Advertisements
Advertisements
प्रश्न
W, X, Y, and Z are four friends, who do not mind exchanging items. x has two chessboards each costing Rs. 500, and a record player. Z originally had a cycle and a walkman. Each cricket bat costs Rs. 700. Both W and Z got a cricket bat from Y. X gave his record player costing Rs. 2000 to Y. Z gets a camera costing Rs. 1500 from W. The cycle of Z costs Rs. 1000 and the walkman is for Rs. 700. Y had three cricket bats at the beginning and W had two cameras the total cost of which is Rs. 5000. X gave one of his chessboards to Z and took Z's cycle. Z gave his walkman to W.
Even after exchanges, an item of highest value remained in possession of:
पर्याय
W
X
Y
Z
उत्तर
W
Explanation:
First we will arrange the given information as shown below:
X has 2 chessboards + 1 record player
∴ Cost = 2 × 500 + 1 × 2000
= 3000 (at the beginning)
After transaction he has only 1 cycle and 1 chessboard
∴ Total Cost = 1000 + 500 = 1500
So, loss of X = 1500
Z has 1 cycle + 1 walkman
∴ Cost = 1000 + 700 = 1700 (at the beginning)
After transaction he has only 1 bat and 1 chessboard and 1 camera
∴ Total cost = 1 bat + 1 chessboard + 1 camera = 700 + 500 + 1500 = 2700
∴ Profit = 1000
Y has 3 bats
∴ Total cost = 3 × 700 = 2100 (at the beginning)
After transaction he has only 1 record player and 1 bat
∴ Total cost = 2000 + 700 = 2700
∴ Profit of Y = 600
W has 2 cameras
Cost = 5000 (at the beginning)
After transaction he has only 1 bat, 1 camera and 1 walkman
∴ Total cost = 1 bat + 1 camera + 1 Walkman
= 700 + 3500 + 700 = 4900
∴ Loss = 100
∴ W has a highest value item.
APPEARS IN
संबंधित प्रश्न
In this question comprise of one or more statements. Please answer the questions on the basis of the given statement(s). Please make the factual assumptions required by the question even if you believe the statement is false. `Where there is smoke, there is fire.' Which of the following statements, if true, would show that the above statement is false?
Direction: Read the following passage and answer the question that follows:
A minimalist understanding of architectural elements and accents ensued in deeply contemplative as well as immaculate design frames that spoke about the enchantment of jute, yarn and cotton thread in the solo of Purvai Rai painting at Art Alive exhibition. Purvai’s compositions contained the power of devotion in design in the sequence of threading and arranging jute, yarn and cotton threads that had echoes of inner roots. The action of creating and expressing both have a ritualistic focus. “Design for me is born out of imagination and quiet discipline, I have always had an interest in the chakra,” she explains. “I feel the language of Indian design came from ancient design traditions. So I play with subtle abstraction continuously created around textile-related conversations. I explore colour, texture, pattern, and aspects of ‘textile language’, and keep an eye also on knotting. I use jute, yarn, and cotton because it speaks of indigenous practices that go back into history.”
Which one of the following can be inferred from the passage?
W, X, Y, and Z are four friends, who do not mind exchanging items. x has two chessboards each costing Rs. 500, and a record player. Z originally had a cycle and a walkman. Each cricket bat costs Rs. 700. Both W and Z got a cricket bat from Y. X gave his record player costing Rs. 2000 to Y. Z gets a camera costing Rs. 1500 from W. The cycle of Z costs Rs. 1000 and the walkman is for Rs. 700. Y had three cricket bats at the beginning and W had two cameras the total cost of which is Rs. 5000. X gave one of his chessboards to Z and took Z's cycle. Z gave his walkman to W.
Among the things exchanged, which one faced the highest exchange value in percentage term.
Gayatri: Maharana Pratap was courageous no doubt, but his forces lost to the forces of Emperor Akbar the Great in the Battle of Haldighati. The king of a region such as Mewar and the Emperor of most of the Indian sub-continent at the time cannot both be eligible for the title, ‘the Great’, given the historical context.
Ranjini: Pratap never surrendered to Akbar in his lifetime despite Akbar sending several envoys to his great rival with the offer of making him a Mughal ally. Pratap’s defiance gave other Rajput rulers the courage to refuse alliance with Akbar. The victory in the Battle of Haldighati was a hollow victory for Akbar at best. Pratap’s forces were outnumbered by Akbar’s by far in the battle, but Pratap escaped with his life and subsequently recovered much of the territory lost in the battle. Maharana Pratap the Great received recognition of his greatness from none other than Emperor Akbar the Great. The latter is known to have wept on hearing the news of his rival’s death.
In support of which of the following does Gayatri state the fact that Maharana Pratap’s forces lost to the forces of Emperor Akbar the Great?
Gayatri: Maharana Pratap was courageous no doubt, but his forces lost to the forces of Emperor Akbar the Great in the Battle of Haldighati. The king of a region such as Mewar and the Emperor of most of the Indian sub-continent at the time cannot both be eligible for the title, ‘the Great’, given the historical context.
Ranjini: Pratap never surrendered to Akbar in his lifetime despite Akbar sending several envoys to his great rival with the offer of making him a Mughal ally. Pratap’s defiance gave other Rajput rulers the courage to refuse alliance with Akbar. The victory in the Battle of Haldighati was a hollow victory for Akbar at best. Pratap’s forces were outnumbered by Akbar’s by far in the battle, but Pratap escaped with his life and subsequently recovered much of the territory lost in the battle. Maharana Pratap the Great received recognition of his greatness from none other than Emperor Akbar the Great. The latter is known to have wept on hearing the news of his rival’s death.
Which of the following is the main conclusion of Ranjini’s statements?
Select the correct alternative from the given choices.
Each of the three persons - Ramu, Raman, and Rajan-belonged to exactly one of the different cities amongst Delhi, Mumbai and Chennai. Each person always gives two replies to any question asked. Out of these three, exactly one person always speaks the truth, another always lies and the other always alternates between truth and lie, in any order. When each was asked "Which city do you belong to?", the following were their replies:
Ramu: I am from Delhi. Raman is from Mumbai.
Raman: I am from Delhi. Rajan is from Chennai.
Rajan: Ramu is from Mumbai. Raman is from Delhi.
Based on the above, answer the following questions.
If there are exactly two persons who always tell the truth, and the third person either always lies or alternates between truth and lie, then which of the following statements must be false?
A passage is given below followed by several inferences. You have to examine each inference separately in the context of the passage and decide upon its degree of truth or falsity.
Investors today have more investment options than were available just a few years ago. Choice in any decision-making is good in so far it provides variety, differentiation and benchmarking. lt could also, however, at times lead to clutter and "noise" if the options are mostly similar and undifferentiated. To make sense of this choice conundrum, it is imperative for an investor to define objective - both returns and digestible risk and then identify the possible options. The investor also needs to select the mix and regularly monitor that objectives and investment outcomes remain aligned. Sounds simple, but can present the most confounding situation which multiplies with the quantum of wealth.
In the past, investors were generally guided by fund managers.
A fact situation and result is presented. The following statement has to be separately evaluated in relation to the fact-situation and result' Evaluate these statements with the following sequences of decisions. The first of these that you cannot eliminate is the correct answer.
Situation: Major X, an able officer in the Kapistan Army, failed to receive a promotion for eight years. Then he had been reassigned to a military supply depot in Khawalpindi, despite his university training in engineering and electronics,and his remarkably high-performance ratings from his commanding officers.X had never been an active member of any political party as a youth nor as an adult, yet neither had he given the party or his superiors any cause to doubth is absolute loyalty to Kapistan. X's brother-in-law had been a diplomat in theKapistan government until his death in 1971 in a plane crash on Koviet soil while he was working in the Kapistan Embassy in Kosco. X had always assumed that the mishap was indeed an accident, until his friend Y, a middle-level officer in the interior Ministry, broadly hinted that the plane crash had been an act of sabotage. Soon after the talk with Y, X visited his sister, the diplomat's widow, in her Kosco apartment. During the visit she asked X several questions that struck him as strange and inappropriate. As he was leaving her apartment, she asked X to wear her late husband's scarf and to return to his hotel by way of a certain park. Bewildered, but not wishing to offend his sister, X obeyed her odd instructions.
Result: Two months later, X received a promotion and was made Commander of theKapistan missile division in Kahore.
X's sister had arranged for her husband's fatal accident.
A fact situation and result is presented. The following statement has to be separately evaluated in relation to the fact-situation and result' Evaluate these statements with the following sequences of decisions. The first of these that you cannot eliminate is the correct answer.
Situation: Major X, an able officer in the Kapistan Army, failed to receive a promotion for eight years. Then he had been reassigned to a military supply depot in Khawalpindi, despite his university training in engineering and electronics,and his remarkably high-performance ratings from his commanding officers.X had never been an active member of any political party as a youth nor as an adult, yet neither had he given the party or his superiors any cause to doubth is absolute loyalty to Kapistan. X's brother-in-law had been a diplomat in theKapistan government until his death in 1971 in a plane crash on Koviet soil while he was working in the Kapistan Embassy in Kosco. X had always assumed that the mishap was indeed an accident, until his friend Y, a middle-level officer in the interior Ministry, broadly hinted that the plane crash had been an act of sabotage. Soon after the talk with Y, X visited his sister, the diplomat's widow, in her Kosco apartment. During the visit she asked X several questions that struck him as strange and inappropriate. As he was leaving her apartment, she asked X to wear her late husband's scarf and to return to his hotel by way of a certain park. Bewildered, but not wishing to offend his sister, X obeyed her odd instructions.
Result: Two months later, X received a promotion and was made Commander of the Kapistan missile division in Kahore.
X's sister was an operative in the Kapistan Secret Police, and her husband had been acting as a spy before his death.
In the question below are given one statement and two assumptions I and II. Examine the statements and select the correct assumption which is implicit in the statement using the following Code.
Statement: In case of any difficulty about this case, you may contact our company’s lawyer
Assumptions:
I. Each company has a lawyer of its own.
II. The company’s lawyer is thoroughly briefed about this case.
