Eight friends Q, R, S, T, V, W, Y and Z are sitting around a circular table, facing the centre. There are three males and five females in the group of friends. No two males are immediate neighbours of each other. (i) V sits second to the right of his wife. (ii) S sits third to the right of V. (iii) W sits second to the right of her husband Z. Z is not an immediate neighbour of V's wife. (iv) T is a male and Y is not an immediate neighbour of V. (v) R sits second to the right of Q. Which of the following statements is true regarding T? (SOF IMO 2016)

T is an immediate neighbour of Z's wife.

No male is an immediate neighbour of T.

Eight friends Q, R, S, T, V, W, Y and Z are sitting around a circular

1.	Eight friends Q, R, S, T, V, W, Y and Z are sitting around a circular table, facing the centre. There are three males and five females in the group of friends. No two males are immediate neighbours of each other. (i) V sits second to the right of his wife. (ii) S sits third to the right of V. (iii) W sits second to the right of her husband Z. Z is not an immediate neighbour of V's wife. (iv) T is a male and Y is not an immediate neighbour of V. (v) R sits second to the right of Q. Which of the following statements is true regarding T? (SOF IMO 2016)
A.	T is an immediate neighbour of Z's wife.
B.	No male is an immediate neighbour of T.
C.	Q sits second to right of T.
D.	All are true.
Answer» E.

Discussion

No Comment Found

Related MCQs

Directions: In each questions below are given three statements followed by two conclusions numbered I and II. You have to take the given statements to be true even if they seem to be at variance from commonly known facts. Read both of the conclusions and then decide which of the given conclusions logically follows from the given statements disregarding commonly known facts. Statements: I. All rings are fingers. II. Some ears are fingers. III. All ears are necklaces. Conclusions: I. Some necklaces are fingers. II. Some necklaces are rings.
In a certain code 'EDUCATION' is written as 'IGWDASGLJ. How is 'REASONING' written in that code?
Directions: In the following questions, the symbols @, ©, , % and # are used with the following meanings illustrated. 'p@q' means 'p is neither smaller than nor equal to q'. 'p#q' means 'p is not smaller than q". ?p©q' means "p is not greater than q'. 'p%q' means 'p is neither greater than nor equal to q'. 'pq,' means 'p is neither smaller than nor greater than q" In each of the following questions assuming the given statements to be true, find out which of the three conclusions I, II and III given below is/are definitely true. Statements: M#W, WN, N@B Conclusions: I. NM II. N%M III. M@B
Directions: In each questions below are given three statements followed by two conclusions numbered I and II. You have to take the given statements to be true even if they seem to be at variance from commonly known facts. Read both of the conclusions and then decide which of the given conclusions logically follows from the given statements disregarding commonly known facts. Statements: I. Some rings are bangles, II. Some bangles are tents. III. Some tents are skies. Conclusions: I. Some skies are bangles. II. Some tents are rings.
Directions: In each questions below are given three statements followed by two conclusions numbered I and II. You have to take the given statements to be true even if they seem to be at variance from commonly known facts. Read both of the conclusions and then decide which of the given conclusions logically follows from the given statements disregarding commonly known facts. Statements: I. All trees are ponds. II. Some ponds are fields. III. All fields are benches. Conclusions: I. Some benches are trees. II. No bench is tree.
Directions: In each question below are two statements followed by two conclusions numbered I and II. You have to take the two given statements to be true even if they seem to be at variance from commonly known facts and then decide which of the given conclusions logically follows from the two statements disregarding commonly known facts. Statements: I. Some sweets are salt. II. No salt is spice. Conclusions: I. Some sweets are spice. II. No spice is salt.
Directions: In each question below are two statements followed by two conclusions numbered I and II. You have to take the two given statements to be true even if they seem to be at variance from commonly known facts and then decide which of the given conclusions logically follows from the two statements disregarding commonly known facts. Statements: I. Some papers are plastics. II. All papers are clothes. Conclusions: I. Some plastics are clothes. II. Some plastics are papers.
Directions: In each question below are two statements followed by two conclusions numbered I and II. You have to take the two given statements to be true even if they seem to be at variance from commonly known facts and then decide which of the given conclusions logically follows from the two statements disregarding commonly known facts. Statements: I. All planes are birds, II. All birds are clouds. Conclusions: I. Some planes are clouds, II. Some clouds are birds.
Directions: Each question given below consists of a statement followed by two arguments numbered I and II. You have to decide which of the arguments a ?strong? argument is and which a ?weak? argument is. Statement: Should the railways in India be privatized in a phased manner like other public sector enterprises? Arguments: I. Yes. This is the only way to bring in competitiveness and provide better services to the public. II. No. This will pose a threat to the national security of our country as multinationals will enter into the fray.
Directions: Each question given below consists of a statement followed by two arguments numbered I and II. You have to decide which of the arguments a ?strong? argument is and which a ?weak? argument is. Statement: Should there be a maximum limit for the number of ministers in the Central Government? Arguments: I. No. The political party in power should have the freedom to decide the number of ministers to be appointed. II. Yes. The number of ministers should be restricted to a certain percentage of the total number of seats in the parliament to avoid unnecessary expenditure.

Discussion

No Comment Found

Related MCQs

Reply to Comment