Welcome to your MH-CET 2015

Your Full Name
Your Email
Phone Number
City

Question No. : 1


Question No. : 2


Question No. : 3


Question No. : 4


Question No. : 5

Question No. : 6


Question No. : 7


Question No. : 8


Question No. : 9


Question No. : 10


Question No. : 11
Mark the strong argument /arguments for the given statement.

Statement: Should India become a permanent member of UN’s Security Council?

Arguments:

I Yes. India has emerged as a country which loves peace and amity.

II No. Let us first solve problems of our own people like poverty, malnutrition.

Question No. : 12
Mark the strong argument /arguments for the given statement.

Statement: Should an organization like UNO be dissolved?

Arguments:

I Yes. With cold war coming to an end, such organizations have no role to play
II No, In the absence of such organizations there may be a world war.

Question No. : 13
Mark the strong argument /arguments for the given statement.

Statement: Should fashionable dresses be banned?

Arguments:

Yes. Fashions keep changing and hence consumption of cloth increases.

No. Fashionable clothes are a person’s self expression and therefore his/her fundamental right.

Question No. : 14
Mark the strong argument for the given statement.

Should people with educational qualification higher than the optimum requirements be debarred from seeking jobs?

Arguments:

Question No. : 15

Which of the following is the valid arguement?

Should education be made compulsory for all children up to the age of 14?

Arguments:

 

Question No. : 16
Percentage of Marks Obtained by Various Students in Various Subjects in an Examination

     

Marks

   
         
 

Students

English

Hindi

Science

History

Maths

Geography

 

out of

out of

out of

out of

out of

  

out of 40﴿

  

100﴿

100﴿

150﴿

60﴿

150﴿

    
         
 

A

68

75

82

60

96

55

 
         
 

B

88

73

85

65

88

65

 
         
 

C

75

56

72

75

75

80

 
         
 

D

70

66

80

80

72

62

 
         
 

E

72

60

68

74

68

75

 
         
 

F

85

70

90

70

74

70

 
         

What is the overall approximate percentage obtained by C in the examination?

Question No. : 17
Percentage of Marks Obtained by Various Students in Various Subjects in an Examination

    

Marks

  

Students

English

Hindi

Science

History

Maths

Geography

out of

out of

out of

out of

out of

 

out of 40﴿

 

100﴿

100﴿

150﴿

60﴿

150﴿

  

A

68

75

82

60

96

55

B

88

73

85

65

88

65

C

75

56

72

75

75

80

D

70

66

80

80

72

62

E

72

60

68

74

68

75

F

85

70

90

70

74

70

       

What is the difference in the marks obtained by B in English and Maths and the marks obtained by F in the same subjects?

 

 

Question No. : 18

Percentage of Marks Obtained by Various Students in Various Subjects in an Examination

     

Marks

   
         
 

Students

English

Hindi

Science

History

Maths

Geography

 

out of

out of

out of

out of

out of

  

out of 40﴿

  

100﴿

100﴿

150﴿

60﴿

150﴿

    
         
 

A

68

75

82

60

96

55

 
         
 

B

88

73

85

65

88

65

 
         
 

C

75

56

72

75

75

80

 
         
 

D

70

66

80

80

72

62

 
         
 

E

72

60

68

74

68

75

 
         
 

F

85

70

90

70

74

70

 
         

The marks obtained by E in Geography are what percent of the marks obtained by E in Hindi?

 

 

Question No. : 19

Percentage of Marks Obtained by Various Students in Various Subjects in an Examination

    

Marks

  

Students

English

Hindi

Science

History

Maths

Geography

out of

out of

out of

out of

out of

 

out of 40﴿

 

100﴿

100﴿

150﴿

60﴿

150﴿

  

A

68

75

82

60

96

55

B

88

73

85

65

88

65

C

75

56

72

75

75

80

D

70

66

80

80

72

62

E

72

60

68

74

68

75

F

85

70

90

70

74

70

       

What is the overall percentage obtained by D in History and Geography Together?

 

 

Question No. : 20

Percentage of Marks Obtained by Various Students in Various Subjects in an Examination

     

Marks

   
         
 

Students

English

Hindi

Science

History

Maths

Geography

 

out of

out of

out of

out of

out of

  

out of 40﴿

  

100﴿

100﴿

150﴿

60﴿

150﴿

    
         
 

A

68

75

82

60

96

55

 
         
 

B

88

73

85

65

88

65

 
         
 

C

75

56

72

75

75

80

 
         
 

D

70

66

80

80

72

62

 
         
 

E

72

60

68

74

68

75

 
         
 

F

85

70

90

70

74

70

 
         

What are the average marks obtained by all the students together in Science?

 

Question No. : 21

With Finance Commission recommendations, Centre‐state relations set to undergo dramatic change Any big change requires big ideas, decisive leadership and happy coincidence of circumstances. Nothing illustrates this better than the unfolding story of cooperative federalism in India.

As chief minister of Gujarat, Narendra Modi had often argued that the central government implemented schemes were at odds with the state’s needs and priorities. For example, schemes that provided funds for electrification were at best of limited value to Gujarat since it had already achieved near 100% electrification.

This state could have spent the money provided for such a scheme more productively if allowed to use it for other purposes.

In advancing this view, Modi was joined by other chief ministers such as Vasundhara Raje of Rajasthan who argued that the vast numbers of central schemes further restricted their fiscal space because many of them required matching contributions by them from their otherwise untied funds. Once these matching funds were committed to access central schemes, states were left with very limited funds for even the most important expenditure items such as enforcement of law and order.

Nevertheless, this system has remained entrenched in one form or another in the last several decades on account of coincidence of three factors. First, outside of state leaders and a few economists and policy analysts, advocates of the view that true federalism means giving greater fiscal space to states and trusting them in setting their own priorities have been few and far between.

Second, the Finance Commission appointed once every five years plays a key role in the division of tax revenues between Centre and states. Consistent with the first point, successive Finance Commissions held untied funds to the states at or below 30% of the divisible tax pool. Only the 13th Finance Commission exceeded this mark, setting states’ share at 32%.

Finally, successive central governments have chosen to transfer the bulk of the remaining funds to the states via central and centrally sponsored schemes. With nearly 8% growth over an entire decade, tax revenues have significantly expanded. Alongside, central and centrally sponsored schemes and the revenue resources they absorb have expanded dramatically as well. Two key factors have come together to dramatically alter this equilibrium.One, India now has a prime minister who was once a chief minister and strongly feels that cooperative federalism means greater fiscal and legislative space for states. And two, by a happy coincidence, the chairman and members of the 14th Finance Commission believe in genuine federalism themselves. Moreover, they have recognised the opportunity offered by a prime minister at the helm who truly believes in the power of states and their leaders. Accordingly , they have recommended that starting 2015‐16, states be awarded 42% of the divisible pool of tax revenues.This is a gigantic and unprecedented 10% jump in devolution.

Predictably , the prime minister and his Cabinet have accepted this bold recommendation of the 14th Finance Commission. What implications does this change have? For starters, with larger transfers coming as untied funds, states also have greater responsibility in discharging their duties. It is likely that they will now have to take greater responsibility in areas that have been hitherto covered by the Centre, especially those falling on the state list. States will also have to do this in ways that are more consistent with their priorities and not according to “one size fits all“ schemes. By the same token, with a lower share in the divisible pool the Centre’s fiscal space will shrink, requiring a rethink of central and centrally sponsored schemes.

One might ask where does Niti Aayog fit into this story? I am tempted to say that in replacing the Planning Commission by Niti Aayog, Prime Minister Modi may have anticipated the 14th Finance Commission. Under the previous regime, the Centre was often seen as “giver“ and states as “recipients“ thereby making the latter feel that they were less than equal partners. In replacing the Planning Commission by Niti Aayog, the prime

minister sought to change that equation and forge an equal relationship between the two sides. As such this change represents a step towards cooperative federalism.

We will have a more complete picture of the emerging Centre‐state relations this Saturday when the finance minister presents the budget. But even with what we now know, one thing is clear: in the years to come, Niti Aayog will have to play a much greater role in the knowledge space. Greater fiscal freedom combined with greater legislative freedom in areas covered by the concurrent list of the Constitution means that states will need to play a more active role in designing their own programmes and policies.

As they do so, they will need to reach out to data, analysis and expert advice.The design of Niti Aayog as per the Cabinet Note of 1 January 2015 positions it well to provide these services. By the same token, those of us at Niti Aayog have to work hard in the months to come to build new strengths so that we do not disappoint the states that reach out to us for advice and assistance. We shall see.

As the Chief Minister of Gujarat, Narendra Modi why argued that the Central Government implemented schemes are at odds for the state government?

 

Question No. : 22

With Finance Commission recommendations, Centre‐state relations set to undergo dramatic change Any big change requires big ideas, decisive leadership and happy coincidence of circumstances. Nothing illustrates this better than the unfolding story of cooperative federalism in India.

As chief minister of Gujarat, Narendra Modi had often argued that the central government implemented schemes were at odds with the state’s needs and priorities. For example, schemes that provided funds for electrification were at best of limited value to Gujarat since it had already achieved near 100% electrification.

This state could have spent the money provided for such a scheme more productively if allowed to use it for other purposes.

In advancing this view, Modi was joined by other chief ministers such as Vasundhara Raje of Rajasthan who argued that the vast numbers of central schemes further restricted their fiscal space because many of them required matching contributions by them from their otherwise untied funds. Once these matching funds were committed to access central schemes, states were left with very limited funds for even the most important expenditure items such as enforcement of law and order.

Nevertheless, this system has remained entrenched in one form or another in the last several decades on account of coincidence of three factors. First, outside of state leaders and a few economists and policy analysts, advocates of the view that true federalism means giving greater fiscal space to states and trusting them in setting their own priorities have been few and far between.

Second, the Finance Commission appointed once every five years plays a key role in the division of tax revenues between Centre and states. Consistent with the first point, successive Finance Commissions held untied funds to the states at or below 30% of the divisible tax pool. Only the 13th Finance Commission exceeded this mark, setting states’ share at 32%.

Finally, successive central governments have chosen to transfer the bulk of the remaining funds to the states via central and centrally sponsored schemes. With nearly 8% growth over an entire decade, tax revenues have significantly expanded. Alongside, central and centrally sponsored schemes and the revenue resources they absorb have expanded dramatically as well. Two key factors have come together to dramatically alter this equilibrium.One, India now has a prime minister who was once a chief minister and strongly feels that cooperative federalism means greater fiscal and legislative space for states. And two, by a happy coincidence, the chairman and members of the 14th Finance Commission believe in genuine federalism themselves. Moreover, they have recognised the opportunity offered by a prime minister at the helm who truly believes in the power of states and their leaders. Accordingly , they have recommended that starting 2015‐16, states be awarded 42% of the divisible pool of tax revenues.This is a gigantic and unprecedented 10% jump in devolution.

Predictably , the prime minister and his Cabinet have accepted this bold recommendation of the 14th Finance Commission. What implications does this change have? For starters, with larger transfers coming as untied funds, states also have greater responsibility in discharging their duties. It is likely that they will now have to take greater responsibility in areas that have been hitherto covered by the Centre, especially those falling on the state list. States will also have to do this in ways that are more consistent with their priorities and not according to “one size fits all“ schemes. By the same token, with a lower share in the divisible pool the Centre’s fiscal space will shrink, requiring a rethink of central and centrally sponsored schemes.

One might ask where does Niti Aayog fit into this story? I am tempted to say that in replacing the Planning Commission by Niti Aayog, Prime Minister Modi may have anticipated the 14th Finance Commission. Under the previous regime, the Centre was often seen as “giver“ and states as “recipients“ thereby making the latter feel that they were less than equal partners. In replacing the Planning Commission by Niti Aayog, the prime

minister sought to change that equation and forge an equal relationship between the two sides. As such this change represents a step towards cooperative federalism.

We will have a more complete picture of the emerging Centre‐state relations this Saturday when the finance minister presents the budget. But even with what we now know, one thing is clear: in the years to come, Niti Aayog will have to play a much greater role in the knowledge space. Greater fiscal freedom combined with greater legislative freedom in areas covered by the concurrent list of the Constitution means that states will need to play a more active role in designing their own programmes and policies.

As they do so, they will need to reach out to data, analysis and expert advice.The design of Niti Aayog as per the Cabinet Note of 1 January 2015 positions it well to provide these services. By the same token, those of us at Niti Aayog have to work hard in the months to come to build new strengths so that we do not disappoint the states that reach out to us for advice and assistance. We shall see.

Why Vasundhara Raje decided to join the views of Narendra Modi?

 

With Finance Commission recommendations, Centre‐state relations set to undergo dramatic change Any big change requires big ideas, decisive leadership and happy coincidence of circumstances. Nothing illustrates this better than the unfolding story of cooperative federalism in India. As chief minister of Gujarat, Narendra Modi had often argued that the central government implemented schemes were at odds with the state’s needs and priorities. For example, schemes that provided funds for electrification were at best of limited value to Gujarat since it had already achieved near 100% electrification. This state could have spent the money provided for such a scheme more productively if allowed to use it for other purposes. In advancing this view, Modi was joined by other chief ministers such as Vasundhara Raje of Rajasthan who argued that the vast numbers of central schemes further restricted their fiscal space because many of them required matching contributions by them from their otherwise untied funds. Once these matching funds were committed to access central schemes, states were left with very limited funds for even the most important expenditure items such as enforcement of law and order. Nevertheless, this system has remained entrenched in one form or another in the last several decades on account of coincidence of three factors. First, outside of state leaders and a few economists and policy analysts, advocates of the view that true federalism means giving greater fiscal space to states and trusting them in setting their own priorities have been few and far between. Second, the Finance Commission appointed once every five years plays a key role in the division of tax revenues between Centre and states. Consistent with the first point, successive Finance Commissions held untied funds to the states at or below 30% of the divisible tax pool. Only the 13th Finance Commission exceeded this mark, setting states’ share at 32%. Finally, successive central governments have chosen to transfer the bulk of the remaining funds to the states via central and centrally sponsored schemes. With nearly 8% growth over an entire decade, tax revenues have significantly expanded. Alongside, central and centrally sponsored schemes and the revenue resources they absorb have expanded dramatically as well. Two key factors have come together to dramatically alter this equilibrium.One, India now has a prime minister who was once a chief minister and strongly feels that cooperative federalism means greater fiscal and legislative space for states. And two, by a happy coincidence, the chairman and members of the 14th Finance Commission believe in genuine federalism themselves. Moreover, they have recognised the opportunity offered by a prime minister at the helm who truly believes in the power of states and their leaders. Accordingly , they have recommended that starting 2015‐16, states be awarded 42% of the divisible pool of tax revenues.This is a gigantic and unprecedented 10% jump in devolution. Predictably , the prime minister and his Cabinet have accepted this bold recommendation of the 14th Finance Commission. What implications does this change have? For starters, with larger transfers coming as untied funds, states also have greater responsibility in discharging their duties. It is likely that they will now have to take greater responsibility in areas that have been hitherto covered by the Centre, especially those falling on the state list. States will also have to do this in ways that are more consistent with their priorities and not according to “one size fits all“ schemes. By the same token, with a lower share in the divisible pool the Centre’s fiscal space will shrink, requiring a rethink of central and centrally sponsored schemes. One might ask where does Niti Aayog fit into this story? I am tempted to say that in replacing the Planning Commission by Niti Aayog, Prime Minister Modi may have anticipated the 14th Finance Commission. Under the previous regime, the Centre was often seen as “giver“ and states as “recipients“ thereby making the latter feel that they were less than equal partners. In replacing the Planning Commission by Niti Aayog, the prime minister sought to change that equation and forge an equal relationship between the two sides. As such this change represents a step towards cooperative federalism. We will have a more complete picture of the emerging Centre‐state relations this Saturday when the finance minister presents the budget. But even with what we now know, one thing is clear: in the years to come, Niti Aayog will have to play a much greater role in the knowledge space. Greater fiscal freedom combined with greater legislative freedom in areas covered by the concurrent list of the Constitution means that states will need to play a more active role in designing their own programmes and policies. As they do so, they will need to reach out to data, analysis and expert advice.The design of Niti Aayog as per the Cabinet Note of 1 January 2015 positions it well to provide these services. By the same token, those of us at Niti Aayog have to work hard in the months to come to build new strengths so that we do not disappoint the states that reach out to us for advice and assistance. We shall see. The writer referred the PM’s view of cooperative federalism, what do you understand by cooperative federalism?

Question No. : 24

With Finance Commission recommendations, Centre‐state relations set to undergo dramatic change Any big change requires big ideas, decisive leadership and happy coincidence of circumstances. Nothing illustrates this better than the unfolding story of cooperative federalism in India.

As chief minister of Gujarat, Narendra Modi had often argued that the central government implemented schemes were at odds with the state’s needs and priorities. For example, schemes that provided funds for electrification were at best of limited value to Gujarat since it had already achieved near 100% electrification.

This state could have spent the money provided for such a scheme more productively if allowed to use it for other purposes.

In advancing this view, Modi was joined by other chief ministers such as Vasundhara Raje of Rajasthan who argued that the vast numbers of central schemes further restricted their fiscal space because many of them required matching contributions by them from their otherwise untied funds. Once these matching funds were committed to access central schemes, states were left with very limited funds for even the most important expenditure items such as enforcement of law and order.

Nevertheless, this system has remained entrenched in one form or another in the last several decades on account of coincidence of three factors. First, outside of state leaders and a few economists and policy analysts, advocates of the view that true federalism means giving greater fiscal space to states and trusting them in setting their own priorities have been few and far between.

Second, the Finance Commission appointed once every five years plays a key role in the division of tax revenues between Centre and states. Consistent with the first point, successive Finance Commissions held untied funds to the states at or below 30% of the divisible tax pool. Only the 13th Finance Commission exceeded this mark, setting states’ share at 32%.

Finally, successive central governments have chosen to transfer the bulk of the remaining funds to the states via central and centrally sponsored schemes. With nearly 8% growth over an entire decade, tax revenues have significantly expanded. Alongside, central and centrally sponsored schemes and the revenue resources they absorb have expanded dramatically as well. Two key factors have come together to dramatically alter this equilibrium.One, India now has a prime minister who was once a chief minister and strongly feels that cooperative federalism means greater fiscal and legislative space for states. And two, by a happy coincidence, the chairman and members of the 14th Finance Commission believe in genuine federalism themselves. Moreover, they have recognised the opportunity offered by a prime minister at the helm who truly believes in the power of states and their leaders. Accordingly , they have recommended that starting 2015‐16, states be awarded 42% of the divisible pool of tax revenues.This is a gigantic and unprecedented 10% jump in devolution.

Predictably , the prime minister and his Cabinet have accepted this bold recommendation of the 14th Finance Commission. What implications does this change have? For starters, with larger transfers coming as untied funds, states also have greater responsibility in discharging their duties. It is likely that they will now have to take greater responsibility in areas that have been hitherto covered by the Centre, especially those falling on the state list. States will also have to do this in ways that are more consistent with their priorities and not according to “one size fits all“ schemes. By the same token, with a lower share in the divisible pool the Centre’s fiscal space will shrink, requiring a rethink of central and centrally sponsored schemes.

One might ask where does Niti Aayog fit into this story? I am tempted to say that in replacing the Planning Commission by Niti Aayog, Prime Minister Modi may have anticipated the 14th Finance Commission. Under the previous regime, the Centre was often seen as “giver“ and states as “recipients“ thereby making the latter feel that they were less than equal partners. In replacing the Planning Commission by Niti Aayog, the prime

minister sought to change that equation and forge an equal relationship between the two sides. As such this change represents a step towards cooperative federalism.

We will have a more complete picture of the emerging Centre‐state relations this Saturday when the finance minister presents the budget. But even with what we now know, one thing is clear: in the years to come, Niti Aayog will have to play a much greater role in the knowledge space. Greater fiscal freedom combined with greater legislative freedom in areas covered by the concurrent list of the Constitution means that states will need to play a more active role in designing their own programmes and policies.

As they do so, they will need to reach out to data, analysis and expert advice.The design of Niti Aayog as per the Cabinet Note of 1 January 2015 positions it well to provide these services. By the same token, those of us at Niti Aayog have to work hard in the months to come to build new strengths so that we do not disappoint the states that reach out to us for advice and assistance. We shall see.

What does writer meant by “one size fits all” schemes?

 

Question No. : 25

With Finance Commission recommendations, Centre‐state relations set to undergo dramatic change Any big change requires big ideas, decisive leadership and happy coincidence of circumstances. Nothing illustrates this better than the unfolding story of cooperative federalism in India.

As chief minister of Gujarat, Narendra Modi had often argued that the central government implemented schemes were at odds with the state’s needs and priorities. For example, schemes that provided funds for electrification were at best of limited value to Gujarat since it had already achieved near 100% electrification.

This state could have spent the money provided for such a scheme more productively if allowed to use it for other purposes.

In advancing this view, Modi was joined by other chief ministers such as Vasundhara Raje of Rajasthan who argued that the vast numbers of central schemes further restricted their fiscal space because many of them required matching contributions by them from their otherwise untied funds. Once these matching funds were committed to access central schemes, states were left with very limited funds for even the most important expenditure items such as enforcement of law and order.

Nevertheless, this system has remained entrenched in one form or another in the last several decades on account of coincidence of three factors. First, outside of state leaders and a few economists and policy analysts, advocates of the view that true federalism means giving greater fiscal space to states and trusting them in setting their own priorities have been few and far between.

Second, the Finance Commission appointed once every five years plays a key role in the division of tax revenues between Centre and states. Consistent with the first point, successive Finance Commissions held untied funds to the states at or below 30% of the divisible tax pool. Only the 13th Finance Commission exceeded this mark, setting states’ share at 32%.

Finally, successive central governments have chosen to transfer the bulk of the remaining funds to the states via central and centrally sponsored schemes. With nearly 8% growth over an entire decade, tax revenues have significantly expanded. Alongside, central and centrally sponsored schemes and the revenue resources they absorb have expanded dramatically as well. Two key factors have come together to dramatically alter this equilibrium.One, India now has a prime minister who was once a chief minister and strongly feels that cooperative federalism means greater fiscal and legislative space for states. And two, by a happy coincidence, the chairman and members of the 14th Finance Commission believe in genuine federalism themselves. Moreover, they have recognised the opportunity offered by a prime minister at the helm who truly believes in the power of states and their leaders. Accordingly , they have recommended that starting 2015‐16, states be awarded 42% of the divisible pool of tax revenues.This is a gigantic and unprecedented 10% jump in devolution.

Predictably , the prime minister and his Cabinet have accepted this bold recommendation of the 14th Finance Commission. What implications does this change have? For starters, with larger transfers coming as untied funds, states also have greater responsibility in discharging their duties. It is likely that they will now have to take greater responsibility in areas that have been hitherto covered by the Centre, especially those falling on the state list. States will also have to do this in ways that are more consistent with their priorities and not according to “one size fits all“ schemes. By the same token, with a lower share in the divisible pool the Centre’s fiscal space will shrink, requiring a rethink of central and centrally sponsored schemes.

One might ask where does Niti Aayog fit into this story? I am tempted to say that in replacing the Planning Commission by Niti Aayog, Prime Minister Modi may have anticipated the 14th Finance Commission. Under the previous regime, the Centre was often seen as “giver“ and states as “recipients“ thereby making the latter feel that they were less than equal partners. In replacing the Planning Commission by Niti Aayog, the prime

minister sought to change that equation and forge an equal relationship between the two sides. As such this change represents a step towards cooperative federalism.

We will have a more complete picture of the emerging Centre‐state relations this Saturday when the finance minister presents the budget. But even with what we now know, one thing is clear: in the years to come, Niti Aayog will have to play a much greater role in the knowledge space. Greater fiscal freedom combined with greater legislative freedom in areas covered by the concurrent list of the Constitution means that states will need to play a more active role in designing their own programmes and policies.

As they do so, they will need to reach out to data, analysis and expert advice.The design of Niti Aayog as per the Cabinet Note of 1 January 2015 positions it well to provide these services. By the same token, those of us at Niti Aayog have to work hard in the months to come to build new strengths so that we do not disappoint the states that reach out to us for advice and assistance. We shall see.

Why the Government did a 10% increase in devolution?

 

Question No. : 26

With Finance Commission recommendations, Centre‐state relations set to undergo dramatic change Any big change requires big ideas, decisive leadership and happy coincidence of circumstances. Nothing illustrates this better than the unfolding story of cooperative federalism in India.

As chief minister of Gujarat, Narendra Modi had often argued that the central government implemented schemes were at odds with the state’s needs and priorities. For example, schemes that provided funds for electrification were at best of limited value to Gujarat since it had already achieved near 100% electrification.

This state could have spent the money provided for such a scheme more productively if allowed to use it for other purposes.

In advancing this view, Modi was joined by other chief ministers such as Vasundhara Raje of Rajasthan who argued that the vast numbers of central schemes further restricted their fiscal space because many of them required matching contributions by them from their otherwise untied funds. Once these matching funds were committed to access central schemes, states were left with very limited funds for even the most important expenditure items such as enforcement of law and order.

Nevertheless, this system has remained entrenched in one form or another in the last several decades on account of coincidence of three factors. First, outside of state leaders and a few economists and policy analysts, advocates of the view that true federalism means giving greater fiscal space to states and trusting them in setting their own priorities have been few and far between.

Second, the Finance Commission appointed once every five years plays a key role in the division of tax revenues between Centre and states. Consistent with the first point, successive Finance Commissions held untied funds to the states at or below 30% of the divisible tax pool. Only the 13th Finance Commission exceeded this mark, setting states’ share at 32%.

Finally, successive central governments have chosen to transfer the bulk of the remaining funds to the states via central and centrally sponsored schemes. With nearly 8% growth over an entire decade, tax revenues have significantly expanded. Alongside, central and centrally sponsored schemes and the revenue resources they absorb have expanded dramatically as well. Two key factors have come together to dramatically alter this equilibrium.One, India now has a prime minister who was once a chief minister and strongly feels that cooperative federalism means greater fiscal and legislative space for states. And two, by a happy coincidence, the chairman and members of the 14th Finance Commission believe in genuine federalism themselves. Moreover, they have recognised the opportunity offered by a prime minister at the helm who truly believes in the power of states and their leaders. Accordingly , they have recommended that starting 2015‐16, states be awarded 42% of the divisible pool of tax revenues.This is a gigantic and unprecedented 10% jump in devolution.

Predictably , the prime minister and his Cabinet have accepted this bold recommendation of the 14th Finance Commission. What implications does this change have? For starters, with larger transfers coming as untied funds, states also have greater responsibility in discharging their duties. It is likely that they will now have to take greater responsibility in areas that have been hitherto covered by the Centre, especially those falling on the state list. States will also have to do this in ways that are more consistent with their priorities and not according to “one size fits all“ schemes. By the same token, with a lower share in the divisible pool the Centre’s fiscal space will shrink, requiring a rethink of central and centrally sponsored schemes.

One might ask where does Niti Aayog fit into this story? I am tempted to say that in replacing the Planning Commission by Niti Aayog, Prime Minister Modi may have anticipated the 14th Finance Commission. Under the previous regime, the Centre was often seen as “giver“ and states as “recipients“ thereby making the latter feel that they were less than equal partners. In replacing the Planning Commission by Niti Aayog, the prime

minister sought to change that equation and forge an equal relationship between the two sides. As such this change represents a step towards cooperative federalism.

We will have a more complete picture of the emerging Centre‐state relations this Saturday when the finance minister presents the budget. But even with what we now know, one thing is clear: in the years to come, Niti Aayog will have to play a much greater role in the knowledge space. Greater fiscal freedom combined with greater legislative freedom in areas covered by the concurrent list of the Constitution means that states will need to play a more active role in designing their own programmes and policies.

As they do so, they will need to reach out to data, analysis and expert advice.The design of Niti Aayog as per the Cabinet Note of 1 January 2015 positions it well to provide these services. By the same token, those of us at Niti Aayog have to work hard in the months to come to build new strengths so that we do not disappoint the states that reach out to us for advice and assistance. We shall see.

What is the drastic change of the policy in NITI Ayog from that was in Planning Commission?

 

Question No. : 27

With Finance Commission recommendations, Centre‐state relations set to undergo dramatic change Any big change requires big ideas, decisive leadership and happy coincidence of circumstances. Nothing illustrates this better than the unfolding story of cooperative federalism in India.

As chief minister of Gujarat, Narendra Modi had often argued that the central government implemented schemes were at odds with the state’s needs and priorities. For example, schemes that provided funds for electrification were at best of limited value to Gujarat since it had already achieved near 100% electrification.

This state could have spent the money provided for such a scheme more productively if allowed to use it for other purposes.

In advancing this view, Modi was joined by other chief ministers such as Vasundhara Raje of Rajasthan who argued that the vast numbers of central schemes further restricted their fiscal space because many of them required matching contributions by them from their otherwise untied funds. Once these matching funds were committed to access central schemes, states were left with very limited funds for even the most important expenditure items such as enforcement of law and order.

Nevertheless, this system has remained entrenched in one form or another in the last several decades on account of coincidence of three factors. First, outside of state leaders and a few economists and policy analysts, advocates of the view that true federalism means giving greater fiscal space to states and trusting them in setting their own priorities have been few and far between.

Second, the Finance Commission appointed once every five years plays a key role in the division of tax revenues between Centre and states. Consistent with the first point, successive Finance Commissions held untied funds to the states at or below 30% of the divisible tax pool. Only the 13th Finance Commission exceeded this mark, setting states’ share at 32%.

Finally, successive central governments have chosen to transfer the bulk of the remaining funds to the states via central and centrally sponsored schemes. With nearly 8% growth over an entire decade, tax revenues have significantly expanded. Alongside, central and centrally sponsored schemes and the revenue resources they absorb have expanded dramatically as well. Two key factors have come together to dramatically alter this equilibrium.One, India now has a prime minister who was once a chief minister and strongly feels that cooperative federalism means greater fiscal and legislative space for states. And two, by a happy coincidence, the chairman and members of the 14th Finance Commission believe in genuine federalism themselves. Moreover, they have recognised the opportunity offered by a prime minister at the helm who truly believes in the power of states and their leaders. Accordingly , they have recommended that starting 2015‐16, states be awarded 42% of the divisible pool of tax revenues.This is a gigantic and unprecedented 10% jump in devolution.

Predictably , the prime minister and his Cabinet have accepted this bold recommendation of the 14th Finance Commission. What implications does this change have? For starters, with larger transfers coming as untied funds, states also have greater responsibility in discharging their duties. It is likely that they will now have to take greater responsibility in areas that have been hitherto covered by the Centre, especially those falling on the state list. States will also have to do this in ways that are more consistent with their priorities and not according to “one size fits all“ schemes. By the same token, with a lower share in the divisible pool the Centre’s fiscal space will shrink, requiring a rethink of central and centrally sponsored schemes.

One might ask where does Niti Aayog fit into this story? I am tempted to say that in replacing the Planning Commission by Niti Aayog, Prime Minister Modi may have anticipated the 14th Finance Commission. Under the previous regime, the Centre was often seen as “giver“ and states as “recipients“ thereby making the latter feel that they were less than equal partners. In replacing the Planning Commission by Niti Aayog, the prime

minister sought to change that equation and forge an equal relationship between the two sides. As such this change represents a step towards cooperative federalism.

We will have a more complete picture of the emerging Centre‐state relations this Saturday when the finance minister presents the budget. But even with what we now know, one thing is clear: in the years to come, Niti Aayog will have to play a much greater role in the knowledge space. Greater fiscal freedom combined with greater legislative freedom in areas covered by the concurrent list of the Constitution means that states will need to play a more active role in designing their own programmes and policies.

As they do so, they will need to reach out to data, analysis and expert advice.The design of Niti Aayog as per the Cabinet Note of 1 January 2015 positions it well to provide these services. By the same token, those of us at Niti Aayog have to work hard in the months to come to build new strengths so that we do not disappoint the states that reach out to us for advice and assistance. We shall see.

Entrenched

 

Question No. : 28

With Finance Commission recommendations, Centre‐state relations set to undergo dramatic change Any big change requires big ideas, decisive leadership and happy coincidence of circumstances. Nothing illustrates this better than the unfolding story of cooperative federalism in India.

As chief minister of Gujarat, Narendra Modi had often argued that the central government implemented schemes were at odds with the state’s needs and priorities. For example, schemes that provided funds for electrification were at best of limited value to Gujarat since it had already achieved near 100% electrification.

This state could have spent the money provided for such a scheme more productively if allowed to use it for other purposes.

In advancing this view, Modi was joined by other chief ministers such as Vasundhara Raje of Rajasthan who argued that the vast numbers of central schemes further restricted their fiscal space because many of them required matching contributions by them from their otherwise untied funds. Once these matching funds were committed to access central schemes, states were left with very limited funds for even the most important expenditure items such as enforcement of law and order.

Nevertheless, this system has remained entrenched in one form or another in the last several decades on account of coincidence of three factors. First, outside of state leaders and a few economists and policy analysts, advocates of the view that true federalism means giving greater fiscal space to states and trusting them in setting their own priorities have been few and far between.

Second, the Finance Commission appointed once every five years plays a key role in the division of tax revenues between Centre and states. Consistent with the first point, successive Finance Commissions held untied funds to the states at or below 30% of the divisible tax pool. Only the 13th Finance Commission exceeded this mark, setting states’ share at 32%.

Finally, successive central governments have chosen to transfer the bulk of the remaining funds to the states via central and centrally sponsored schemes. With nearly 8% growth over an entire decade, tax revenues have significantly expanded. Alongside, central and centrally sponsored schemes and the revenue resources they absorb have expanded dramatically as well. Two key factors have come together to dramatically alter this equilibrium.One, India now has a prime minister who was once a chief minister and strongly feels that cooperative federalism means greater fiscal and legislative space for states. And two, by a happy coincidence, the chairman and members of the 14th Finance Commission believe in genuine federalism themselves. Moreover, they have recognised the opportunity offered by a prime minister at the helm who truly believes in the power of states and their leaders. Accordingly , they have recommended that starting 2015‐16, states be awarded 42% of the divisible pool of tax revenues.This is a gigantic and unprecedented 10% jump in devolution.

Predictably , the prime minister and his Cabinet have accepted this bold recommendation of the 14th Finance Commission. What implications does this change have? For starters, with larger transfers coming as untied funds, states also have greater responsibility in discharging their duties. It is likely that they will now have to take greater responsibility in areas that have been hitherto covered by the Centre, especially those falling on the state list. States will also have to do this in ways that are more consistent with their priorities and not according to “one size fits all“ schemes. By the same token, with a lower share in the divisible pool the Centre’s fiscal space will shrink, requiring a rethink of central and centrally sponsored schemes.

One might ask where does Niti Aayog fit into this story? I am tempted to say that in replacing the Planning Commission by Niti Aayog, Prime Minister Modi may have anticipated the 14th Finance Commission. Under the previous regime, the Centre was often seen as “giver“ and states as “recipients“ thereby making the latter feel that they were less than equal partners. In replacing the Planning Commission by Niti Aayog, the prime

minister sought to change that equation and forge an equal relationship between the two sides. As such this change represents a step towards cooperative federalism.

We will have a more complete picture of the emerging Centre‐state relations this Saturday when the finance minister presents the budget. But even with what we now know, one thing is clear: in the years to come, Niti Aayog will have to play a much greater role in the knowledge space. Greater fiscal freedom combined with greater legislative freedom in areas covered by the concurrent list of the Constitution means that states will need to play a more active role in designing their own programmes and policies.

As they do so, they will need to reach out to data, analysis and expert advice.The design of Niti Aayog as per the Cabinet Note of 1 January 2015 positions it well to provide these services. By the same token, those of us at Niti Aayog have to work hard in the months to come to build new strengths so that we do not disappoint the states that reach out to us for advice and assistance. We shall see.

helm

 

Question No. : 29

With Finance Commission recommendations, Centre‐state relations set to undergo dramatic change Any big change requires big ideas, decisive leadership and happy coincidence of circumstances. Nothing illustrates this better than the unfolding story of cooperative federalism in India.

As chief minister of Gujarat, Narendra Modi had often argued that the central government implemented schemes were at odds with the state’s needs and priorities. For example, schemes that provided funds for electrification were at best of limited value to Gujarat since it had already achieved near 100% electrification.

This state could have spent the money provided for such a scheme more productively if allowed to use it for other purposes.

In advancing this view, Modi was joined by other chief ministers such as Vasundhara Raje of Rajasthan who argued that the vast numbers of central schemes further restricted their fiscal space because many of them required matching contributions by them from their otherwise untied funds. Once these matching funds were committed to access central schemes, states were left with very limited funds for even the most important expenditure items such as enforcement of law and order.

Nevertheless, this system has remained entrenched in one form or another in the last several decades on account of coincidence of three factors. First, outside of state leaders and a few economists and policy analysts, advocates of the view that true federalism means giving greater fiscal space to states and trusting them in setting their own priorities have been few and far between.

Second, the Finance Commission appointed once every five years plays a key role in the division of tax revenues between Centre and states. Consistent with the first point, successive Finance Commissions held untied funds to the states at or below 30% of the divisible tax pool. Only the 13th Finance Commission exceeded this mark, setting states’ share at 32%.

Finally, successive central governments have chosen to transfer the bulk of the remaining funds to the states via central and centrally sponsored schemes. With nearly 8% growth over an entire decade, tax revenues have significantly expanded. Alongside, central and centrally sponsored schemes and the revenue resources they absorb have expanded dramatically as well. Two key factors have come together to dramatically alter this equilibrium.One, India now has a prime minister who was once a chief minister and strongly feels that cooperative federalism means greater fiscal and legislative space for states. And two, by a happy coincidence, the chairman and members of the 14th Finance Commission believe in genuine federalism themselves. Moreover, they have recognised the opportunity offered by a prime minister at the helm who truly believes in the power of states and their leaders. Accordingly , they have recommended that starting 2015‐16, states be awarded 42% of the divisible pool of tax revenues.This is a gigantic and unprecedented 10% jump in devolution.

Predictably , the prime minister and his Cabinet have accepted this bold recommendation of the 14th Finance Commission. What implications does this change have? For starters, with larger transfers coming as untied funds, states also have greater responsibility in discharging their duties. It is likely that they will now have to take greater responsibility in areas that have been hitherto covered by the Centre, especially those falling on the state list. States will also have to do this in ways that are more consistent with their priorities and not according to “one size fits all“ schemes. By the same token, with a lower share in the divisible pool the Centre’s fiscal space will shrink, requiring a rethink of central and centrally sponsored schemes.

One might ask where does Niti Aayog fit into this story? I am tempted to say that in replacing the Planning Commission by Niti Aayog, Prime Minister Modi may have anticipated the 14th Finance Commission. Under the previous regime, the Centre was often seen as “giver“ and states as “recipients“ thereby making the latter feel that they were less than equal partners. In replacing the Planning Commission by Niti Aayog, the prime

minister sought to change that equation and forge an equal relationship between the two sides. As such this change represents a step towards cooperative federalism.

We will have a more complete picture of the emerging Centre‐state relations this Saturday when the finance minister presents the budget. But even with what we now know, one thing is clear: in the years to come, Niti Aayog will have to play a much greater role in the knowledge space. Greater fiscal freedom combined with greater legislative freedom in areas covered by the concurrent list of the Constitution means that states will need to play a more active role in designing their own programmes and policies.

As they do so, they will need to reach out to data, analysis and expert advice.The design of Niti Aayog as per the Cabinet Note of 1 January 2015 positions it well to provide these services. By the same token, those of us at Niti Aayog have to work hard in the months to come to build new strengths so that we do not disappoint the states that reach out to us for advice and assistance. We shall see.

Hitherto

 

Question No. : 30

With Finance Commission recommendations, Centre‐state relations set to undergo dramatic change Any big change requires big ideas, decisive leadership and happy coincidence of circumstances. Nothing illustrates this better than the unfolding story of cooperative federalism in India.

As chief minister of Gujarat, Narendra Modi had often argued that the central government implemented schemes were at odds with the state’s needs and priorities. For example, schemes that provided funds for electrification were at best of limited value to Gujarat since it had already achieved near 100% electrification.

This state could have spent the money provided for such a scheme more productively if allowed to use it for other purposes.

In advancing this view, Modi was joined by other chief ministers such as Vasundhara Raje of Rajasthan who argued that the vast numbers of central schemes further restricted their fiscal space because many of them required matching contributions by them from their otherwise untied funds. Once these matching funds were committed to access central schemes, states were left with very limited funds for even the most important expenditure items such as enforcement of law and order.

Nevertheless, this system has remained entrenched in one form or another in the last several decades on account of coincidence of three factors. First, outside of state leaders and a few economists and policy analysts, advocates of the view that true federalism means giving greater fiscal space to states and trusting them in setting their own priorities have been few and far between.

Second, the Finance Commission appointed once every five years plays a key role in the division of tax revenues between Centre and states. Consistent with the first point, successive Finance Commissions held untied funds to the states at or below 30% of the divisible tax pool. Only the 13th Finance Commission exceeded this mark, setting states’ share at 32%.

Finally, successive central governments have chosen to transfer the bulk of the remaining funds to the states via central and centrally sponsored schemes. With nearly 8% growth over an entire decade, tax revenues have significantly expanded. Alongside, central and centrally sponsored schemes and the revenue resources they absorb have expanded dramatically as well. Two key factors have come together to dramatically alter this equilibrium.One, India now has a prime minister who was once a chief minister and strongly feels that cooperative federalism means greater fiscal and legislative space for states. And two, by a happy coincidence, the chairman and members of the 14th Finance Commission believe in genuine federalism themselves. Moreover, they have recognised the opportunity offered by a prime minister at the helm who truly believes in the power of states and their leaders. Accordingly , they have recommended that starting 2015‐16, states be awarded 42% of the divisible pool of tax revenues.This is a gigantic and unprecedented 10% jump in devolution.

Predictably , the prime minister and his Cabinet have accepted this bold recommendation of the 14th Finance Commission. What implications does this change have? For starters, with larger transfers coming as untied funds, states also have greater responsibility in discharging their duties. It is likely that they will now have to take greater responsibility in areas that have been hitherto covered by the Centre, especially those falling on the state list. States will also have to do this in ways that are more consistent with their priorities and not according to “one size fits all“ schemes. By the same token, with a lower share in the divisible pool the Centre’s fiscal space will shrink, requiring a rethink of central and centrally sponsored schemes.

One might ask where does Niti Aayog fit into this story? I am tempted to say that in replacing the Planning Commission by Niti Aayog, Prime Minister Modi may have anticipated the 14th Finance Commission. Under the previous regime, the Centre was often seen as “giver“ and states as “recipients“ thereby making the latter feel that they were less than equal partners. In replacing the Planning Commission by Niti Aayog, the prime

minister sought to change that equation and forge an equal relationship between the two sides. As such this change represents a step towards cooperative federalism.

We will have a more complete picture of the emerging Centre‐state relations this Saturday when the finance minister presents the budget. But even with what we now know, one thing is clear: in the years to come, Niti Aayog will have to play a much greater role in the knowledge space. Greater fiscal freedom combined with greater legislative freedom in areas covered by the concurrent list of the Constitution means that states will need to play a more active role in designing their own programmes and policies.

As they do so, they will need to reach out to data, analysis and expert advice.The design of Niti Aayog as per the Cabinet Note of 1 January 2015 positions it well to provide these services. By the same token, those of us at Niti Aayog have to work hard in the months to come to build new strengths so that we do not disappoint the states that reach out to us for advice and assistance. We shall see.

Devolution

Question No. : 31

For a little one who is____to go to bed sometimes a silly book is_______the ticket.

 

Question No. : 32

A group of lions was travelling_______the woods when two of them_______into a deep pit.

 

Question No. : 33

Once a little swan, who_______in the city. _______a duck from the village to visit her.

Question No. : 34

The little Red Hen was in the farmyard_______ her chickens, when she_______a strange grain of wheat.

Question No. : 35

One day a rabbit was boasting_______how _______he could run.

Question No. : 36

I wish I had legs worthy of bearing such a noble crown: it is a pity they are so slim and slight.

Question No. : 37

A Peacock once placed a petition before the court desiring to have the voice of a nightingale in addition to his other attractions.

Question No. : 38

For a very long time the wolf succeeded in deceiving the sheep.

Question No. : 39

A man once contended that he and his friends was stronger than lions by reason of their greater intelligence.

Question No. : 40

The ant go on way and continued to toil.

Question No. : 41


Question No. : 42


Question No. : 43


Question No. : 44


Question No. : 45


Question No. : 46

Shukla, Mishra, Singh, Kulkarni, Rao, Joshi and Nair are to conduct interviews simultaneously either alone or in pairs at four different locations—Surat, Chandigarh, Delhi and Lucknow. Only one wants to travel by rail, two prefer travelling by car and the rest travel by air.

    • Shukla is going to Lucknow but neither by car nor by air.

    • Mishra prefers to travel by car.

    • Neither Joshi nor Nair is going to Delhi.

    • Only those going to Surat travel by road.

    • Kulkarni will assist his friend Mishra.

    • The two managers who go to Delhi travel by air.

Where will Kulkarni conduct the interviews?

 

Question No. : 47

Shukla, Mishra, Singh, Kulkarni, Rao, Joshi and Nair are to conduct interviews simultaneously either alone or in pairs at four different locations—Surat, Chandigarh, Delhi and Lucknow. Only one wants to travel by rail, two prefer travelling by car and the rest travel by air.

    • Shukla is going to Lucknow but neither by car nor by air.

    • Mishra prefers to travel by car.

    • Neither Joshi nor Nair is going to Delhi.

    • Only those going to Surat travel by road.

    • Kulkarni will assist his friend Mishra.

    • The two managers who go to Delhi travel by air.

Who goes to Delhi?

Question No. : 48

Shukla, Mishra, Singh, Kulkarni, Rao, Joshi and Nair are to conduct interviews simultaneously either alone or in pairs at four different locations—Surat, Chandigarh, Delhi and Lucknow. Only one wants to travel by rail, two prefer travelling by car and the rest travel by air.

    • Shukla is going to Lucknow but neither by car nor by air.

    • Mishra prefers to travel by car.

    • Neither Joshi nor Nair is going to Delhi.

    • Only those going to Surat travel by road.

    • Kulkarni will assist his friend Mishra.

    • The two managers who go to Delhi travel by air.

Which of the following is true?

Question No. : 49

Shukla, Mishra, Singh, Kulkarni, Rao, Joshi and Nair are to conduct interviews simultaneously either alone or in pairs at four different locations—Surat, Chandigarh, Delhi and Lucknow. Only one wants to travel by rail, two prefer travelling by car and the rest travel by air.

    • Shukla is going to Lucknow but neither by car nor by air.

    • Mishra prefers to travel by car.

    • Neither Joshi nor Nair is going to Delhi.

    • Only those going to Surat travel by road.

    • Kulkarni will assist his friend Mishra.

    • The two managers who go to Delhi travel by air.

Who will conduct interviews at Chandigarh?

Question No. : 50

Shukla, Mishra, Singh, Kulkarni, Rao, Joshi and Nair are to conduct interviews simultaneously either alone or in pairs at four different locations—Surat, Chandigarh, Delhi and Lucknow. Only one wants to travel by rail, two prefer travelling by car and the rest travel by air.

    • Shukla is going to Lucknow but neither by car nor by air.

    • Mishra prefers to travel by car.

    • Neither Joshi nor Nair is going to Delhi.

    • Only those going to Surat travel by road.

    • Kulkarni will assist his friend Mishra.

    • The two managers who go to Delhi travel by air.

In which of the following pair, both of the managers have same mode of travel?

Question No. : 51

Find out the alternative figure which contains figure X﴿ as its part.


Question No. : 52

Find out the alternative figure which contains figure X﴿ as its part.


Question No. : 53

Find out the alternative figure which contains figure X﴿ as its part.


Question No. : 54

Find out the alternative figure which contains figure X﴿ as its part.

Question No. : 55

Find out the alternative figure which contains figure X﴿ as its part.


Question No. : 56

Eight persons P, Q, R, S, T, U, V, W from two families are taking breakfast around a round table. Three members are from one family and five belong to other family. Four of them are male members. T, a male member is sitting second to right of V, a female member. In all cases R has same position with respect to S, who is second to left of Q, a female member. S is wife of W and is sitting adjacent to her husband. U is sister of W and is not sitting between V and T. Q is immediate left of V. W is sitting immediate right of P.

Which of the given statement is wrong?

Question No. : 57

Eight persons P, Q, R, S, T, U, V, W from two families are taking breakfast around a round table. Three members are from one family and five belong to other family. Four of them are male members. T, a male member is sitting second to right of V, a female member. In all cases R has same position with respect to S, who is second to left of Q, a female member. S is wife of W and is sitting adjacent to her husband. U is sister of W and is not sitting between V and T. Q is immediate left of V. W is sitting immediate right of P.

Who is second to the left of P?

Question No. : 58

Eight persons P, Q, R, S, T, U, V, W from two families are taking breakfast around a round table. Three members are from one family and five belong to other family. Four of them are male members. T, a male member is sitting second to right of V, a female member. In all cases R has same position with respect to S, who is second to left of Q, a female member. S is wife of W and is sitting adjacent to her husband. U is sister of W and is not sitting between V and T. Q is immediate left of V. W is sitting immediate right of P.

How many persons are sitting between P and Q when we count anticlockwise?

Question No. : 59

Eight persons P, Q, R, S, T, U, V, W from two families are taking breakfast around a round table. Three members are from one family and five belong to other family. Four of them are male members. T, a male member is sitting second to right of V, a female member. In all cases R has same position with respect to S, who is second to left of Q, a female member. S is wife of W and is sitting adjacent to her husband. U is sister of W and is not sitting between V and T. Q is immediate left of V. W is sitting immediate right of P.

How many members are there in W’s family?

Question No. : 60

Eight persons P, Q, R, S, T, U, V, W from two families are taking breakfast around a round table. Three members are from one family and five belong to other family. Four of them are male members. T, a male member is sitting second to right of V, a female member. In all cases R has same position with respect to S, who is second to left of Q, a female member. S is wife of W and is sitting adjacent to her husband. U is sister of W and is not sitting between V and T. Q is immediate left of V. W is sitting immediate right of P.

Who is the member of family of three?

Question No. : 61


Question No. : 62


Question No. : 63


Question No. : 64


Question No. : 65


Question No. : 66

 

Center\Post

Officer

Clerk

Field/

Supervisor

Specialist

    

Officer

 

Officer

 

Bangalore

2000

5000

50

2050

750

 
        
 

Delhi

15000

17000

160

11000

750

 
        
 

Mumbai

17000

19500

70

7000

900

 
        
 

Hyderabad

3500

20000

300

90000

1150

 
        
 

Kolkata

14900

17650

70

1300

1200

 
        
 

Lucknow

11360

15300

30

1500

650

 
        
 

Chennai

9000

11000

95

1650

500

 
        

In Kolkata number of Specialist officer is approximately what percent of that officer?

 

Question No. : 67

Center\Post

Officer

Clerk

Field/

Supervisor

Specialist

   

Officer

 

Officer

Bangalore

2000

5000

50

2050

750

Delhi

15000

17000

160

11000

750

Mumbai

17000

19500

70

7000

900

Hyderabad

3500

20000

300

90000

1150

Kolkata

14900

17650

70

1300

1200

Lucknow

11360

15300

30

1500

650

Chennai

9000

11000

95

1650

500

      

What is the difference between total number for officers and Clerks?

 

Question No. : 68

 

Center\Post

Officer

Clerk

Field/

Supervisor

Specialist

    

Officer

 

Officer

 

Bangalore

2000

5000

50

2050

750

 
        
 

Delhi

15000

17000

160

11000

750

 
        
 

Mumbai

17000

19500

70

7000

900

 
        
 

Hyderabad

3500

20000

300

90000

1150

 
        
 

Kolkata

14900

17650

70

1300

1200

 
        
 

Lucknow

11360

15300

30

1500

650

 
        
 

Chennai

9000

11000

95

1650

500

 
        

In Chennai number of clerks is approximately how much percent more than that of officers?

 

Question No. : 69

Center\Post

Officer

Clerk

Field/

Supervisor

Specialist

   

Officer

 

Officer

Bangalore

2000

5000

50

2050

750

Delhi

15000

17000

160

11000

750

Mumbai

17000

19500

70

7000

900

Hyderabad

3500

20000

300

90000

1150

Kolkata

14900

17650

70

1300

1200

Lucknow

11360

15300

30

1500

650

Chennai

9000

11000

95

1650

500

      

Which center has 300% more number of clerks as compared to Bangalore?

 

Question No. : 70

 

Center\Post

Officer

Clerk

Field/

Supervisor

Specialist

    

Officer

 

Officer

 

Bangalore

2000

5000

50

2050

750

 
        
 

Delhi

15000

17000

160

11000

750

 
        
 

Mumbai

17000

19500

70

7000

900

 
        
 

Hyderabad

3500

20000

300

90000

1150

 
        
 

Kolkata

14900

17650

70

1300

1200

 
        
 

Lucknow

11360

15300

30

1500

650

 
        
 

Chennai

9000

11000

95

1650

500

 
        

Which center has the highest number of candidates?

Question No. : 71

Statements:

Some red are blue. Some blue are grey.

All grey are white. No white is black.

Conclusions:

  1. No black is grey.
  2. Some blue are white.
  3. Some black are red.
  4. No black is red.

Question No. : 72

Statements:

All red are white. Some white are pink.

Some pink are yellow. No yellow is blue.

Conclusions:

  1. No blue is pink.
  2. Some pink are red.
  3. Some blue are red.
  4. Some blue are pink.

Question No. : 73

Statements:

Some blue are black. Some black are grey.

All grey are red. All red are pink.

Conclusions:

  1. Some red are black.
  2. Some pink are black.
  3. Some pink are grey.
  4. Some red are blue.

Question No. : 74

Statements:

All green are pink. Some pink are black.

Some black are blue. All blue are white.

Conclusions:

  1. Some black are white.
  2. Some blue are pink.
  3. Some pink are green.
  4. No green is white.

Question No. : 75

Statements:

Some blue are white. All white are red.

All red are pink. Some pink are yellow.

Conclusions:

  1. Some yellow are red.
  2. Some yellow are white.
  3. All red are white.
  4. Some yellow are blue.

Question No. : 76

Statements:

Some tumblers are plates.

Some bottles are tumblers.

All plates are spoons.

Conclusions:

  1. Some spoons are tumblers
  2. Some spoons are plates.
  3. Some bottles are plates.
  4. No bottle is a plate

Question No. : 77

Statements:

All speeches are translations.

All essays are speeches.

No essays are reviews.

Conclusions:

  1. Some reviews are speeches
  2. No reviews are essays
  3. No reviews are translation
  4. No review are speeches

Question No. : 78

Statements:

No navies are air forces.

All armies are navies.

All air forces are defences.

Conclusions:

  1. No air forces are navies
  2. Some defences are airforces
  3. Some defences are not navies
  4. No armies are air forces

Question No. : 79

Statements:

All roots are stems.

Some branches are trees.

Some stems are branches.

Conclusions:

  1. Some trees are stems
  2. Some trees are branches.
  3. All trees are stems
  4. Some trees are not branches

Question No. : 80

Statements:

All clouds are stars.

No stars are planets.

Some clouds are satellites.

Conclusions:

  1. No planet is cloud
  2. Some satellites are stars
  3. Some planets are not satellites
  4. Some satellites are not planets

Question No. : 81

P @ Q means P is neither smaller than nor equal to Q

P # Q means P is neither greater than nor equal to Q

P $ Q means P is neither greater nor smaller than Q

P % Q means P is not greater than Q

P & Q means P is not smaller than Q

Statements: A @ B, B $ C, C # D

Conclusions:
I. A#D
II. B@D

Question No. : 82

P @ Q means P is neither smaller than nor equal to Q

P # Q means P is neither greater than nor equal to Q

P $ Q means P is neither greater nor smaller than Q

P % Q means P is not greater than Q

P & Q means P is not smaller than Q

Statements: P&Q, Q%R, R$S

Conclusions:
I. Q$S

II. P#S

Question No. : 83

P @ Q means P is neither smaller than nor equal to Q

P # Q means P is neither greater than nor equal to Q

P $ Q means P is neither greater nor smaller than Q

P % Q means P is not greater than Q

P & Q means P is not smaller than Q

Statements: P&Q, Q@R, R%S

Conclusions:
I. Q%S

II. P%S

Question No. : 84

P @ Q means P is neither smaller than nor equal to Q

P # Q means P is neither greater than nor equal to Q

P $ Q means P is neither greater nor smaller than Q

P % Q means P is not greater than Q

P & Q means P is not smaller than Q

Statements: A@B, B#C, C%D

Conclusions:
I. B#D

II. D@A

Question No. : 85

P @ Q means P is neither smaller than nor equal to Q

P # Q means P is neither greater than nor equal to Q

P $ Q means P is neither greater nor smaller than Q

P % Q means P is not greater than Q

P & Q means P is not smaller than Q

Statements: A@B, B%C, C@D

Conclusions:
I. D$B

II. B@D

Question No. : 86

EMACIATED

Question No. : 87

ECSTATIC

Question No. : 88

MENDACIOUS

Question No. : 89

Façade

Question No. : 90

munificence

Question No. : 91

Statement: Cell phone users have found that tariff plans are not as attractive as promoted by telecom companies and complained to regulatory authority about the same.

Course of Action I : The regulatory authority should direct telecom companies to be transparent on the tariff structure of all same.

Course of Action II : The government should restrict the number of telecom companies operating in the country.

Question No. : 92

Statement: A number of school children in the local schools have fallen ill after the consumptions of their subsidized Tiffin provided by the school authority.

Courses of Action:

I. The Tiffin facility of all schools should be discontinued with immediate effect.

II. The government should implement a system to certify the quality of Tiffin provided by the school

Question No. : 93

Statement: An increasing number of graduates produced by Indian universities are unemployable.

Courses of Action:

I. Colleges and Institutes of higher education should decide the course content.

II. World‐class foreign universities should be encouraged to set up campuses in India

Question No. : 94

Statement: The Asian Development Bank has approved a $285 million loan to finance a project to construct coal ports by Paradip and Madras Port Trusts.

Courses of Action:

I﴿India should use financial assistance from other international financial organisations to develop such ports in other places.

II﴿India should not seek such financial assistance from the international financial agencies.

Question No. : 95

Statement: There is an unprecedented increase in migration of villagers to urban areas as repeated crop failure has put them into precarious financial situation.

Courses of Action:

I﴿The villagers should be provided with alternate source of income in their villages which will make them stay put.

II﴿The migrated villagers should be provided with jobs in the urban areas to help them survive.

Question No. : 96

Look carefully for the pattern, and then choose which pair of numbers comes next.

9 11 33 13 15 33 17

Question No. : 97

In these series, you will be looking at both the letter pattern and the number pattern. Fill the blank in the middle of the series or end of the series.

P5QR, P4QS, P3QT, _____, P1QV

Question No. : 98

All guilty politicians were arrested. Kishan and Chander were among those arrested.

Question No. : 99

Translate from an imaginary language into English. Then, look for the word elements that appear both on the list and in the answer choices.

Here are some words translated from an artificial language:‐

morpirquat means birdhouse

beelmorpir means bluebird

beelclak means bluebell

Which word could mean “houseguest”?

Question No. : 100

Question No. : 101

Alfred buys an old scooter for Rs. 4700 and spends Rs. 800 on its repairs. If he sells the scooter for Rs. 5800, his gain percent is:

Question No. : 102

Sam purchased 20 dozens of toys at the rate of Rs. 375 per dozen. He sold each one of them at the rate of Rs. 33. What was his percentage profit?

Question No. : 103

A man mixes two types of rice X and Y﴿ and sells the mixture at the rate of Rs. 17 per kg. Find his profit percentage.

I. The rate of X is Rs. 20 per kg.

II. The rate of Y is Rs. 13 per kg.

Question No. : 104

The average of 20 numbers is zero. Of them, at the most, how many may be greater than zero?

Question No. : 105

The average weight of 8 person’s increases by 2.5 kg when a new person comes in place of one of them weighing 65 kg. What might be the weight of the new person?

Question No. : 106

The average age of husband, wife and their child 3 years ago was 27 years and that of wife and the child 5 years ago was 20 years. The present age of the husband is:

Question No. : 107

What is the average age of children in the class?

I. The age of the teacher is as many years as the number of children.

II. Average age is increased by 1 year if the teacher’s age is also included.

Question No. : 108

Odometer is to mileage as compass is to

Question No. : 109

Marathon is to race as hibernation is to

Question No. : 110

Cup is to coffee as bowl is to

Question No. : 111

Elated is to despondent as enlightened is to

Question No. : 112

Reptile is to lizard as flower is to

Question No. : 113

Statement: It is desirable to put the child in school at the age of 5 or so.

Assumptions:

I. At that age the child reaches appropriate level of development and is ready to learn.

II. The schools do not admit children after six years of age.

 

Question No. : 114

Statement: “If you trouble me, I will slap you.” ‐ A mother warns her child.

Assumptions:

I. With the warning, the child may stop troubling her.

II. All children are basically naughty.

Question No. : 115

2, 1, 1/2﴿, 1/4﴿, … What number should come next?

Question No. : 116

7, 10, 8, 11, 9, 12, … What number should come next?

Question No. : 117

22, 21, 23, 22, 24, 23, … What number should come next?

Question No. : 118

CORPULENT

Question No. : 119

BRIEF

Question No. : 120

EMBEZZLE

Question No. : 121

VENT

Question No. : 122

AUGUST

Question No. : 123

CANNY

Question No. : 124

ALERT

Question No. : 125

STERILE

Question No. : 126

  1. at
  2. it
  3. take
  4. once
  5. away

Question No. : 127

  1. seen
  2. going
  3. you
  4. him
  5. have

Question No. : 128

  1. killed
  2. a
  3. Jaswant
  4. bear
  5. wild

Question No. : 129

  1. tea
  2. have
  3. that
  4. some
  5. before

Your new question!

Question No. : 131

The man who has committed such a serious crime must get the mostly severe punishment.

Question No. : 132

For many centuries in Indian History there was no city so famous like the city of Ujjain.

Question No. : 133

We don’t know how did the thief made an escape.

Question No. : 134

Their earnings are such that they find it difficult to make both ends to meet.

Question No. : 135

He has received no other message than an urgent telegram asking him to rush his village immediately.

Question No. : 136

You can play with these kittens quite safely.

Question No. : 137

A child could not have done this mischief.

Question No. : 138

James Watt discovered the energy of steam.

Question No. : 139

She makes cakes every Sunday

Question No. : 140

She spoke to the official on duty.

Question No. : 141

State in which the few govern the many

Question No. : 142

A style in which a writer makes a display of his knowledge

Question No. : 143

A disease of mind causing an uncontrollable desire to steal

Question No. : 144

Find the correctly spelt words.

Question No. : 145

Question No. : 146

Question No. : 147

When I was a child, I ……to school everyday instead going by cycle.

Question No. : 148

The Sun …… at six this morning.

Question No. : 149

Her parents will never give their …… to so much an unsuitable match.

Question No. : 150

People who …… on horses usually lose in the end.

Question No. : 151

42, 40, 38, 35, 33, 31, 28, ?, ?

Question No. : 152

8, 12, 9, 13, 10, 14, 11, ?, ?

Question No. : 153

36, 31, 29, 24, 22, 17, 15, ?, ?

 

Question No. : 154

3, 5, 35, 10, 12, 35, 17, ?, ?

Question No. : 155

13, 29, 15, 26, 17, 23, 19, ?, ?

Question No. : 156

637.28 – 781.47 + 257.39 = ?

Question No. : 157

6% of 350 + 2% of 700 = ?% of 1400

Question No. : 158

4672 ÷ 40 ÷ 4 = ?

Question No. : 159

7 × ? = 546 ÷ 4

Question No. : 160

672 ÷ 24 × 18 + 153 ‐ 345 = ?

Question No. : 161

In a certain code ‘best way to win’ is written as ‘ad mi ja no’, ‘ the way to hell’ is written as ‘ku ja ig ad’. ‘win of the day’ is written as ‘be ku zo mi’ and ‘to sell of night’ is written as ‘be Ii ya ja’.

What is the code for ‘sell’?

Question No. : 162

In a certain code ‘best way to win’ is written as ‘ad mi ja no’, ‘ the way to hell’ is written as ‘ku ja ig ad’. ‘win of the day’ is written as ‘be ku zo mi’ and ‘to sell of night’ is written as ‘be Ii ya ja’.

Which of the following may represent ‘hell is way’?

Question No. : 163

In a certain code ‘best way to win’ is written as ‘ad mi ja no’, ‘ the way to hell’ is written as ‘ku ja ig ad’. ‘win of the day’ is written as ‘be ku zo mi’ and ‘to sell of night’ is written as ‘be Ii ya ja’.

‘mi’ is the code for?

 

Question No. : 164

In a certain code ‘best way to win’ is written as ‘ad mi ja no’, ‘ the way to hell’ is written as ‘ku ja ig ad’. ‘win of the day’ is written as ‘be ku zo mi’ and ‘to sell of night’ is written as ‘be Ii ya ja’.

What is the code for’ best’?

Question No. : 165

In a certain code ‘best way to win’ is written as ‘ad mi ja no’, ‘ the way to hell’ is written as ‘ku ja ig ad’. ‘win of the day’ is written as ‘be ku zo mi’ and ‘to sell of night’ is written as ‘be Ii ya ja’.

Which of the following represents ‘of the way’?

Question No. : 166

67.39 ‐ 11.78 + 19.63 = ? + 22.41

Question No. : 167

44% of 125 + 75% of 840 = ?

Question No. : 168

1.2 * 0.9 ÷ 0.25 * 24 = ?

 

Question No. : 169

22% of 250 + 35% of 460 = ?

Question No. : 170

0.6 * 1.8 ÷ 0.5 * 12 = ?

Question No. : 171

P b 7 E N ? 2 L * e K W 8 $ = 5 J D ÷ V 6 F G @ 3 C R.

How many such symbols are there in the above series each of which is immediately preceded by a number?

Question No. : 172

P b 7 E N ? 2 L * e K W 8 $ = 5 J D ÷ V 6 F G @ 3 C R.

How many such letters are there in the above series each of which is not immediately preceded by a symbol?

Question No. : 173

P b 7 E N ? 2 L * e K W 8 $ = 5 J D ÷ V 6 F G @ 3 C R.

How many such numbers are there in the above series each of which is immediately followed by a letter but not immediately preceded by a number?

Question No. : 174

P b 7 E N ? 2 L * e K W 8 $ = 5 J D ÷ V 6 F G @ 3 C R.

How many such symbols are there in the above series each of which is immediately followed by a letter but not immediately preceded by a number?

Question No. : 175

P b 7 E N ? 2 L * e K W 8 $ = 5 J D ÷ V 6 F G @ 3 C R.

If all the symbols are eliminated from the above series, then which of the following will be the 5th to the right of 10th element from the right end?

Question No. : 176

Number of Vehicles Manufactured by Two companies over the Years Number in Thousands﴿

What is the difference between the number of vehicles manufactured by Company Y in 2000 and 2001?

 

Question No. : 177

Number of Vehicles Manufactured by Two companies over the Years Number in Thousands﴿

What is the difference between the total productions of the two Companies in the given years ?

 

Question No. : 178

Number of Vehicles Manufactured by Two companies over the Years Number in Thousands﴿

What is the average numbers of vehicles manufactured by Company X over the given period? Rounded off to nearest integer﴿

 

Question No. : 179

Number of Vehicles Manufactured by Two companies over the Years Number in Thousands﴿

In which of the following years, the difference between the productions of Companies X and Y was the maximum among the given years?

 

Question No. : 180

Number of Vehicles Manufactured by Two companies over the Years Number in Thousands﴿

The production of Company Y in 2000 was approximately what percent of the production of Company X in the same year?

 

Question No. : 181

BLIND : VISUAL : : Deaf : ?

Question No. : 182

GENUINE : AUTHENTIC : : Mirage : ?

Question No. : 183

ORNAMENTS : GOLD : : Needle 😕

Question No. : 184

RAT : CAT : : Worm 😕

Question No. : 185

CALENDAR : DATES : : Dictionary : ?

Question No. : 186

He was charged with abetting the murder of an innocent child.

Question No. : 187

Twenty point programme is aimed at alleviating the sufferings of the poor.

Question No. : 188

How dare you desecrate an idol of this temple.

Question No. : 189

Though generous and benevolent, he did not neet with success in his career.

Question No. : 190

There exists rancour between the two brothers.

Question No. : 191

Without waiting for the instructions from the Government, some cable operators in the city had block the news

Question No. : 192

The authorities have instructed that brief notes must be prepared on all the issues related to customer grievances.

Question No. : 193

Hindi films are certainly popular in the last decade but in these days our regional films have attained more popularity.

Question No. : 194

On account of the high land prices we are set up the factory on the outskirts of the city.

Question No. : 195

Our customers are always visit our branches to discuss their problems with staff.

Question No. : 196

1﴿ “What is waste of my tax money”, I thought, walking past the people having free Californian Chardonnay.

2﴿ “Speak to her”, he said, “She’s into books”.

3﴿ The friend who had brought me there noticed my noticing her.

4﴿ In late 2003, I was still paying taxes in America, so it horrified me that the US Consulate was hosting a “Gallo drinking appreciation event”.

5﴿ Behind them, a pianist was playing old film tunes, and a slim short woman was dancing around him.

Which of the following would be the Fourth sentence ?

Question No. : 197

1﴿ “What is waste of my tax money”, I thought, walking past the people having free Californian Chardonnay.

2﴿ “Speak to her”, he said, “She’s into books”.

3﴿ The friend who had brought me there noticed my noticing her.

4﴿ In late 2003, I was still paying taxes in America, so it horrified me that the US Consulate was hosting a “Gallo drinking appreciation event”.

5﴿ Behind them, a pianist was playing old film tunes, and a slim short woman was dancing around him.

Which of the following would be the First sentence ?

Question No. : 198

1﴿ “What is waste of my tax money”, I thought, walking past the people having free Californian Chardonnay.

2﴿ “Speak to her”, he said, “She’s into books”.

3﴿ The friend who had brought me there noticed my noticing her.

4﴿ In late 2003, I was still paying taxes in America, so it horrified me that the US Consulate was hosting a “Gallo drinking appreciation event”.

5﴿ Behind them, a pianist was playing old film tunes, and a slim short woman was dancing around him.

Which of the following would be the Fifth Last﴿ sentence ?

Question No. : 199

1﴿ “What is waste of my tax money”, I thought, walking past the people having free Californian Chardonnay.

2﴿ “Speak to her”, he said, “She’s into books”.

3﴿ The friend who had brought me there noticed my noticing her.

4﴿ In late 2003, I was still paying taxes in America, so it horrified me that the US Consulate was hosting a “Gallo drinking appreciation event”.

5﴿ Behind them, a pianist was playing old film tunes, and a slim short woman was dancing around him.

Which of the following would be the Second sentence ?

Question No. : 200

1﴿ “What is waste of my tax money”, I thought, walking past the people having free Californian Chardonnay.

2﴿ “Speak to her”, he said, “She’s into books”.

3﴿ The friend who had brought me there noticed my noticing her.

4﴿ In late 2003, I was still paying taxes in America, so it horrified me that the US Consulate was hosting a “Gallo drinking appreciation event”.

5﴿ Behind them, a pianist was playing old film tunes, and a slim short woman was dancing around him.

Which of the following would be the Third sentence?