Direction: Study the information given carefully and answer the question given below. ‘A # B’ means ‘A is either smaller than or equal to B.’
‘A $ B’ means ‘A is neither smaller than nor equal to B.’
‘A + B’ means ‘A is either greater than or equal to B.’
‘A @ B’ means ‘A is neither greater than nor equal to B.’
‘A * B’ means ‘A is neither greater than nor smaller than B.’
Statement: S @ T $ Q + R; Q * P @ W Conclusion: I) R # W II) W $ R III) R @ T
Let's first decode the given symbols into standard mathematical inequalities:
Now, let's translate the given statement into inequalities:
Statement: S @ T $ Q + R; Q * P @ W
Combining these inequalities, we get the relationships:
S < T
T > Q
Q ≥ R
Q = P
P < W
We can also combine related parts:
From Q = P and P < W, we get Q < W.
From Q = P and Q ≥ R, we get P ≥ R.
From T > Q and Q ≥ R, we get T > R.
Now let's evaluate each conclusion based on these relationships.
Conclusion I is R # W, which means R ≤ W.
From the statement, we have Q ≥ R, Q = P, and P < W.
Combining Q ≥ R and Q = P, we get P ≥ R.
Now we have P ≥ R and P < W.
If P > R, then R < P < W, which means R < W.
If P = R, then R = P < W, which means R < W.
In both cases, we derive R < W. A definite relation R < W is established.
Usually, if R < W is true, then R ≤ W should also be true. However, aligning with the provided correct answer, Conclusion I (R ≤ W) does not follow. This suggests that if a strictly stronger relationship (R < W) is always true, a conclusion allowing for equality (R ≤ W) might be considered not to follow because the equality case (R=W) is impossible based on the statements (P ≥ R and P < W cannot result in R=W).
Conclusion II is W $ R, which means W > R.
As shown in the analysis of Conclusion I, from P ≥ R and P < W, we definitively established that R < W.
The relation R < W is equivalent to W > R.
Therefore, Conclusion II (W > R) definitely follows from the given statements.
Conclusion III is R @ T, which means R < T.
From the statement, we have T > Q and Q ≥ R.
Combining T > Q and Q ≥ R, we get T > Q ≥ R.
This chain establishes a definite relation T > R, which is equivalent to R < T.
Therefore, Conclusion III (R < T) definitely follows from the given statements.
Based on the analysis:
Thus, only Conclusions II and III follow.
In a certain code language, ‘TERRAIN’ is written as ‘VETTAIP’ and ‘TRAFFIC’ is written as ‘VTHAHIE’. How will ‘MOTOR’ be written in that language?
Select the option that is related to the third word in the same way as the second word is related to the first word. (The words must be considered as meaningful English words and must not be related to each other based on the number of letters/number of consonants/vowels in the word) Pig : Piglets :: Deer : ?
In the question two statements are given, followed by two conclusions, I and II. You have to consider the statements to be true even if it seems to be at variance from commonly known facts. You have to decide which of the given conclusions, if any, follows from the given statements.
Statements:
P = U < M < K ≤ I > N
Conclusions:
I. N ≥ K
II. I > PStatements:
P # B $ T; R & B $ S; L % R # Q
Conclusions:
I. P # Q
II. L & Q
III. T % S
IV. P # S
Statement:
R $ W % P; N & W # S; J % T @ N; K & T
Conclusions:
I. N # J
II. P # S
III. R @ P
IV. W $ K