mason University, said even the nascent housing recovery can’t escape the effects of the recession. Home values may have rebounded, he said, but the factors driving that recovery are very different than those that drove the growth in the market in the 1990s and 2000s. Sanders said more than half of recent home purchases have been made in cash, which signals investors and hedge funds are taking advantage of cheap properties. That could freeze out average buyers and also means little real economic growth underpins those sales. Those effects are clear in homeownership rates, which continue to decline. In the second quarter of this year, the U.S. homeownership rate was 65.1%, according to Census Bureau data, the lowest since 1995. In the mid-2000s, it topped 69%, capping a steady pace of growth that began after the early 1990s recession. Reversing that will be a challenge, in part because credit has tightened and lending rules have been toughened in an effort to avoid the mistakes that inflated the housing bubble in the first place.
“Credit expanded, and now contracted, and it’s going to be tight like this as far as the eye can see,” Sanders said. “We so destroyed so many households when the bubble burst, there’s just not the groundswell to fill the demand again.” Some are skeptical that the tight credit market and new efforts to regulate the financial markets, like the Dodd-Frank law, will prove lasting. Americans have often responded with calls for regulation after financial sector-driven crises and accusations of mismanagement, according to Brookings’ Burtless.
“But eventually, those fires cool down,” he said. “It’s not as though this memory of what can go wrong sticks with us very long.” That can be seen in the intense efforts to water down Dodd-Frank’s regulations, Burtless said. Federal regulators have already made moves to relax requirements for some potential homeowners who were victims of the recent housing crisis. Even those steps and an unlikely return to easy credit might not fuel a full housing recovery without economic growth to back it up. As Sanders, referring to the growth in low-wage and part-time employment, put it: “At those wages, it’s tough to scramble together down payments and mortgages.”
Turmoil in the housing market has already reshaped the makeup of households nationwide. Homeownership rates among people with children under 18 fell sharply during the recession, declining 15% between 2005 and 2011, according to Census Bureau data. In some states it was far worse. For Michigan, the decline in homeownership was 23%, and in Arizona and California it was 22%. Lackluster job growth has outlived the downturn. A study by the Economic Policy Institute showed wages for all workers, when adjusted for inflation, grew just 1.5% between 2000 and 2007. But the last five years wiped out even those modest gains—the study found wages declined for the bottom 70% of all workers since the recession began. However, some areas have seen manufacturing jobs climb back from recessionary lows, and the energy sector has been a boon for some Midwestern states. One hopeful sign for workers is the shift away from manufacturing growth in the typically low-wage South back toward the Rust Belt states, reversing a movement that was taking hold before the downturn. That trend is documented in a 2012 report from the Brookings Institution, “Locating American Manufacturing: Trends in the Geography of Production.” From 2000 to 2010, both the Midwest and South lost manufacturing jobs at about the national rate of 34%. But the Midwest has seen nearly half of all manufacturing jobs gained since 2010, almost double the increase in the South. For Michigan, the growth was 19%; in Indiana, 12%. Even with that growth, there are caveats. Autoworker unions have ceded ground with companies on wages and benefits, for example, allowing new hires to work for lower pay and fewer benefits than those who’ve held their jobs longer. Unemployment remains stubbornly high in some states, and the jobs created have leaned heavily toward part-time and low-pay work. A study from the San Francisco Federal Reserve found the proportion of U.S. jobs that are part-time is high, as many of the jobs lost during the recession have not returned.
Massa’s story would be familiar to many coffee farmers in Uganda, and around the world. Coffee is highly vulnerable to climate change. Rising temperatures and increasingly erratic rainfall are already exposing trees to more pests and diseases, and decreasing both the quantity and quality of the crop, according to a global survey of coffee research published in September. Overall, the survey found that climate pressure could reduce the area suitable worldwide for coffee production 50 percent by 2050. That would be a devastating blow to the global coffee supply, which is already struggling to keep pace with rising demand. A paper published in Nature in June made similar dire predictions for Ethiopia, driving home the point for East Africa. For coffee addicts in the U.S. and Europe, these impacts will likely manifest as a slightly higher bill for a slightly worse cup of coffee. But for the world’s 25 million coffee farmers, most of whom are smallholders like Massa whose fortunes rise and fall with the harvest, the consequences will be much more dire.
Uganda is especially vulnerable, because coffee is the country’s economic cornerstone. Now, scientists, government officials, farmers, and entrepreneurs, from the top of Mount Elgon to downtown Kampala to remote areas still reeling from warlord Joseph Kony, are scrambling to save the industry from climate change.
Uganda ranks number eight worldwide in coffee production by volume, on par with Peru, and second in Africa after Ethiopia. Uganda typically produces 3-4 million 60-kilogram bags of coffee each year, which accounts for only two to three percent of global production and is far below behemoths like Brazil (55 million bags) or Vietnam (25 million). The majority of what Ugandan farmers grow is Robusta, a relatively low-quality variety that is often used for mass production—think Folgers, rather than your local hipster roastery.
Nevertheless, over the past century, coffee here has advanced into Uganda’s most important and valuable industry, worth more than $400 million. It’s responsible for at least 20 percent of the country’s export revenue, and according to the Uganda Coffee Federation, one in five Ugandans, nearly eight million people, derive most or all of their income from coffee. Roughly 90 percent of the country’s coffee is produced by smallholders like Massa. President Yoweri Museveni, who has ruled Uganda since 1986 and cultivates a folky farmer-statesman persona, refers to coffee as an “anti-poverty crop” and is pushing an ambitious (and according to many experts here, completely unattainable) goal of increasing production five-fold, to 20 million bags by 2020. Coffee demand worldwide is projected to double by 2050, and Uganda wants in. It could be a solution to a variety of chronic social problems, particularly the rural poverty and food insecurity that afflict one-quarter of the population, and a $3.3 billion trade deficit (Uganda spends twice as much on petroleum imports as it earns from coffee).
But challenges abound, even without climate change. Farmers often lack access to basic equipment like fertilizer, irrigation, and high-quality seeds; services like bank loans, agricultural training, and market data; and infrastructure like paved roads and processing facilities. Most farms are small—the larger ones no bigger than a football field—and with a rapidly growing rural population, the land is divided into ever-smaller pieces. Weak land rights laws leave small farmers exposed to land grabs by wealthy neighbors or foreign investors. Many young people would rather try their luck in Kampala than follow their parents onto the farm. Women are frequently sidelined because land and household finances are traditionally controlled by men.Overall, Uganda’s coffee farming practices have not advanced much since the time of Massa’s forebears, and farming incomes have stagnated among the lowest levels in Africa. As a result, farmers here are at a disadvantage to compete in a global market increasingly characterized by mechanization and unforgiving quality standards—and they’re entering the fight against climate change with one hand tied behind their backs.
Direction(1-5): In the question given below, there is error in one or more sentences. Please select the most appropriate option, out of the five options given for each of the following sentences, which, in your view, is grammatically incorrect or structurally incorrect.
1. (I)Please put on your shoes.
(II)Please put your shoes on.
(III)Please put on them.
(IV)Please put them on.
select the most appropriate option
(a) ONLY I
(b) Only II
(c) Only III
(d) Only Iv
(e) both (II) and (IV)
2. (I)The teacher called on Josh.
(II)The teacher called Josh on.
(III)The teacher called on him.
(IV)The teacher called Josh on him.
select the most appropriate option
(a) ONLY I
(b) Only II
(c) Only III
(d) Only Iv
(e) both (II) and (IV)
3. (I)The detectives came some new clues across in their investigation.
(II)The detectives came across some new clues in
their investigation
(III)The detectives came out some new clues across in their investigation.
(IV)The detectives came some new across clues in their investigation.
select the most appropriate option
(a) ONLY II
(b) Only I
(c) Only III
(d) Only Iv
(e) both (I), (III) and (IV)
4. (I)The teacher called on Josh.
(II)The teacher called Josh on.
(III)The teacher called on him.
(IV)The teacher called Josh on him.
select the most appropriate option
(a) ONLY I
(b) Only II
(c) Only III
(d) Only Iv
(e) both (II) and (IV)
5. (I)The new employee finally turned up at noon.
(II)The new employee finally turned himself up at noon.
(III)The new employee finally turned it up at noon.
(IV)The new employee finally turned at noon up.
select the most appropriate option
(a) ONLY I
(b) both (II) and (IV)
(c) Only III
(d) Only (I) and (III)
(e) (II), (III) and (IV).
Puzzle:
J, K, L, M, N, O and P are seven different boxes of different colours i.e. Brown, Orange, Silver, Pink, Yellow, White and Green but not necessarily in the same order.
Box which is of Brown colour is immediately above J. There are only two box between M and the box which is of Brown colour. Box which is of Silver colour is above M but not immediately above M. Only three box are between L and the box which is of Silver colour.
The box which is of Green colour is immediately above L. The box which is of Pink colour is immediately above the box G. Only one box is there between K and N. Box K is above N. Neither box K nor J is of Yellow colour. J is not of orange colour.
Seven person A, B, C, D, E, F G likes seven colours. Yellow White Red Orange Blue Gray Black. They visit in different days starting from Monday to Sunday
1) A visits one day after Thursday.
2) Only 4 people are in between A and B
3) The one who likes Red colour visits immediately after B.
4) Only one person visit between Red and Blue
5) The one who like white colour visit before one of days on which day C visits
6) The one who like white colour does not visit on Monday.
7) Only 1 person is in between D and E. D like Yellow.
8) There are same as many person in between A and Blue colour which are one less in between B and C.
9) Neither G nor F likes Black.
10) G does not visit on Saturday
Miscellaneous:
A person start walking at point A and walk 14 m south then he take right turn walk 8m & reaches to point B. Again he take right turn & walk 3m. Finally he take a right turn and walk 21 m to reach to point C.
🔝🔝🔝🔝🔝🔝🔝🔝🔝🔝🔝🔝🔝🔝🔝🔝
IBPS PO 2017 Prelims – 7 Oct
Number Series:
17,98,26,89,35,?
2,17,89,359,1079,?
3,5,15,45,113,?
7,4.5,5.5,12,49,?
3240,540,108,27,?,4.5
7, 7, 13, 37, 97, ?
3.25, 6.5, 19.5, 78, 390, ?
68, 117, 61, 124, 54, ?
3, 5, 13, 43, 177, ?
9, 3.5, 2.5, 4, 15, ?
Approximation:
√80.997 – √25.001 * √120.98 + √16.02 =?55.01 – 345.02/22.99 = 2*?
(184.002 – 29/5) * 29.997 = ?
√(3099.985 / 62.001 + 14.001) = ?
111.999 * 51 / 14.02 = 11.002 + ?
Miscellaneous:
1. Simple interest on the sum A @ 11% per annum and compound interest on Sum
B which is 400 more than A in 2yrs is 140% more of simple interest of
A .. find value of A.
2. Ranjeet has three varieties of rice costing 18 rs. /kg., 22 rs. /kg. and 40 rs./kg. Find the possible ratio in which
he should mix these three varieties so that on selling mixture at 32 rs./kg. he may get a profit of 28%
3.A, B, C, D are four members of a family whose sum of ages is 176. Four years ago the ratio of A:B:C:D is 11:9:4:16. What is A’s percentage?
Syllogism:
1. Statement
All remarks are feedbacks
Some feedbacks are words
No word is a digit
Conclusion:-
some feedbacks are definitely not digits
All digits being feedbacks is a possibility
2.All remarks are feedbacks
Some feedbacks are words
No word is a digit
Conclusion:-
All remarks being words is a possibility
At least some remarks are digits
3.Statement
Some files are boxes
All boxes are cottons
No cotton is a plastic
Conclusion:-
No file is a plastic
Some files are plastics
4. Some desks are chairs
Some chairs are seats
No seat is a table
Conclusion:-
All desks can never be tables
Some chairs are definitely not tables
5.All routes are ways
All ways are paths
Some ways are bridges
Conclusion:-
Atleast some bridges are routes
All routes being bridges is a possibility.
Inequalities:
1.L>I=N>P;I≥R>K;N≤E<Z
(i) E>P (ii) R<L
2.S>A=N≥D; A≥L>E; M≤L≤D
(i) S>E (i) L<S
3. P≥V≥R<=E<Y; G≥E>N
(i)P>N (ii) G≥Y
4.L>I=N>P; I≥R>K; N≤E<Z
(i) K>N (ii) I<Z
Reading Comprehension:
The effects of the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression are forcing changes on state governments and the U.S. economy that could linger for decades. By one Federal Reserve estimate, the country lost almost an entire year’s worth of economic activity – nearly $14 trillion – during the recession from 2007 to 2009.The deep and persistent losses of the recession forced states to make broad cuts in spending and public workforces. For businesses, the recession led to changes in expansion plans and worker compensation. And for individual Americans, it has meant a future postponed, as fewer buy houses and start families. Five years after the financial crash, the country is still struggling to recover. “In the aftermath of [previous] recessions there were strong recoveries. That is not true this time around,” said Gary Burtless, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. “This is more like the pace getting out of the Great Depression.” For years, housing served as the backbone of economic growth and as an investment opportunity that propelled generations of Americans into the middle class. But the financial crisis burst the housing bubble and devastated the real estate market, leaving millions facing foreclosure, millions more underwater, and generally stripping Americans of years’ worth of accumulated wealth.
Anthony B. Sanders, a professor of real estate finance at George Mason University, said even the nascent housing recovery can’t escape the effects of the recession. Home values may have rebounded, he said, but the factors driving that recovery are very different than those that drove the growth in the market in the 1990s and 2000s. Sanders said more than half of recent home purchases have been made in cash, which signals investors and hedge funds are taking advantage of cheap properties. That could freeze out average buyers and also means little real economic growth underpins those sales. Those effects are clear in homeownership rates, which continue to decline. In the second quarter of this year, the U.S. homeownership rate was 65.1%, according to Census Bureau data, the lowest since 1995. In the mid-2000s, it topped 69%, capping a steady pace of growth that began after the early 1990s recession. Reversing that will be a challenge, in part because credit has tightened and lending rules have been toughened in an effort to avoid the mistakes that inflated the housing bubble in the first place.
“Credit expanded, and now contracted, and it’s going to be tight like this as far as the eye can see,” Sanders said. “We so destroyed so many households when the bubble burst, there’s just not the groundswell to fill the demand again.” Some are skeptical that the tight credit market and new efforts to regulate the financial markets, like the Dodd-Frank law, will prove lasting. Americans have often responded with calls for regulation after financial sector-driven crises and accusations of mismanagement, according to Brookings’ Burtless.
“But eventually, those fires cool down,” he said. “It’s not as though this memory of what can go wrong sticks with us very long.” That can be seen in the intense efforts to water down Dodd-Frank’s regulations, Burtless said. Federal regulators have already made moves to relax requirements for some potential homeowners who were victims of the recent housing crisis. Even those steps and an unlikely return to easy credit might not fuel a full housing recovery without economic growth to back it up. As Sanders, referring to the growth in low-wage and part-time employment, put it: “At those wages, it’s tough to scramble together down payments and mortgages.”
Turmoil in the housing market has already reshaped the makeup of households nationwide. Homeownership rates among people with children under 18 fell sharply during the recession, declining 15% between 2005 and 2011, according to Census Bureau data. In some states it was far worse. For Michigan, the decline in homeownership was 23%, and in Arizona and California it was 22%. Lackluster job growth has outlived the downturn. A study by the Economic Policy Institute showed wages for all workers, when adjusted for inflation, grew just 1.5% between 2000 and 2007. But the last five years wiped out even those modest gains—the study found wages declined for the bottom 70% of all workers since the recession began. However, some areas have seen manufacturing jobs climb back from recessionary lows, and the energy sector has been a boon for some Midwestern states. One hopeful sign for workers is the shift away from manufacturing growth in the typically low-wage South back toward the Rust Belt states, reversing a movement that was taking hold before the downturn. That trend is documented in a 2012 report from the Brookings Institution, “Locating American Manufacturing: Trends in the Geography of Production.” From 2000 to 2010, both the Midwest and South lost manufacturing jobs at about the national rate of 34%. But the Midwest has seen nearly half of all manufacturing jobs gained since 2010, almost double the increase in the South. For Michigan, the growth was 19%; in Indiana, 12%. Even with that growth, there are caveats. Autoworker unions have ceded ground with companies on wages and benefits, for example, allowing new hires to work for lower pay and fewer benefits than those who’ve held their jobs longer. Unemployment remains stubbornly high in some states, and the jobs created have leaned heavily toward part-time and low-pay work. A study from the San Francisco Federal Reserve found the proportion of U.S. jobs that are part-time is high, as many of the jobs lost during the recession have not returned.
Massa’s story would be familiar to many coffee farmers in Uganda, and around the world. Coffee is highly vulnerable to climate change. Rising temperatures and increasingly erratic rainfall are already exposing trees to more pests and diseases, and decreasing both the quantity and quality of the crop, according to a global survey of coffee research published in September. Overall, the survey found that climate pressure could reduce the area suitable worldwide for coffee production 50 percent by 2050. That would be a devastating blow to the global coffee supply, which is already struggling to keep pace with rising demand. A paper published in Nature in June made similar dire predictions for Ethiopia, driving home the point for East Africa. For coffee addicts in the U.S. and Europe, these impacts will likely manifest as a slightly higher bill for a slightly worse cup of coffee. But for the world’s 25 million coffee farmers, most of whom are smallholders like Massa whose fortunes rise and fall with the harvest, the consequences will be much more dire.
Uganda is especially vulnerable, because coffee is the country’s economic cornerstone. Now, scientists, government officials, farmers, and entrepreneurs, from the top of Mount Elgon to downtown Kampala to remote areas still reeling from warlord Joseph Kony, are scrambling to save the industry from climate change.
Uganda ranks number eight worldwide in coffee production by volume, on par with Peru, and second in Africa after Ethiopia. Uganda typically produces 3-4 million 60-kilogram bags of coffee each year, which accounts for only two to three percent of global production and is far below behemoths like Brazil (55 million bags) or Vietnam (25 million). The majority of what Ugandan farmers grow is Robusta, a relatively low-quality variety that is often used for mass production—think Folgers, rather than your local hipster roastery.
Nevertheless, over the past century, coffee here has advanced into Uganda’s most important and valuable industry, worth more than $400 million. It’s responsible for at least 20 percent of the country’s export revenue, and according to the Uganda Coffee Federation, one in five Ugandans, nearly eight million people, derive most or all of their income from coffee. Roughly 90 percent of the country’s coffee is produced by smallholders like Massa. President Yoweri Museveni, who has ruled Uganda since 1986 and cultivates a folky farmer-statesman persona, refers to coffee as an “anti-poverty crop” and is pushing an ambitious (and according to many experts here, completely unattainable) goal of increasing production five-fold, to 20 million bags by 2020. Coffee demand worldwide is projected to double by 2050, and Uganda wants in. It could be a solution to a variety of chronic social problems, particularly the rural poverty and food insecurity that afflict one-quarter of the population, and a $3.3 billion trade deficit (Uganda spends twice as much on petroleum imports as it earns from coffee).
But challenges abound, even without climate change. Farmers often lack access to basic equipment like fertilizer, irrigation, and high-quality seeds; services like bank loans, agricultural training, and market data; and infrastructure like paved roads and processing facilities. Most farms are small—the larger ones no bigger than a football field—and with a rapidly growing rural population, the land is divided into ever-smaller pieces. Weak land rights laws leave small farmers exposed to land grabs by wealthy neighbors or foreign investors. Many young people would rather try their luck in Kampala than follow their parents onto the farm. Women are frequently sidelined because land and household finances are traditionally controlled by men.Overall, Uganda’s coffee farming practices have not advanced much since the time of Massa’s forebears, and farming incomes have stagnated among the lowest levels in Africa. As a result, farmers here are at a disadvantage to compete in a global market increasingly characterized by mechanization and unforgiving quality standards—and they’re entering the fight against climate change with one hand tied behind their backs.
Direction(1-5): In the question given below, there is error in one or more sentences. Please select the most appropriate option, out of the five options given for each of the following sentences, which, in your view, is grammatically incorrect or structurally incorrect.
1. (I)Please put on your shoes.
(II)Please put your shoes on.
(III)Please put on them.
(IV)Please put them on.
select the most appropriate option
(a) ONLY I
(b) Only II
(c) Only III
(d) Only Iv
(e) both (II) and (IV)
2. (I)The teacher called on Josh.
(II)The teacher called Josh on.
(III)The teacher called on him.
(IV)The teacher called Josh on him.
select the most appropriate option
(a) ONLY I
(b) Only II
(c) Only III
(d) Only Iv
(e) both (II) and (IV)
3. (I)The detectives came some new clues across in their investigation.
(II)The detectives came across some new clues in
their investigation
(III)The detectives came out some new clues across in their investigation.
(IV)The detectives came some new across clues in their investigation.
select the most appropriate option
(a) ONLY II
(b) Only I
(c) Only III
(d) Only Iv
(e) both (I), (III) and (IV)
4. (I)The teacher called on Josh.
(II)The teacher called Josh on.
(III)The teacher called on him.
(IV)The teacher called Josh on him.
select the most appropriate option
(a) ONLY I
(b) Only II
(c) Only III
(d) Only Iv
(e) both (II) and (IV)
5. (I)The new employee finally turned up at noon.
(II)The new employee finally turned himself up at noon.
(III)The new employee finally turned it up at noon.
(IV)The new employee finally turned at noon up.
select the most appropriate option
(a) ONLY I
(b) both (II) and (IV)
(c) Only III
(d) Only (I) and (III)
(e) (II), (III) and (IV).
Puzzle:
J, K, L, M, N, O and P are seven different boxes of different colours i.e. Brown, Orange, Silver, Pink, Yellow, White and Green but not necessarily in the same order.
Box which is of Brown colour is immediately above J. There are only two box between M and the box which is of Brown colour. Box which is of Silver colour is above M but not immediately above M. Only three box are between L and the box which is of Silver colour.
The box which is of Green colour is immediately above L. The box which is of Pink colour is immediately above the box G. Only one box is there between K and N. Box K is above N. Neither box K nor J is of Yellow colour. J is not of orange colour.
Seven person A, B, C, D, E, F G likes seven colours. Yellow White Red Orange Blue Gray Black. They visit in different days starting from Monday to Sunday
1) A visits one day after Thursday.
2) Only 4 people are in between A and B
3) The one who likes Red colour visits immediately after B.
4) Only one person visit between Red and Blue
5) The one who like white colour visit before one of days on which day C visits
6) The one who like white colour does not visit on Monday.
7) Only 1 person is in between D and E. D like Yellow.
8) There are same as many person in between A and Blue colour which are one less in between B and C.
9) Neither G nor F likes Black.
10) G does not visit on Saturday
Miscellaneous:
A person start walking at point A and walk 14 m south then he take right turn walk 8m & reaches to point B. Again he take right turn & walk 3m. Finally he take a right turn and walk 21 m to reach to point C.
No comments:
Post a Comment