test 1

The sum of the factors of a number is 124. What is the number?

The product of 4 consecutive even numbers is always divisible by

Sum of first 25 terms in AP is 525, sum of the next 25 terms is 725, what is the common difference?

LOGICAL REASONING :

Mr Bankatlal acted as a judge for the beauty contest. There were four participants, viz. Ms Andhra Pradesh, Ms Uttar Pradesh, Ms West Bengal and Ms Maharashtra. Mrs Bankatlal, who was very anxious about the result, asked him about it as soon as he was back home. Mr Bankatlal just told that the one who was wearing the yellow saree won the contest. When Mrs Bankatlal pressed for further details, he elaborated as follows:
1. All of them were sitting in a row.
2. All of them wore sarees of different colours, viz. green, yellow, white, red.
3. There was only one runner-up and she was sitting beside Ms. Maharashtra.
4 .The runner-up was wearing the green saree.
5. Ms West Bengal was not sitting at the ends and was not the runner up.
6 .The winner and the runner-up are not sitting adjacent to each other.
7 .Ms Maharashtra was wearing white saree.
8 .Ms Andhra Pradesh was not wearing the green saree.
9 .Participants wearing yellow saree and white saree were at the ends.

Question 1: Who wore the red saree?

Q9 continues

Mr Bankatlal acted as a judge for the beauty contest. There were four participants, viz. Ms Andhra Pradesh, Ms Uttar Pradesh, Ms West Bengal and Ms Maharashtra. Mrs Bankatlal, who was very anxious about the result, asked him about it as soon as he was back home. Mr Bankatlal just told that the one who was wearing the yellow saree won the contest. When Mrs Bankatlal pressed for further details, he elaborated as follows:
1. All of them were sitting in a row.
2. All of them wore sarees of different colours, viz. green, yellow, white, red.
3. There was only one runner-up and she was sitting beside Ms. Maharashtra.
4 .The runner-up was wearing the green saree.
5. Ms West Bengal was not sitting at the ends and was not the runner up.
6 .The winner and the runner-up are not sitting adjacent to each other.
7 .Ms Maharashtra was wearing white saree.
8 .Ms Andhra Pradesh was not wearing the green saree.
9 .Participants wearing yellow saree and white saree were at the ends.

Question 2: Ms. West Bengal was sitting adjacent to

Q9 continues

Mr Bankatlal acted as a judge for the beauty contest. There were four participants, viz. Ms Andhra Pradesh, Ms Uttar Pradesh, Ms West Bengal and Ms Maharashtra. Mrs Bankatlal, who was very anxious about the result, asked him about it as soon as he was back home. Mr Bankatlal just told that the one who was wearing the yellow saree won the contest. When Mrs Bankatlal pressed for further details, he elaborated as follows:
1. All of them were sitting in a row.
2. All of them wore sarees of different colours, viz. green, yellow, white, red.
3. There was only one runner-up and she was sitting beside Ms. Maharashtra.
4 .The runner-up was wearing the green saree.
5. Ms West Bengal was not sitting at the ends and was not the runner up.
6 .The winner and the runner-up are not sitting adjacent to each other.
7 .Ms Maharashtra was wearing white saree.
8 .Ms Andhra Pradesh was not wearing the green saree.
9 .Participants wearing yellow saree and white saree were at the ends.

Question 3: Which saree was worn by Ms Andhra Pradesh?

Q9 continues

Mr Bankatlal acted as a judge for the beauty contest. There were four participants, viz. Ms Andhra Pradesh, Ms Uttar Pradesh, Ms West Bengal and Ms Maharashtra. Mrs Bankatlal, who was very anxious about the result, asked him about it as soon as he was back home. Mr Bankatlal just told that the one who was wearing the yellow saree won the contest. When Mrs Bankatlal pressed for further details, he elaborated as follows:
1. All of them were sitting in a row.
2. All of them wore sarees of different colours, viz. green, yellow, white, red.
3. There was only one runner-up and she was sitting beside Ms. Maharashtra.
4 .The runner-up was wearing the green saree.
5. Ms West Bengal was not sitting at the ends and was not the runner up.
6 .The winner and the runner-up are not sitting adjacent to each other.
7 .Ms Maharashtra was wearing white saree.
8 .Ms Andhra Pradesh was not wearing the green saree.
9 .Participants wearing yellow saree and white saree were at the ends.

Question 4: Who was the runner-up?

Question 3: What is the difference in cost between the old and the new techniques?

Question 5: Which five consecutive months have the lowest average cost per man-month under the new technique?

how many numbers of zeros in following expression?

2^11 x 125^3 x 7^11+ 3 ^12 x 7^11×2^10×5^1 + 11^12 x 2^13 x 5^5^5

PROGRESSION

Sum of first 12 terms of a GP is equal to the sum of the first 14 terms in the same GP. Sum of the first 17 terms is 92, what is the third term in the GP?

Read this passage and answer the questions that follow.

There are two theories that have often been used to explain ancient and modern tragedy. Neither
quite explains the complexity of the tragic process or the tragic hero, but each explains important
elements of tragedy, and, because their conclusions are contradictory, they represent extreme
views.

and of the limitation of human effort. But this theory of tragedy is an oversimplification, primarily
because it confuses the tragic condition with the tragic process: the theory does not acknowledge
that fate, in a tragedy, normally becomes external to the hero only after the tragic process has as a
heroism that creates the splendor and exhilaration that is unique to tragedy. The tragic hero quality
of an honest person, but the external antagonist of the criminal. Secondarily, this theory of tragedy
does not distinguish tragedy from irony. Irony does not need an exceptional central figure: the
original destiny never quite fades out of the tragedy.
as a rule, the more ignoble the hero the sharper the irony, when irony alone is the objective. It is
heroism that creates the splendor and exhilaration that is unique to tragedy. The tragic hero
normally has an extraordinary, often a nearly divine, destiny almost within grasp, and the glory of
the original destiny never quite fades out of the tragedy.

The second theory of tragedy states that the act that sets the tragic process in motion must be
primarily a violation of normal law, whether human or divine; in short, that the tragic hero must have
a flaw that has an essential connection with sin. Again it is true that the great majority of tragic
heroes do possess hubris, or a proud and passionate mind that seems to make the hero’s downfall
morally explicable. But such hubris is only the precipitating agent of catastrophe, just as in comedy
the cause )f the happy ending is usually some act of humility often performed by a noble character
who is meanly disguised.

This theory of tragedy as morally explicable runs into the question of whether an innocent sufferer
in a tragedy, such as Iphigenia, or Socrates in Plato Apology, is a tragic figure. They are, of course,
even though it is not very easy to find crucial moral flaws in them. Cordelia shows sincerity and high
spirit in refusing to flatter her faber, and Cordelia is 30 hanged. Tragedy, in short, is ambiguous
and cannot be reduced to the opposition between human effort. and external fate, just as it cannot
be reduced to the opposition between good and evil.

question 1 : The primary purpose of the passage is. to

Q20 continues

There are two theories that have often been used to explain ancient and modern tragedy. Neither
quite explains the complexity of the tragic process or the tragic hero, but each explains important
elements of tragedy, and, because their conclusions are contradictory, they represent extreme
views.

and of the limitation of human effort. But this theory of tragedy is an oversimplification, primarily
because it confuses the tragic condition with the tragic process: the theory does not acknowledge
that fate, in a tragedy, normally becomes external to the hero only after the tragic process has as a
heroism that creates the splendor and exhilaration that is unique to tragedy. The tragic hero quality
of an honest person, but the external antagonist of the criminal. Secondarily, this theory of tragedy
does not distinguish tragedy from irony. Irony does not need an exceptional central figure: the
original destiny never quite fades out of the tragedy.
as a rule, the more ignoble the hero the sharper the irony, when irony alone is the objective. It is
heroism that creates the splendor and exhilaration that is unique to tragedy. The tragic hero
normally has an extraordinary, often a nearly divine, destiny almost within grasp, and the glory of
the original destiny never quite fades out of the tragedy.

The second theory of tragedy states that the act that sets the tragic process in motion must be
primarily a violation of normal law, whether human or divine; in short, that the tragic hero must have
a flaw that has an essential connection with sin. Again it is true that the great majority of tragic
heroes do possess hubris, or a proud and passionate mind that seems to make the hero’s downfall
morally explicable. But such hubris is only the precipitating agent of catastrophe, just as in comedy
the cause )f the happy ending is usually some act of humility often performed by a noble character
who is meanly disguised.

This theory of tragedy as morally explicable runs into the question of whether an innocent sufferer
in a tragedy, such as Iphigenia, or Socrates in Plato Apology, is a tragic figure. They are, of course,
even though it is not very easy to find crucial moral flaws in them. Cordelia shows sincerity and high
spirit in refusing to flatter her faber, and Cordelia is 30 hanged. Tragedy, in short, is ambiguous
and cannot be reduced to the opposition between human effort. and external fate, just as it cannot
be reduced to the opposition between good and evil.

question 2 :The author states that the theories discussed in the passage “represent extreme views”
because their conclusions are

There are two theories that have often been used to explain ancient and modern tragedy. Neither
quite explains the complexity of the tragic process or the tragic hero, but each explains important
elements of tragedy, and, because their conclusions are contradictory, they represent extreme
views.

and of the limitation of human effort. But this theory of tragedy is an oversimplification, primarily
because it confuses the tragic condition with the tragic process: the theory does not acknowledge
that fate, in a tragedy, normally becomes external to the hero only after the tragic process has as a
heroism that creates the splendor and exhilaration that is unique to tragedy. The tragic hero quality
of an honest person, but the external antagonist of the criminal. Secondarily, this theory of tragedy
does not distinguish tragedy from irony. Irony does not need an exceptional central figure: the
original destiny never quite fades out of the tragedy.
as a rule, the more ignoble the hero the sharper the irony, when irony alone is the objective. It is
heroism that creates the splendor and exhilaration that is unique to tragedy. The tragic hero
normally has an extraordinary, often a nearly divine, destiny almost within grasp, and the glory of
the original destiny never quite fades out of the tragedy.

The second theory of tragedy states that the act that sets the tragic process in motion must be
primarily a violation of normal law, whether human or divine; in short, that the tragic hero must have
a flaw that has an essential connection with sin. Again it is true that the great majority of tragic
heroes do possess hubris, or a proud and passionate mind that seems to make the hero’s downfall
morally explicable. But such hubris is only the precipitating agent of catastrophe, just as in comedy
the cause )f the happy ending is usually some act of humility often performed by a noble character
who is meanly disguised.

This theory of tragedy as morally explicable runs into the question of whether an innocent sufferer
in a tragedy, such as Iphigenia, or Socrates in Plato Apology, is a tragic figure. They are, of course,
even though it is not very easy to find crucial moral flaws in them. Cordelia shows sincerity and high
spirit in refusing to flatter her faber, and Cordelia is 30 hanged. Tragedy, in short, is ambiguous
and cannot be reduced to the opposition between human effort. and external fate, just as it cannot
be reduced to the opposition between good and evil.

question 3 : Which of the following comparisons of the tragic with the ironic hero is best supported by
information contained in the’ passage?

Q20 continues

There are two theories that have often been used to explain ancient and modern tragedy. Neither
quite explains the complexity of the tragic process or the tragic hero, but each explains important
elements of tragedy, and, because their conclusions are contradictory, they represent extreme
views.

and of the limitation of human effort. But this theory of tragedy is an oversimplification, primarily
because it confuses the tragic condition with the tragic process: the theory does not acknowledge
that fate, in a tragedy, normally becomes external to the hero only after the tragic process has as a
heroism that creates the splendor and exhilaration that is unique to tragedy. The tragic hero quality
of an honest person, but the external antagonist of the criminal. Secondarily, this theory of tragedy
does not distinguish tragedy from irony. Irony does not need an exceptional central figure: the
original destiny never quite fades out of the tragedy.
as a rule, the more ignoble the hero the sharper the irony, when irony alone is the objective. It is
heroism that creates the splendor and exhilaration that is unique to tragedy. The tragic hero
normally has an extraordinary, often a nearly divine, destiny almost within grasp, and the glory of
the original destiny never quite fades out of the tragedy.

The second theory of tragedy states that the act that sets the tragic process in motion must be
primarily a violation of normal law, whether human or divine; in short, that the tragic hero must have
a flaw that has an essential connection with sin. Again it is true that the great majority of tragic
heroes do possess hubris, or a proud and passionate mind that seems to make the hero’s downfall
morally explicable. But such hubris is only the precipitating agent of catastrophe, just as in comedy
the cause )f the happy ending is usually some act of humility often performed by a noble character
who is meanly disguised.

This theory of tragedy as morally explicable runs into the question of whether an innocent sufferer
in a tragedy, such as Iphigenia, or Socrates in Plato Apology, is a tragic figure. They are, of course,
even though it is not very easy to find crucial moral flaws in them. Cordelia shows sincerity and high
spirit in refusing to flatter her faber, and Cordelia is 30 hanged. Tragedy, in short, is ambiguous
and cannot be reduced to the opposition between human effort. and external fate, just as it cannot
be reduced to the opposition between good and evil.

question 4. The author contrasts an honest person and a criminal primarily in order to

Q20 continues

There are two theories that have often been used to explain ancient and modern tragedy. Neither
quite explains the complexity of the tragic process or the tragic hero, but each explains important
elements of tragedy, and, because their conclusions are contradictory, they represent extreme
views.

and of the limitation of human effort. But this theory of tragedy is an oversimplification, primarily
because it confuses the tragic condition with the tragic process: the theory does not acknowledge
that fate, in a tragedy, normally becomes external to the hero only after the tragic process has as a
heroism that creates the splendor and exhilaration that is unique to tragedy. The tragic hero quality
of an honest person, but the external antagonist of the criminal. Secondarily, this theory of tragedy
does not distinguish tragedy from irony. Irony does not need an exceptional central figure: the
original destiny never quite fades out of the tragedy.
as a rule, the more ignoble the hero the sharper the irony, when irony alone is the objective. It is
heroism that creates the splendor and exhilaration that is unique to tragedy. The tragic hero
normally has an extraordinary, often a nearly divine, destiny almost within grasp, and the glory of
the original destiny never quite fades out of the tragedy.

The second theory of tragedy states that the act that sets the tragic process in motion must be
primarily a violation of normal law, whether human or divine; in short, that the tragic hero must have
a flaw that has an essential connection with sin. Again it is true that the great majority of tragic
heroes do possess hubris, or a proud and passionate mind that seems to make the hero’s downfall
morally explicable. But such hubris is only the precipitating agent of catastrophe, just as in comedy
the cause )f the happy ending is usually some act of humility often performed by a noble character
who is meanly disguised.

This theory of tragedy as morally explicable runs into the question of whether an innocent sufferer
in a tragedy, such as Iphigenia, or Socrates in Plato Apology, is a tragic figure. They are, of course,
even though it is not very easy to find crucial moral flaws in them. Cordelia shows sincerity and high
spirit in refusing to flatter her faber, and Cordelia is 30 hanged. Tragedy, in short, is ambiguous
and cannot be reduced to the opposition between human effort. and external fate, just as it cannot
be reduced to the opposition between good and evil.

question 5. According to the. author, Cordellia is an example of a figure who

Q20 continues

There are two theories that have often been used to explain ancient and modern tragedy. Neither
quite explains the complexity of the tragic process or the tragic hero, but each explains important
elements of tragedy, and, because their conclusions are contradictory, they represent extreme
views.

and of the limitation of human effort. But this theory of tragedy is an oversimplification, primarily
because it confuses the tragic condition with the tragic process: the theory does not acknowledge
that fate, in a tragedy, normally becomes external to the hero only after the tragic process has as a
heroism that creates the splendor and exhilaration that is unique to tragedy. The tragic hero quality
of an honest person, but the external antagonist of the criminal. Secondarily, this theory of tragedy
does not distinguish tragedy from irony. Irony does not need an exceptional central figure: the
original destiny never quite fades out of the tragedy.
as a rule, the more ignoble the hero the sharper the irony, when irony alone is the objective. It is
heroism that creates the splendor and exhilaration that is unique to tragedy. The tragic hero
normally has an extraordinary, often a nearly divine, destiny almost within grasp, and the glory of
the original destiny never quite fades out of the tragedy.

The second theory of tragedy states that the act that sets the tragic process in motion must be
primarily a violation of normal law, whether human or divine; in short, that the tragic hero must have
a flaw that has an essential connection with sin. Again it is true that the great majority of tragic
heroes do possess hubris, or a proud and passionate mind that seems to make the hero’s downfall
morally explicable. But such hubris is only the precipitating agent of catastrophe, just as in comedy
the cause )f the happy ending is usually some act of humility often performed by a noble character
who is meanly disguised.

This theory of tragedy as morally explicable runs into the question of whether an innocent sufferer
in a tragedy, such as Iphigenia, or Socrates in Plato Apology, is a tragic figure. They are, of course,
even though it is not very easy to find crucial moral flaws in them. Cordelia shows sincerity and high
spirit in refusing to flatter her faber, and Cordelia is 30 hanged. Tragedy, in short, is ambiguous
and cannot be reduced to the opposition between human effort. and external fate, just as it cannot
be reduced to the opposition between good and evil.

question 6. In the author’s opinion, an act of humility in comedy is most analogous to