Directions for the following 4 (four) items:
Read the following two passage and answer the items that follow. Your answers to these items should be based on the passage only.
passage-1
"In simple matters like shoe-making, we think only a specially trained person will serve our purpose, but in politics, we presume that everyone who knows how to get votes knows how to administer a State. When we are ill, we call for a trained physician, whose degree is a guarantee of specific preparation and technical competence-we do not ask for the handsomest physician, or the most eloquent one: well then, when the whole State is ill should we not look for the service and guidance of the wisest and the best?"
Which one of the following statements best reflects the message of the author of the passage?
We assume that in a democracy, any politician is qualified to administer a State.
Politicians should be selected from those trained in administration.
We need to devise a method of barring incompetence from public office.
As voters select their adminis-trators, the eligibility of politicians to administer a State cannot be questioned.
The passage draws an analogy between specialized professions (shoe-making, medicine) and politics. It argues that just as we seek trained professionals for specific tasks, we should seek competent and wise individuals to administer the State, rather than just those who can win votes. The core message is about the need for specific training and competence in political administration.
B) Politicians should be selected from those trained in administration. This option best captures the essence of the author's argument, which emphasizes the need for specific preparation, competence, and wisdom in those who administer the State, similar to how professionals are chosen in other fields.
Passage-2
The poverty line is quite unsatisfactory when it comes to grasping the extent of poverty in India. It is not only because of its extremely narrow definition of who is poor and the debatable methodology used to count the poor, but also because of a more fundamental assumption underlying it. It exclusively relies on the notion of poverty as insufficient income or insufficient purchasing power. One can better categorize it by calling it income poverty. If poverty is ultimately about deprivations affecting human well-being, then income poverty is only one aspect of it. Poverty of a life, in our view, lies not merely in the impoverished state in which the person actually lives, but also in the lack of real opportunity given by social constraints as well as personal circumstances to choose other types of living Even the relevance of low incomes, meager possessions, and other aspects of what are standardly seen as economic poverty relate ultimately to their role in curtailing capabilities, i.e., their role in severely restricting the choices people have to lead variable and valued lives.
Why is the methodology adopted in India to count the 'poor' debatable?
There is some confusion regarding what should constitute the poverty line'.
There are wide diversities in the condition of the rural and urban poor.
There is no uniform global standard for measuring income poverty.
It is based on the proposition of poverty as meagre income or buying capacity.
The question asks why the methodology adopted in India to count the 'poor' is debatable, based on the provided passage. We need to read the passage carefully to identify the core criticism of the poverty line methodology.
Correct Option: D) It is based on the proposition of poverty as meagre income or buying capacity.
This option directly captures the fundamental criticism highlighted in the passage: that the Indian methodology for counting the poor is debatable because it narrowly defines poverty solely in terms of insufficient income or purchasing power, ignoring other dimensions of human well-being and capabilities.
The question asks why income poverty is considered only one measure of counting the 'poor'. This implies that there are other dimensions of poverty beyond just income. We need to identify the option that best explains this limitation of income-based poverty measurement.
A) It talks of only one kind of deprivation ignoring all others. This is the most accurate reason. Poverty is a multi-dimensional phenomenon, encompassing deprivations in health, education, living standards, voice, security, and dignity, in addition to lack of income. An income-based measure alone fails to capture these broader aspects of human well-being and deprivation.
The question asks for the meaning of "poverty of a life." This phrase typically refers to a broader understanding of poverty that goes beyond mere lack of income. It encompasses various dimensions of human well-being and capabilities. We need to identify the option that best captures this comprehensive definition.
A) All deprivations in a human life which stem not only from lack of income but lack of real opportunities. This option best defines "poverty of a life" by encompassing both economic deprivation (lack of income) and the broader concept of limited capabilities and choices (lack of real opportunities). This aligns with contemporary understandings of poverty as a multi-dimensional phenomenon.
To find out how many times the faster runner passes the slower runner, we need to determine the relative speed between them. Then, we calculate the total distance covered by the faster runner relative to the slower runner over the entire race. Each time the faster runner gains a full lap on the slower runner, a pass occurs.
The total race distance is 3 km, which is 3000 m. The length of the circular course is 300 m.
\[ \text{Number of laps} = \frac{\text{Total race distance}}{\text{Length of one lap}} = \frac{3000\ \text{m}}{300\ \text{m}} = 10\ \text{laps} \]Let the speeds of X and Y be \(S_X\) and \(S_Y\) respectively. Their ratio is given as 3:2. So, \(S_X = 3k\) and \(S_Y = 2k\) for some constant \(k\).
Since they are running in the same direction, the relative speed is the difference between their speeds.
\[ \text{Relative Speed} = S_X - S_Y = 3k - 2k = k \]This means for every 3 units of distance X covers, Y covers 2 units, so X gains 1 unit of distance on Y.
When X completes 3 laps, Y completes 2 laps. In this time, X has gained 1 lap on Y. This can be expressed as the ratio of their speeds minus 1.
\[ \text{Laps gained per lap of Y} = \frac{S_X}{S_Y} - 1 = \frac{3}{2} - 1 = \frac{1}{2} \text{ lap} \]Alternatively, for every 3 laps X runs, X gains 1 lap on Y.
The total number of laps X runs in the race is 10 laps (since X is faster, X will complete the race first).
The number of times X passes Y is the number of full laps X gains on Y during the entire race. If X runs 10 laps, then Y runs \[\frac{2}{3} \times 10 = \frac{20}{3} = 6.67\] laps.
The number of laps X gains on Y is:
\[ \text{Laps gained} = \text{Laps run by X} - \text{Laps run by Y} = 10 - \frac{20}{3} = \frac{30 - 20}{3} = \frac{10}{3} = 3.33 \text{ laps} \]Since a pass occurs only when one runner completes a full lap more than the other, we consider only the integer part of the laps gained.
Therefore, X passes Y 3 times.
B) The faster runner (X) passes the slower runner (Y) 3 times during the race.
The problem describes a coding scheme where the English alphabet is reversed, and each letter is replaced by the letter occupying its position in the reversed sequence. We need to find the coded form of the word 'LUCKNOW' using this rule.
Correct Option: D) OFXPMLD
This problem can be solved by understanding the fundamental rule of elimination tournaments. In such a tournament, each match played results in one player being eliminated. The tournament continues until only one winner remains.
C) 149. In an elimination tournament where there is only one winner, the number of matches played is always one less than the total number of participants. This is because each match eliminates exactly one player, and the tournament concludes when only one player remains undefeated. So, if there are \(N\) entrants, \(N-1\) players must be eliminated, which means \(N-1\) matches are played.
\[ \text{Number of matches} = \text{Number of entrants} - 1 \]\[ \text{Number of matches} = 150 - 1 = 149 \]We need to find the count of 3-digit natural numbers that satisfy three conditions: (1) no repetition of digits, (2) all digits are odd, and (3) the number is divisible by 5. We will determine the available odd digits, then use the divisibility rule for 5 to fix the last digit, and finally arrange the remaining digits for the first two places.
B) 12 is the correct answer. There are 12 such 3-digit numbers that meet all the given criteria.
Consider the Question and two Statements given below:
Question: Is x an integer?
Statement-1: x/3 is not an integer.
Statement-2: 3x is an integer.
Which one of the following is correct in respect of the Question and the Statements?
Statement-1 alone is sufficient to answer the Question
Statement-2 alone is sufficient to answer the Question
Both Statement-1 and Statement-2 are sufficient to answer the Question
Both Statement-1 and Statement-2 are not sufficient to answer the Question
We need to determine if 'x' is an integer using the given statements. We will analyze each statement individually and then combine them to see if they provide a definitive answer to the question.
If \(x/3\) is not an integer, it means \(x\) cannot be a multiple of 3. For example:
Since \(x\) can be an integer (e.g., 1) or not an integer (e.g., 1.5) while satisfying Statement-1, Statement-1 alone is not sufficient to determine if \(x\) is an integer.
If \(3x\) is an integer, let \(3x = k\), where \(k\) is an integer. Then \(x = k/3\).
Since \(x\) can be an integer (e.g., 1) or not an integer (e.g., 1/3) while satisfying Statement-2, Statement-2 alone is not sufficient to determine if \(x\) is an integer.
From Statement-2, we know that \(x = k/3\) for some integer \(k\).
From Statement-1, we know that \(x/3\) is not an integer. Substituting \(x = k/3\):
\[ \frac{x}{3} = \frac{k/3}{3} = \frac{k}{9} \]So, Statement-1 implies that \(k/9\) is not an integer. This means \(k\) cannot be a multiple of 9.
Now we have two conditions for \(x\):
Let's check examples:
Since \(x\) can be an integer (e.g., 1) or not an integer (e.g., 1/3) even when both statements are considered together, both statements are not sufficient to answer the question.
Both Statement-1 and Statement-2 are not sufficient to answer the Question. As shown in the step-by-step analysis, even when combined, there exist values of \(x\) that satisfy both statements where \(x\) is an integer, and values of \(x\) that satisfy both statements where \(x\) is not an integer.
To find the resultant increase in price after a series of percentage changes, we can assume an initial price and apply each percentage change sequentially. Alternatively, we can use a multiplicative factor for each percentage change.
The price increases by 25%. The new price will be:
\[ P_1 = P \times \left(1 + \frac{25}{100}\right) = 100 \times (1 + 0.25) = 100 \times 1.25 = 125 \]The price \(P_1\) is then decreased by 20%. The new price will be:
\[ P_2 = P_1 \times \left(1 - \frac{20}{100}\right) = 125 \times (1 - 0.20) = 125 \times 0.80 = 100 \]The price \(P_2\) is then increased by 10%. The final price will be:
\[ P_3 = P_2 \times \left(1 + \frac{10}{100}\right) = 100 \times (1 + 0.10) = 100 \times 1.10 = 110 \]The original price was 100, and the final price is 110. The resultant increase in price is:
\[ \text{Resultant Increase} = P_3 - P = 110 - 100 = 10 \]Since the initial price was 100, an increase of 10 means a 10% increase.
\[ \text{Percentage Increase} = \frac{\text{Resultant Increase}}{\text{Original Price}} \times 100 \% = \frac{10}{100} \times 100 \% = 10 \% \]Correct Option: B) 10% is the resultant increase in the price.