🚀
CLAT UG Quantitative Techniques-Booster-Population, Demographic & Economic Analysis-Test 1
⏱️
30 Minutes
❓
18 Questions
📌 Answers are locked once submitted — results and explanations appear at the end.
CLAT UG Quantitative Techniques-Booster-Population, Demographic & Economic Analysis-Test 1
QUESTION 1 OF 18
📄 Passage
A household-finance survey examined the monthly budget of a representative salaried family whose net income after compulsory deductions was ₹72,000. The survey classified every rupee either as expenditure or savings, so the listed shares together equal 100 per cent of income. The family spent 24 per cent on food, 20 per cent on house rent, 15 per cent on education, 10 per cent on transport, 8 per cent on healthcare, 7 per cent on electricity, water and communication utilities, and 6 per cent on discretionary items such as recreation and clothing. The remaining 10 per cent was saved. At the stated income, food expenditure was ₹17,280, rent was ₹14,400, education was ₹10,800, transport was ₹7,200, healthcare was ₹5,760, utilities were ₹5,040 and discretionary expenditure was ₹4,320. Monthly savings were therefore ₹7,200. The family divided these savings by placing 40 per cent in an emergency fund, 35 per cent in a long-term investment account and the remaining 25 per cent towards planned annual purchases. The survey also examined how inflation could change the budget when income remained fixed. An increase in the price of a category was treated as an increase in the amount spent on that category, not as an increase in its original share of income by the same number of percentage points. For example, if food expenditure rose by 10 per cent, the new amount would be 110 per cent of the original food amount. Unless a question states otherwise, every other expenditure would remain unchanged and the additional cost would be taken entirely from savings. For a separate comparison, healthcare expenditure was assumed to rise from ₹5,760 to ₹6,480. The survey distinguished the percentage increase in the amount from the new percentage share of income. It also classified food, rent, education, healthcare and utilities as essential expenditure. Transport and discretionary items were treated as other current expenditure, while savings were not counted as expenditure. The data show that household security depends not only on income but also on the interaction between inflation and the savings buffer. A family can maintain the same nominal income while losing a substantial part of its capacity to meet emergencies or long-term goals.
QUESTION 2 OF 18
📄 Passage
A household-finance survey examined the monthly budget of a representative salaried family whose net income after compulsory deductions was ₹72,000. The survey classified every rupee either as expenditure or savings, so the listed shares together equal 100 per cent of income. The family spent 24 per cent on food, 20 per cent on house rent, 15 per cent on education, 10 per cent on transport, 8 per cent on healthcare, 7 per cent on electricity, water and communication utilities, and 6 per cent on discretionary items such as recreation and clothing. The remaining 10 per cent was saved. At the stated income, food expenditure was ₹17,280, rent was ₹14,400, education was ₹10,800, transport was ₹7,200, healthcare was ₹5,760, utilities were ₹5,040 and discretionary expenditure was ₹4,320. Monthly savings were therefore ₹7,200. The family divided these savings by placing 40 per cent in an emergency fund, 35 per cent in a long-term investment account and the remaining 25 per cent towards planned annual purchases. The survey also examined how inflation could change the budget when income remained fixed. An increase in the price of a category was treated as an increase in the amount spent on that category, not as an increase in its original share of income by the same number of percentage points. For example, if food expenditure rose by 10 per cent, the new amount would be 110 per cent of the original food amount. Unless a question states otherwise, every other expenditure would remain unchanged and the additional cost would be taken entirely from savings. For a separate comparison, healthcare expenditure was assumed to rise from ₹5,760 to ₹6,480. The survey distinguished the percentage increase in the amount from the new percentage share of income. It also classified food, rent, education, healthcare and utilities as essential expenditure. Transport and discretionary items were treated as other current expenditure, while savings were not counted as expenditure. The data show that household security depends not only on income but also on the interaction between inflation and the savings buffer. A family can maintain the same nominal income while losing a substantial part of its capacity to meet emergencies or long-term goals.
QUESTION 3 OF 18
📄 Passage
A household-finance survey examined the monthly budget of a representative salaried family whose net income after compulsory deductions was ₹72,000. The survey classified every rupee either as expenditure or savings, so the listed shares together equal 100 per cent of income. The family spent 24 per cent on food, 20 per cent on house rent, 15 per cent on education, 10 per cent on transport, 8 per cent on healthcare, 7 per cent on electricity, water and communication utilities, and 6 per cent on discretionary items such as recreation and clothing. The remaining 10 per cent was saved. At the stated income, food expenditure was ₹17,280, rent was ₹14,400, education was ₹10,800, transport was ₹7,200, healthcare was ₹5,760, utilities were ₹5,040 and discretionary expenditure was ₹4,320. Monthly savings were therefore ₹7,200. The family divided these savings by placing 40 per cent in an emergency fund, 35 per cent in a long-term investment account and the remaining 25 per cent towards planned annual purchases. The survey also examined how inflation could change the budget when income remained fixed. An increase in the price of a category was treated as an increase in the amount spent on that category, not as an increase in its original share of income by the same number of percentage points. For example, if food expenditure rose by 10 per cent, the new amount would be 110 per cent of the original food amount. Unless a question states otherwise, every other expenditure would remain unchanged and the additional cost would be taken entirely from savings. For a separate comparison, healthcare expenditure was assumed to rise from ₹5,760 to ₹6,480. The survey distinguished the percentage increase in the amount from the new percentage share of income. It also classified food, rent, education, healthcare and utilities as essential expenditure. Transport and discretionary items were treated as other current expenditure, while savings were not counted as expenditure. The data show that household security depends not only on income but also on the interaction between inflation and the savings buffer. A family can maintain the same nominal income while losing a substantial part of its capacity to meet emergencies or long-term goals.
QUESTION 4 OF 18
📄 Passage
A household-finance survey examined the monthly budget of a representative salaried family whose net income after compulsory deductions was ₹72,000. The survey classified every rupee either as expenditure or savings, so the listed shares together equal 100 per cent of income. The family spent 24 per cent on food, 20 per cent on house rent, 15 per cent on education, 10 per cent on transport, 8 per cent on healthcare, 7 per cent on electricity, water and communication utilities, and 6 per cent on discretionary items such as recreation and clothing. The remaining 10 per cent was saved. At the stated income, food expenditure was ₹17,280, rent was ₹14,400, education was ₹10,800, transport was ₹7,200, healthcare was ₹5,760, utilities were ₹5,040 and discretionary expenditure was ₹4,320. Monthly savings were therefore ₹7,200. The family divided these savings by placing 40 per cent in an emergency fund, 35 per cent in a long-term investment account and the remaining 25 per cent towards planned annual purchases. The survey also examined how inflation could change the budget when income remained fixed. An increase in the price of a category was treated as an increase in the amount spent on that category, not as an increase in its original share of income by the same number of percentage points. For example, if food expenditure rose by 10 per cent, the new amount would be 110 per cent of the original food amount. Unless a question states otherwise, every other expenditure would remain unchanged and the additional cost would be taken entirely from savings. For a separate comparison, healthcare expenditure was assumed to rise from ₹5,760 to ₹6,480. The survey distinguished the percentage increase in the amount from the new percentage share of income. It also classified food, rent, education, healthcare and utilities as essential expenditure. Transport and discretionary items were treated as other current expenditure, while savings were not counted as expenditure. The data show that household security depends not only on income but also on the interaction between inflation and the savings buffer. A family can maintain the same nominal income while losing a substantial part of its capacity to meet emergencies or long-term goals.
QUESTION 5 OF 18
📄 Passage
A household-finance survey examined the monthly budget of a representative salaried family whose net income after compulsory deductions was ₹72,000. The survey classified every rupee either as expenditure or savings, so the listed shares together equal 100 per cent of income. The family spent 24 per cent on food, 20 per cent on house rent, 15 per cent on education, 10 per cent on transport, 8 per cent on healthcare, 7 per cent on electricity, water and communication utilities, and 6 per cent on discretionary items such as recreation and clothing. The remaining 10 per cent was saved. At the stated income, food expenditure was ₹17,280, rent was ₹14,400, education was ₹10,800, transport was ₹7,200, healthcare was ₹5,760, utilities were ₹5,040 and discretionary expenditure was ₹4,320. Monthly savings were therefore ₹7,200. The family divided these savings by placing 40 per cent in an emergency fund, 35 per cent in a long-term investment account and the remaining 25 per cent towards planned annual purchases. The survey also examined how inflation could change the budget when income remained fixed. An increase in the price of a category was treated as an increase in the amount spent on that category, not as an increase in its original share of income by the same number of percentage points. For example, if food expenditure rose by 10 per cent, the new amount would be 110 per cent of the original food amount. Unless a question states otherwise, every other expenditure would remain unchanged and the additional cost would be taken entirely from savings. For a separate comparison, healthcare expenditure was assumed to rise from ₹5,760 to ₹6,480. The survey distinguished the percentage increase in the amount from the new percentage share of income. It also classified food, rent, education, healthcare and utilities as essential expenditure. Transport and discretionary items were treated as other current expenditure, while savings were not counted as expenditure. The data show that household security depends not only on income but also on the interaction between inflation and the savings buffer. A family can maintain the same nominal income while losing a substantial part of its capacity to meet emergencies or long-term goals.
QUESTION 6 OF 18
📄 Passage
A household-finance survey examined the monthly budget of a representative salaried family whose net income after compulsory deductions was ₹72,000. The survey classified every rupee either as expenditure or savings, so the listed shares together equal 100 per cent of income. The family spent 24 per cent on food, 20 per cent on house rent, 15 per cent on education, 10 per cent on transport, 8 per cent on healthcare, 7 per cent on electricity, water and communication utilities, and 6 per cent on discretionary items such as recreation and clothing. The remaining 10 per cent was saved. At the stated income, food expenditure was ₹17,280, rent was ₹14,400, education was ₹10,800, transport was ₹7,200, healthcare was ₹5,760, utilities were ₹5,040 and discretionary expenditure was ₹4,320. Monthly savings were therefore ₹7,200. The family divided these savings by placing 40 per cent in an emergency fund, 35 per cent in a long-term investment account and the remaining 25 per cent towards planned annual purchases. The survey also examined how inflation could change the budget when income remained fixed. An increase in the price of a category was treated as an increase in the amount spent on that category, not as an increase in its original share of income by the same number of percentage points. For example, if food expenditure rose by 10 per cent, the new amount would be 110 per cent of the original food amount. Unless a question states otherwise, every other expenditure would remain unchanged and the additional cost would be taken entirely from savings. For a separate comparison, healthcare expenditure was assumed to rise from ₹5,760 to ₹6,480. The survey distinguished the percentage increase in the amount from the new percentage share of income. It also classified food, rent, education, healthcare and utilities as essential expenditure. Transport and discretionary items were treated as other current expenditure, while savings were not counted as expenditure. The data show that household security depends not only on income but also on the interaction between inflation and the savings buffer. A family can maintain the same nominal income while losing a substantial part of its capacity to meet emergencies or long-term goals.
QUESTION 7 OF 18
📄 Passage
A state-wide health-protection survey covered 2,00,000 adults and divided the sample into urban and rural residents. Urban residents formed 60 per cent of the sample, or 1,20,000 adults, while rural residents formed 40 per cent, or 80,000 adults. Every person was placed in exactly one of four categories: public health scheme, private insurance, employer-provided insurance or uninsured. Consequently, the four percentages within each area total 100 per cent. Among urban residents, 25 per cent were covered by public schemes, 20 per cent by private insurance and 30 per cent by employer-provided plans. The remaining 25 per cent were uninsured. This means that 75 per cent of the urban population had some form of insurance. In rural areas, public schemes covered 42 per cent, private insurance covered 8 per cent and employer plans covered 10 per cent. The remaining 40 per cent were uninsured, leaving 60 per cent with some form of protection. The actual urban counts were therefore 30,000 under public schemes, 24,000 under private insurance, 36,000 under employer plans and 30,000 uninsured. The corresponding rural counts were 33,600, 6,400, 8,000 and 32,000. For all calculations, “insured” means the combined total under public, private and employer-provided coverage. No person is counted in more than one category. Officials observed that the structure of coverage differed as much as the overall coverage rate. Employer and private plans together protected half of all urban adults, whereas public schemes were the largest single source of rural coverage. Rural areas had fewer insured adults even though their public-scheme coverage rate was higher. The uninsured gap also had to be examined using actual numbers, because a larger percentage in a smaller population does not always produce the largest count. The survey proposed using these figures to measure total coverage, compare the contribution of different schemes and identify groups requiring additional outreach. It cautioned that a coverage percentage does not reveal the quality of treatment or the adequacy of the insured amount; it only records whether a person belongs to one of the recognised coverage categories.
QUESTION 8 OF 18
📄 Passage
A state-wide health-protection survey covered 2,00,000 adults and divided the sample into urban and rural residents. Urban residents formed 60 per cent of the sample, or 1,20,000 adults, while rural residents formed 40 per cent, or 80,000 adults. Every person was placed in exactly one of four categories: public health scheme, private insurance, employer-provided insurance or uninsured. Consequently, the four percentages within each area total 100 per cent. Among urban residents, 25 per cent were covered by public schemes, 20 per cent by private insurance and 30 per cent by employer-provided plans. The remaining 25 per cent were uninsured. This means that 75 per cent of the urban population had some form of insurance. In rural areas, public schemes covered 42 per cent, private insurance covered 8 per cent and employer plans covered 10 per cent. The remaining 40 per cent were uninsured, leaving 60 per cent with some form of protection. The actual urban counts were therefore 30,000 under public schemes, 24,000 under private insurance, 36,000 under employer plans and 30,000 uninsured. The corresponding rural counts were 33,600, 6,400, 8,000 and 32,000. For all calculations, “insured” means the combined total under public, private and employer-provided coverage. No person is counted in more than one category. Officials observed that the structure of coverage differed as much as the overall coverage rate. Employer and private plans together protected half of all urban adults, whereas public schemes were the largest single source of rural coverage. Rural areas had fewer insured adults even though their public-scheme coverage rate was higher. The uninsured gap also had to be examined using actual numbers, because a larger percentage in a smaller population does not always produce the largest count. The survey proposed using these figures to measure total coverage, compare the contribution of different schemes and identify groups requiring additional outreach. It cautioned that a coverage percentage does not reveal the quality of treatment or the adequacy of the insured amount; it only records whether a person belongs to one of the recognised coverage categories.
QUESTION 9 OF 18
📄 Passage
A state-wide health-protection survey covered 2,00,000 adults and divided the sample into urban and rural residents. Urban residents formed 60 per cent of the sample, or 1,20,000 adults, while rural residents formed 40 per cent, or 80,000 adults. Every person was placed in exactly one of four categories: public health scheme, private insurance, employer-provided insurance or uninsured. Consequently, the four percentages within each area total 100 per cent. Among urban residents, 25 per cent were covered by public schemes, 20 per cent by private insurance and 30 per cent by employer-provided plans. The remaining 25 per cent were uninsured. This means that 75 per cent of the urban population had some form of insurance. In rural areas, public schemes covered 42 per cent, private insurance covered 8 per cent and employer plans covered 10 per cent. The remaining 40 per cent were uninsured, leaving 60 per cent with some form of protection. The actual urban counts were therefore 30,000 under public schemes, 24,000 under private insurance, 36,000 under employer plans and 30,000 uninsured. The corresponding rural counts were 33,600, 6,400, 8,000 and 32,000. For all calculations, “insured” means the combined total under public, private and employer-provided coverage. No person is counted in more than one category. Officials observed that the structure of coverage differed as much as the overall coverage rate. Employer and private plans together protected half of all urban adults, whereas public schemes were the largest single source of rural coverage. Rural areas had fewer insured adults even though their public-scheme coverage rate was higher. The uninsured gap also had to be examined using actual numbers, because a larger percentage in a smaller population does not always produce the largest count. The survey proposed using these figures to measure total coverage, compare the contribution of different schemes and identify groups requiring additional outreach. It cautioned that a coverage percentage does not reveal the quality of treatment or the adequacy of the insured amount; it only records whether a person belongs to one of the recognised coverage categories.
QUESTION 10 OF 18
📄 Passage
A state-wide health-protection survey covered 2,00,000 adults and divided the sample into urban and rural residents. Urban residents formed 60 per cent of the sample, or 1,20,000 adults, while rural residents formed 40 per cent, or 80,000 adults. Every person was placed in exactly one of four categories: public health scheme, private insurance, employer-provided insurance or uninsured. Consequently, the four percentages within each area total 100 per cent. Among urban residents, 25 per cent were covered by public schemes, 20 per cent by private insurance and 30 per cent by employer-provided plans. The remaining 25 per cent were uninsured. This means that 75 per cent of the urban population had some form of insurance. In rural areas, public schemes covered 42 per cent, private insurance covered 8 per cent and employer plans covered 10 per cent. The remaining 40 per cent were uninsured, leaving 60 per cent with some form of protection. The actual urban counts were therefore 30,000 under public schemes, 24,000 under private insurance, 36,000 under employer plans and 30,000 uninsured. The corresponding rural counts were 33,600, 6,400, 8,000 and 32,000. For all calculations, “insured” means the combined total under public, private and employer-provided coverage. No person is counted in more than one category. Officials observed that the structure of coverage differed as much as the overall coverage rate. Employer and private plans together protected half of all urban adults, whereas public schemes were the largest single source of rural coverage. Rural areas had fewer insured adults even though their public-scheme coverage rate was higher. The uninsured gap also had to be examined using actual numbers, because a larger percentage in a smaller population does not always produce the largest count. The survey proposed using these figures to measure total coverage, compare the contribution of different schemes and identify groups requiring additional outreach. It cautioned that a coverage percentage does not reveal the quality of treatment or the adequacy of the insured amount; it only records whether a person belongs to one of the recognised coverage categories.
QUESTION 11 OF 18
📄 Passage
A state-wide health-protection survey covered 2,00,000 adults and divided the sample into urban and rural residents. Urban residents formed 60 per cent of the sample, or 1,20,000 adults, while rural residents formed 40 per cent, or 80,000 adults. Every person was placed in exactly one of four categories: public health scheme, private insurance, employer-provided insurance or uninsured. Consequently, the four percentages within each area total 100 per cent. Among urban residents, 25 per cent were covered by public schemes, 20 per cent by private insurance and 30 per cent by employer-provided plans. The remaining 25 per cent were uninsured. This means that 75 per cent of the urban population had some form of insurance. In rural areas, public schemes covered 42 per cent, private insurance covered 8 per cent and employer plans covered 10 per cent. The remaining 40 per cent were uninsured, leaving 60 per cent with some form of protection. The actual urban counts were therefore 30,000 under public schemes, 24,000 under private insurance, 36,000 under employer plans and 30,000 uninsured. The corresponding rural counts were 33,600, 6,400, 8,000 and 32,000. For all calculations, “insured” means the combined total under public, private and employer-provided coverage. No person is counted in more than one category. Officials observed that the structure of coverage differed as much as the overall coverage rate. Employer and private plans together protected half of all urban adults, whereas public schemes were the largest single source of rural coverage. Rural areas had fewer insured adults even though their public-scheme coverage rate was higher. The uninsured gap also had to be examined using actual numbers, because a larger percentage in a smaller population does not always produce the largest count. The survey proposed using these figures to measure total coverage, compare the contribution of different schemes and identify groups requiring additional outreach. It cautioned that a coverage percentage does not reveal the quality of treatment or the adequacy of the insured amount; it only records whether a person belongs to one of the recognised coverage categories.
QUESTION 12 OF 18
📄 Passage
A transport-ownership survey covered 80,000 households in four zones of a metropolitan region. North and West each contained 20,000 surveyed households, South contained 24,000 and East contained 16,000. Every household identified one primary ownership category: car, motorcycle or scooter, bicycle, or no private vehicle. The categories were mutually exclusive and totalled 100 per cent within each zone. In North, 30 per cent of households owned a car, 40 per cent owned a motorcycle or scooter, 20 per cent owned a bicycle and 10 per cent had no private vehicle. South reported 25 per cent car ownership, 45 per cent two-wheeler ownership, 15 per cent bicycle ownership and 15 per cent with no private vehicle. East reported 20 per cent cars, 35 per cent two-wheelers, 30 per cent bicycles and 15 per cent with none. West reported 35 per cent cars, 40 per cent two-wheelers, 10 per cent bicycles and 15 per cent with no private vehicle. These shares corresponded to 6,000 cars, 8,000 two-wheelers, 4,000 bicycles and 2,000 households without a private vehicle in North. South had 6,000 cars, 10,800 two-wheelers, 3,600 bicycles and 3,600 without a private vehicle. East had 3,200 cars, 5,600 two-wheelers, 4,800 bicycles and 2,400 without one. West had 7,000 cars, 8,000 two-wheelers, 2,000 bicycles and 3,000 households without a private vehicle. Across the four zones, the totals were 22,200 car-owning households, 32,400 two-wheeler households, 14,400 bicycle households and 11,000 households with no private vehicle. The survey treated these totals as the existing regional market distribution. Two planning scenarios were also defined. First, if East’s car-ownership rate rose from 20 per cent to 25 per cent while its household total remained unchanged, the additional car-owning households would come entirely from its no-private-vehicle category. Second, if 10 per cent of South’s current two-wheeler households shifted to public transport, they would move into the no-private-vehicle category. For a later weighted-market scenario, planners considered adding 10,000 newly surveyed households distributed as 20 per cent cars, 50 per cent two-wheelers, 20 per cent bicycles and 10 per cent with no private vehicle. Unless a question invokes a scenario, the original figures must be used.
QUESTION 13 OF 18
📄 Passage
A transport-ownership survey covered 80,000 households in four zones of a metropolitan region. North and West each contained 20,000 surveyed households, South contained 24,000 and East contained 16,000. Every household identified one primary ownership category: car, motorcycle or scooter, bicycle, or no private vehicle. The categories were mutually exclusive and totalled 100 per cent within each zone. In North, 30 per cent of households owned a car, 40 per cent owned a motorcycle or scooter, 20 per cent owned a bicycle and 10 per cent had no private vehicle. South reported 25 per cent car ownership, 45 per cent two-wheeler ownership, 15 per cent bicycle ownership and 15 per cent with no private vehicle. East reported 20 per cent cars, 35 per cent two-wheelers, 30 per cent bicycles and 15 per cent with none. West reported 35 per cent cars, 40 per cent two-wheelers, 10 per cent bicycles and 15 per cent with no private vehicle. These shares corresponded to 6,000 cars, 8,000 two-wheelers, 4,000 bicycles and 2,000 households without a private vehicle in North. South had 6,000 cars, 10,800 two-wheelers, 3,600 bicycles and 3,600 without a private vehicle. East had 3,200 cars, 5,600 two-wheelers, 4,800 bicycles and 2,400 without one. West had 7,000 cars, 8,000 two-wheelers, 2,000 bicycles and 3,000 households without a private vehicle. Across the four zones, the totals were 22,200 car-owning households, 32,400 two-wheeler households, 14,400 bicycle households and 11,000 households with no private vehicle. The survey treated these totals as the existing regional market distribution. Two planning scenarios were also defined. First, if East’s car-ownership rate rose from 20 per cent to 25 per cent while its household total remained unchanged, the additional car-owning households would come entirely from its no-private-vehicle category. Second, if 10 per cent of South’s current two-wheeler households shifted to public transport, they would move into the no-private-vehicle category. For a later weighted-market scenario, planners considered adding 10,000 newly surveyed households distributed as 20 per cent cars, 50 per cent two-wheelers, 20 per cent bicycles and 10 per cent with no private vehicle. Unless a question invokes a scenario, the original figures must be used.
QUESTION 14 OF 18
📄 Passage
A transport-ownership survey covered 80,000 households in four zones of a metropolitan region. North and West each contained 20,000 surveyed households, South contained 24,000 and East contained 16,000. Every household identified one primary ownership category: car, motorcycle or scooter, bicycle, or no private vehicle. The categories were mutually exclusive and totalled 100 per cent within each zone. In North, 30 per cent of households owned a car, 40 per cent owned a motorcycle or scooter, 20 per cent owned a bicycle and 10 per cent had no private vehicle. South reported 25 per cent car ownership, 45 per cent two-wheeler ownership, 15 per cent bicycle ownership and 15 per cent with no private vehicle. East reported 20 per cent cars, 35 per cent two-wheelers, 30 per cent bicycles and 15 per cent with none. West reported 35 per cent cars, 40 per cent two-wheelers, 10 per cent bicycles and 15 per cent with no private vehicle. These shares corresponded to 6,000 cars, 8,000 two-wheelers, 4,000 bicycles and 2,000 households without a private vehicle in North. South had 6,000 cars, 10,800 two-wheelers, 3,600 bicycles and 3,600 without a private vehicle. East had 3,200 cars, 5,600 two-wheelers, 4,800 bicycles and 2,400 without one. West had 7,000 cars, 8,000 two-wheelers, 2,000 bicycles and 3,000 households without a private vehicle. Across the four zones, the totals were 22,200 car-owning households, 32,400 two-wheeler households, 14,400 bicycle households and 11,000 households with no private vehicle. The survey treated these totals as the existing regional market distribution. Two planning scenarios were also defined. First, if East’s car-ownership rate rose from 20 per cent to 25 per cent while its household total remained unchanged, the additional car-owning households would come entirely from its no-private-vehicle category. Second, if 10 per cent of South’s current two-wheeler households shifted to public transport, they would move into the no-private-vehicle category. For a later weighted-market scenario, planners considered adding 10,000 newly surveyed households distributed as 20 per cent cars, 50 per cent two-wheelers, 20 per cent bicycles and 10 per cent with no private vehicle. Unless a question invokes a scenario, the original figures must be used.
QUESTION 15 OF 18
📄 Passage
A transport-ownership survey covered 80,000 households in four zones of a metropolitan region. North and West each contained 20,000 surveyed households, South contained 24,000 and East contained 16,000. Every household identified one primary ownership category: car, motorcycle or scooter, bicycle, or no private vehicle. The categories were mutually exclusive and totalled 100 per cent within each zone. In North, 30 per cent of households owned a car, 40 per cent owned a motorcycle or scooter, 20 per cent owned a bicycle and 10 per cent had no private vehicle. South reported 25 per cent car ownership, 45 per cent two-wheeler ownership, 15 per cent bicycle ownership and 15 per cent with no private vehicle. East reported 20 per cent cars, 35 per cent two-wheelers, 30 per cent bicycles and 15 per cent with none. West reported 35 per cent cars, 40 per cent two-wheelers, 10 per cent bicycles and 15 per cent with no private vehicle. These shares corresponded to 6,000 cars, 8,000 two-wheelers, 4,000 bicycles and 2,000 households without a private vehicle in North. South had 6,000 cars, 10,800 two-wheelers, 3,600 bicycles and 3,600 without a private vehicle. East had 3,200 cars, 5,600 two-wheelers, 4,800 bicycles and 2,400 without one. West had 7,000 cars, 8,000 two-wheelers, 2,000 bicycles and 3,000 households without a private vehicle. Across the four zones, the totals were 22,200 car-owning households, 32,400 two-wheeler households, 14,400 bicycle households and 11,000 households with no private vehicle. The survey treated these totals as the existing regional market distribution. Two planning scenarios were also defined. First, if East’s car-ownership rate rose from 20 per cent to 25 per cent while its household total remained unchanged, the additional car-owning households would come entirely from its no-private-vehicle category. Second, if 10 per cent of South’s current two-wheeler households shifted to public transport, they would move into the no-private-vehicle category. For a later weighted-market scenario, planners considered adding 10,000 newly surveyed households distributed as 20 per cent cars, 50 per cent two-wheelers, 20 per cent bicycles and 10 per cent with no private vehicle. Unless a question invokes a scenario, the original figures must be used.
QUESTION 16 OF 18
📄 Passage
A transport-ownership survey covered 80,000 households in four zones of a metropolitan region. North and West each contained 20,000 surveyed households, South contained 24,000 and East contained 16,000. Every household identified one primary ownership category: car, motorcycle or scooter, bicycle, or no private vehicle. The categories were mutually exclusive and totalled 100 per cent within each zone. In North, 30 per cent of households owned a car, 40 per cent owned a motorcycle or scooter, 20 per cent owned a bicycle and 10 per cent had no private vehicle. South reported 25 per cent car ownership, 45 per cent two-wheeler ownership, 15 per cent bicycle ownership and 15 per cent with no private vehicle. East reported 20 per cent cars, 35 per cent two-wheelers, 30 per cent bicycles and 15 per cent with none. West reported 35 per cent cars, 40 per cent two-wheelers, 10 per cent bicycles and 15 per cent with no private vehicle. These shares corresponded to 6,000 cars, 8,000 two-wheelers, 4,000 bicycles and 2,000 households without a private vehicle in North. South had 6,000 cars, 10,800 two-wheelers, 3,600 bicycles and 3,600 without a private vehicle. East had 3,200 cars, 5,600 two-wheelers, 4,800 bicycles and 2,400 without one. West had 7,000 cars, 8,000 two-wheelers, 2,000 bicycles and 3,000 households without a private vehicle. Across the four zones, the totals were 22,200 car-owning households, 32,400 two-wheeler households, 14,400 bicycle households and 11,000 households with no private vehicle. The survey treated these totals as the existing regional market distribution. Two planning scenarios were also defined. First, if East’s car-ownership rate rose from 20 per cent to 25 per cent while its household total remained unchanged, the additional car-owning households would come entirely from its no-private-vehicle category. Second, if 10 per cent of South’s current two-wheeler households shifted to public transport, they would move into the no-private-vehicle category. For a later weighted-market scenario, planners considered adding 10,000 newly surveyed households distributed as 20 per cent cars, 50 per cent two-wheelers, 20 per cent bicycles and 10 per cent with no private vehicle. Unless a question invokes a scenario, the original figures must be used.
QUESTION 17 OF 18
📄 Passage
A transport-ownership survey covered 80,000 households in four zones of a metropolitan region. North and West each contained 20,000 surveyed households, South contained 24,000 and East contained 16,000. Every household identified one primary ownership category: car, motorcycle or scooter, bicycle, or no private vehicle. The categories were mutually exclusive and totalled 100 per cent within each zone. In North, 30 per cent of households owned a car, 40 per cent owned a motorcycle or scooter, 20 per cent owned a bicycle and 10 per cent had no private vehicle. South reported 25 per cent car ownership, 45 per cent two-wheeler ownership, 15 per cent bicycle ownership and 15 per cent with no private vehicle. East reported 20 per cent cars, 35 per cent two-wheelers, 30 per cent bicycles and 15 per cent with none. West reported 35 per cent cars, 40 per cent two-wheelers, 10 per cent bicycles and 15 per cent with no private vehicle. These shares corresponded to 6,000 cars, 8,000 two-wheelers, 4,000 bicycles and 2,000 households without a private vehicle in North. South had 6,000 cars, 10,800 two-wheelers, 3,600 bicycles and 3,600 without a private vehicle. East had 3,200 cars, 5,600 two-wheelers, 4,800 bicycles and 2,400 without one. West had 7,000 cars, 8,000 two-wheelers, 2,000 bicycles and 3,000 households without a private vehicle. Across the four zones, the totals were 22,200 car-owning households, 32,400 two-wheeler households, 14,400 bicycle households and 11,000 households with no private vehicle. The survey treated these totals as the existing regional market distribution. Two planning scenarios were also defined. First, if East’s car-ownership rate rose from 20 per cent to 25 per cent while its household total remained unchanged, the additional car-owning households would come entirely from its no-private-vehicle category. Second, if 10 per cent of South’s current two-wheeler households shifted to public transport, they would move into the no-private-vehicle category. For a later weighted-market scenario, planners considered adding 10,000 newly surveyed households distributed as 20 per cent cars, 50 per cent two-wheelers, 20 per cent bicycles and 10 per cent with no private vehicle. Unless a question invokes a scenario, the original figures must be used.
QUESTION 18 OF 18
📄 Passage
A transport-ownership survey covered 80,000 households in four zones of a metropolitan region. North and West each contained 20,000 surveyed households, South contained 24,000 and East contained 16,000. Every household identified one primary ownership category: car, motorcycle or scooter, bicycle, or no private vehicle. The categories were mutually exclusive and totalled 100 per cent within each zone. In North, 30 per cent of households owned a car, 40 per cent owned a motorcycle or scooter, 20 per cent owned a bicycle and 10 per cent had no private vehicle. South reported 25 per cent car ownership, 45 per cent two-wheeler ownership, 15 per cent bicycle ownership and 15 per cent with no private vehicle. East reported 20 per cent cars, 35 per cent two-wheelers, 30 per cent bicycles and 15 per cent with none. West reported 35 per cent cars, 40 per cent two-wheelers, 10 per cent bicycles and 15 per cent with no private vehicle. These shares corresponded to 6,000 cars, 8,000 two-wheelers, 4,000 bicycles and 2,000 households without a private vehicle in North. South had 6,000 cars, 10,800 two-wheelers, 3,600 bicycles and 3,600 without a private vehicle. East had 3,200 cars, 5,600 two-wheelers, 4,800 bicycles and 2,400 without one. West had 7,000 cars, 8,000 two-wheelers, 2,000 bicycles and 3,000 households without a private vehicle. Across the four zones, the totals were 22,200 car-owning households, 32,400 two-wheeler households, 14,400 bicycle households and 11,000 households with no private vehicle. The survey treated these totals as the existing regional market distribution. Two planning scenarios were also defined. First, if East’s car-ownership rate rose from 20 per cent to 25 per cent while its household total remained unchanged, the additional car-owning households would come entirely from its no-private-vehicle category. Second, if 10 per cent of South’s current two-wheeler households shifted to public transport, they would move into the no-private-vehicle category. For a later weighted-market scenario, planners considered adding 10,000 newly surveyed households distributed as 20 per cent cars, 50 per cent two-wheelers, 20 per cent bicycles and 10 per cent with no private vehicle. Unless a question invokes a scenario, the original figures must be used.
🏆
Test Complete!
0%
Score
0Correct
0Incorrect
0Skipped
18Total
Answer Review
1
📄 Passage
A household-finance survey examined the monthly budget of a representative salaried family whose net income after compulsory deductions was ₹72,000. The survey classified every rupee either as expenditure or savings, so the listed shares together equal 100 per cent of income. The family spent 24 per cent on food, 20 per cent on house rent, 15 per cent on education, 10 per cent on transport, 8 per cent on healthcare, 7 per cent on electricity, water and communication utilities, and 6 per cent on discretionary items such as recreation and clothing. The remaining 10 per cent was saved. At the stated income, food expenditure was ₹17,280, rent was ₹14,400, education was ₹10,800, transport was ₹7,200, healthcare was ₹5,760, utilities were ₹5,040 and discretionary expenditure was ₹4,320. Monthly savings were therefore ₹7,200. The family divided these savings by placing 40 per cent in an emergency fund, 35 per cent in a long-term investment account and the remaining 25 per cent towards planned annual purchases. The survey also examined how inflation could change the budget when income remained fixed. An increase in the price of a category was treated as an increase in the amount spent on that category, not as an increase in its original share of income by the same number of percentage points. For example, if food expenditure rose by 10 per cent, the new amount would be 110 per cent of the original food amount. Unless a question states otherwise, every other expenditure would remain unchanged and the additional cost would be taken entirely from savings. For a separate comparison, healthcare expenditure was assumed to rise from ₹5,760 to ₹6,480. The survey distinguished the percentage increase in the amount from the new percentage share of income. It also classified food, rent, education, healthcare and utilities as essential expenditure. Transport and discretionary items were treated as other current expenditure, while savings were not counted as expenditure. The data show that household security depends not only on income but also on the interaction between inflation and the savings buffer. A family can maintain the same nominal income while losing a substantial part of its capacity to meet emergencies or long-term goals.
A
₹17,280
B
₹18,720
C
₹20,160
D
₹21,600
💡 Short Explanation
The five categories use 24% + 20% + 15% + 8% + 7% = 74% of income. The remaining 26% of ₹72,000 is ₹18,720.
❓ Why Other Options Are Incorrect
A) ₹17,280: This is the amount spent on food alone (24% of ₹72,000), not the balance after deducting all five specified categories.
C) ₹20,160: This equals 28% of income, but the five specified categories consume 74%, leaving only 26%.
D) ₹21,600: This equals 30% of income and therefore overstates the remaining balance; the actual residual share is 26%.
🎯 Strategy
Elimination: Add the specified expenditure shares to get 74% and subtract from 100% to obtain a 26% balance. Applying 26% to ₹72,000 gives ₹18,720, so the other amounts are eliminated.
✅ Final Logic
Because the specified expenses total 74% of income, the remaining 26% is ₹18,720, making option B the best answer.
🧠 Memory Trick
Used % + balance % = 100%.
2
📄 Passage
A household-finance survey examined the monthly budget of a representative salaried family whose net income after compulsory deductions was ₹72,000. The survey classified every rupee either as expenditure or savings, so the listed shares together equal 100 per cent of income. The family spent 24 per cent on food, 20 per cent on house rent, 15 per cent on education, 10 per cent on transport, 8 per cent on healthcare, 7 per cent on electricity, water and communication utilities, and 6 per cent on discretionary items such as recreation and clothing. The remaining 10 per cent was saved. At the stated income, food expenditure was ₹17,280, rent was ₹14,400, education was ₹10,800, transport was ₹7,200, healthcare was ₹5,760, utilities were ₹5,040 and discretionary expenditure was ₹4,320. Monthly savings were therefore ₹7,200. The family divided these savings by placing 40 per cent in an emergency fund, 35 per cent in a long-term investment account and the remaining 25 per cent towards planned annual purchases. The survey also examined how inflation could change the budget when income remained fixed. An increase in the price of a category was treated as an increase in the amount spent on that category, not as an increase in its original share of income by the same number of percentage points. For example, if food expenditure rose by 10 per cent, the new amount would be 110 per cent of the original food amount. Unless a question states otherwise, every other expenditure would remain unchanged and the additional cost would be taken entirely from savings. For a separate comparison, healthcare expenditure was assumed to rise from ₹5,760 to ₹6,480. The survey distinguished the percentage increase in the amount from the new percentage share of income. It also classified food, rent, education, healthcare and utilities as essential expenditure. Transport and discretionary items were treated as other current expenditure, while savings were not counted as expenditure. The data show that household security depends not only on income but also on the interaction between inflation and the savings buffer. A family can maintain the same nominal income while losing a substantial part of its capacity to meet emergencies or long-term goals.
A
12.5%
B
10%
C
11.25%
D
15%
💡 Short Explanation
The increase is ₹720. Therefore, the percentage increase is ₹720 ÷ ₹5,760 × 100 = 12.5%.
❓ Why Other Options Are Incorrect
B) 10%: A 10% increase on ₹5,760 would be ₹576, not the actual increase of ₹720.
C) 11.25%: An 11.25% increase on ₹5,760 would be ₹648, which does not match the ₹720 rise.
D) 15%: A 15% increase on ₹5,760 would be ₹864, exceeding the actual increase.
🎯 Strategy
Elimination: First find the increase, ₹6,480 − ₹5,760 = ₹720, and divide it by the original amount. The resulting 12.5% directly matches option A and eliminates the remaining percentages.
✅ Final Logic
The ₹720 increase is 12.5% of the original ₹5,760, so option A is correct.
🧠 Memory Trick
% increase = increase ÷ original × 100.
3
📄 Passage
A household-finance survey examined the monthly budget of a representative salaried family whose net income after compulsory deductions was ₹72,000. The survey classified every rupee either as expenditure or savings, so the listed shares together equal 100 per cent of income. The family spent 24 per cent on food, 20 per cent on house rent, 15 per cent on education, 10 per cent on transport, 8 per cent on healthcare, 7 per cent on electricity, water and communication utilities, and 6 per cent on discretionary items such as recreation and clothing. The remaining 10 per cent was saved. At the stated income, food expenditure was ₹17,280, rent was ₹14,400, education was ₹10,800, transport was ₹7,200, healthcare was ₹5,760, utilities were ₹5,040 and discretionary expenditure was ₹4,320. Monthly savings were therefore ₹7,200. The family divided these savings by placing 40 per cent in an emergency fund, 35 per cent in a long-term investment account and the remaining 25 per cent towards planned annual purchases. The survey also examined how inflation could change the budget when income remained fixed. An increase in the price of a category was treated as an increase in the amount spent on that category, not as an increase in its original share of income by the same number of percentage points. For example, if food expenditure rose by 10 per cent, the new amount would be 110 per cent of the original food amount. Unless a question states otherwise, every other expenditure would remain unchanged and the additional cost would be taken entirely from savings. For a separate comparison, healthcare expenditure was assumed to rise from ₹5,760 to ₹6,480. The survey distinguished the percentage increase in the amount from the new percentage share of income. It also classified food, rent, education, healthcare and utilities as essential expenditure. Transport and discretionary items were treated as other current expenditure, while savings were not counted as expenditure. The data show that household security depends not only on income but also on the interaction between inflation and the savings buffer. A family can maintain the same nominal income while losing a substantial part of its capacity to meet emergencies or long-term goals.
A
5.6%
B
6%
C
6.4%
D
6.2%
💡 Short Explanation
Food rises by ₹1,728 and utilities by ₹1,008. Savings fall from ₹7,200 to ₹4,464, which is 6.2% of ₹72,000.
❓ Why Other Options Are Incorrect
A) 5.6%: This would mean savings of ₹4,032, but the two inflation increases leave ₹4,464.
B) 6%: This would mean savings of ₹4,320, which is lower than the correctly revised savings of ₹4,464.
C) 6.4%: This would mean savings of ₹4,608, which is higher than the amount left after both stated increases.
🎯 Strategy
Inference Mapping: Map each price rise to its extra rupee cost: food adds ₹1,728 and utilities add ₹1,008. Deducting both from ₹7,200 savings leaves ₹4,464, which is 6.2% of income.
✅ Final Logic
After absorbing ₹2,736 of additional expenditure, savings become ₹4,464 or 6.2% of ₹72,000, so option D is correct.
🧠 Memory Trick
Extra costs come straight from savings.
4
📄 Passage
A household-finance survey examined the monthly budget of a representative salaried family whose net income after compulsory deductions was ₹72,000. The survey classified every rupee either as expenditure or savings, so the listed shares together equal 100 per cent of income. The family spent 24 per cent on food, 20 per cent on house rent, 15 per cent on education, 10 per cent on transport, 8 per cent on healthcare, 7 per cent on electricity, water and communication utilities, and 6 per cent on discretionary items such as recreation and clothing. The remaining 10 per cent was saved. At the stated income, food expenditure was ₹17,280, rent was ₹14,400, education was ₹10,800, transport was ₹7,200, healthcare was ₹5,760, utilities were ₹5,040 and discretionary expenditure was ₹4,320. Monthly savings were therefore ₹7,200. The family divided these savings by placing 40 per cent in an emergency fund, 35 per cent in a long-term investment account and the remaining 25 per cent towards planned annual purchases. The survey also examined how inflation could change the budget when income remained fixed. An increase in the price of a category was treated as an increase in the amount spent on that category, not as an increase in its original share of income by the same number of percentage points. For example, if food expenditure rose by 10 per cent, the new amount would be 110 per cent of the original food amount. Unless a question states otherwise, every other expenditure would remain unchanged and the additional cost would be taken entirely from savings. For a separate comparison, healthcare expenditure was assumed to rise from ₹5,760 to ₹6,480. The survey distinguished the percentage increase in the amount from the new percentage share of income. It also classified food, rent, education, healthcare and utilities as essential expenditure. Transport and discretionary items were treated as other current expenditure, while savings were not counted as expenditure. The data show that household security depends not only on income but also on the interaction between inflation and the savings buffer. A family can maintain the same nominal income while losing a substantial part of its capacity to meet emergencies or long-term goals.
A
Group II is larger by ₹1,440.
B
Both groups are equal.
C
Group I is larger by ₹2,880.
D
Group I is larger by ₹4,320.
💡 Short Explanation
Group I accounts for 47% of income, while Group II accounts for 43%. The difference is 4% of ₹72,000, or ₹2,880.
❓ Why Other Options Are Incorrect
A) Group II is larger by ₹1,440: Group II is not larger; Group I accounts for 47% of income while Group II accounts for 43%.
B) Both groups are equal: The groups differ by 4 percentage points, so their expenditure totals are not equal.
D) Group I is larger by ₹4,320: ₹4,320 equals 6% of income, whereas the actual difference is only 4% or ₹2,880.
🎯 Strategy
Elimination: Combine the percentages in each group: Group I is 47% and Group II is 43%. The 4% gap equals ₹2,880, leaving only option C.
✅ Final Logic
Group I exceeds Group II by 4% of ₹72,000, which is ₹2,880, so option C is correct.
🧠 Memory Trick
Compare group totals before comparing rupees.
5
📄 Passage
A household-finance survey examined the monthly budget of a representative salaried family whose net income after compulsory deductions was ₹72,000. The survey classified every rupee either as expenditure or savings, so the listed shares together equal 100 per cent of income. The family spent 24 per cent on food, 20 per cent on house rent, 15 per cent on education, 10 per cent on transport, 8 per cent on healthcare, 7 per cent on electricity, water and communication utilities, and 6 per cent on discretionary items such as recreation and clothing. The remaining 10 per cent was saved. At the stated income, food expenditure was ₹17,280, rent was ₹14,400, education was ₹10,800, transport was ₹7,200, healthcare was ₹5,760, utilities were ₹5,040 and discretionary expenditure was ₹4,320. Monthly savings were therefore ₹7,200. The family divided these savings by placing 40 per cent in an emergency fund, 35 per cent in a long-term investment account and the remaining 25 per cent towards planned annual purchases. The survey also examined how inflation could change the budget when income remained fixed. An increase in the price of a category was treated as an increase in the amount spent on that category, not as an increase in its original share of income by the same number of percentage points. For example, if food expenditure rose by 10 per cent, the new amount would be 110 per cent of the original food amount. Unless a question states otherwise, every other expenditure would remain unchanged and the additional cost would be taken entirely from savings. For a separate comparison, healthcare expenditure was assumed to rise from ₹5,760 to ₹6,480. The survey distinguished the percentage increase in the amount from the new percentage share of income. It also classified food, rent, education, healthcare and utilities as essential expenditure. Transport and discretionary items were treated as other current expenditure, while savings were not counted as expenditure. The data show that household security depends not only on income but also on the interaction between inflation and the savings buffer. A family can maintain the same nominal income while losing a substantial part of its capacity to meet emergencies or long-term goals.
A
3.5%
B
4%
C
4.5%
D
5%
💡 Short Explanation
Savings equal 10% of income. Therefore, 40% of the savings equals 40% of 10%, or 4% of monthly income.
❓ Why Other Options Are Incorrect
A) 3.5%: This corresponds to 35% of the 10% savings share, which is the long-term investment allocation, not the 40% emergency-fund allocation.
C) 4.5%: The emergency contribution is 40% of savings, so it cannot equal 4.5% of income when total savings are only 10% of income.
D) 5%: This would require half of the 10% savings share to go to the emergency fund, but the stated allocation is 40%.
🎯 Strategy
Inference Mapping: Treat the emergency fund as a percentage within a percentage: 40% of the 10% savings share equals 4% of total income. That maps directly to option B.
✅ Final Logic
Forty per cent of a 10% savings share is 4% of total monthly income, making option B correct.
🧠 Memory Trick
Nested %: multiply the shares.
6
📄 Passage
A household-finance survey examined the monthly budget of a representative salaried family whose net income after compulsory deductions was ₹72,000. The survey classified every rupee either as expenditure or savings, so the listed shares together equal 100 per cent of income. The family spent 24 per cent on food, 20 per cent on house rent, 15 per cent on education, 10 per cent on transport, 8 per cent on healthcare, 7 per cent on electricity, water and communication utilities, and 6 per cent on discretionary items such as recreation and clothing. The remaining 10 per cent was saved. At the stated income, food expenditure was ₹17,280, rent was ₹14,400, education was ₹10,800, transport was ₹7,200, healthcare was ₹5,760, utilities were ₹5,040 and discretionary expenditure was ₹4,320. Monthly savings were therefore ₹7,200. The family divided these savings by placing 40 per cent in an emergency fund, 35 per cent in a long-term investment account and the remaining 25 per cent towards planned annual purchases. The survey also examined how inflation could change the budget when income remained fixed. An increase in the price of a category was treated as an increase in the amount spent on that category, not as an increase in its original share of income by the same number of percentage points. For example, if food expenditure rose by 10 per cent, the new amount would be 110 per cent of the original food amount. Unless a question states otherwise, every other expenditure would remain unchanged and the additional cost would be taken entirely from savings. For a separate comparison, healthcare expenditure was assumed to rise from ₹5,760 to ₹6,480. The survey distinguished the percentage increase in the amount from the new percentage share of income. It also classified food, rent, education, healthcare and utilities as essential expenditure. Transport and discretionary items were treated as other current expenditure, while savings were not counted as expenditure. The data show that household security depends not only on income but also on the interaction between inflation and the savings buffer. A family can maintain the same nominal income while losing a substantial part of its capacity to meet emergencies or long-term goals.
A
32:27
B
27:32
C
8:7
D
16:13
💡 Short Explanation
Food and healthcare total 24% + 8% = 32%. Rent and utilities total 20% + 7% = 27%. Their ratio is 32:27.
❓ Why Other Options Are Incorrect
B) 27:32: This reverses the required order; the question asks for food plus healthcare first and rent plus utilities second.
C) 8:7: 32:27 does not simplify to 8:7 because 27 is not divisible by 4.
D) 16:13: This is not equivalent to 32:27; halving 32 would require halving 27 to 13.5, not 13.
🎯 Strategy
Elimination: Combine the relevant shares to get 32% and 27%, then preserve the order requested in the question. The ratio 32:27 is already in simplest form.
✅ Final Logic
Food plus healthcare is 32% and rent plus utilities is 27%, so the required ratio is 32:27, option A.
🧠 Memory Trick
Ratio order follows question order.
7
📄 Passage
A state-wide health-protection survey covered 2,00,000 adults and divided the sample into urban and rural residents. Urban residents formed 60 per cent of the sample, or 1,20,000 adults, while rural residents formed 40 per cent, or 80,000 adults. Every person was placed in exactly one of four categories: public health scheme, private insurance, employer-provided insurance or uninsured. Consequently, the four percentages within each area total 100 per cent. Among urban residents, 25 per cent were covered by public schemes, 20 per cent by private insurance and 30 per cent by employer-provided plans. The remaining 25 per cent were uninsured. This means that 75 per cent of the urban population had some form of insurance. In rural areas, public schemes covered 42 per cent, private insurance covered 8 per cent and employer plans covered 10 per cent. The remaining 40 per cent were uninsured, leaving 60 per cent with some form of protection. The actual urban counts were therefore 30,000 under public schemes, 24,000 under private insurance, 36,000 under employer plans and 30,000 uninsured. The corresponding rural counts were 33,600, 6,400, 8,000 and 32,000. For all calculations, “insured” means the combined total under public, private and employer-provided coverage. No person is counted in more than one category. Officials observed that the structure of coverage differed as much as the overall coverage rate. Employer and private plans together protected half of all urban adults, whereas public schemes were the largest single source of rural coverage. Rural areas had fewer insured adults even though their public-scheme coverage rate was higher. The uninsured gap also had to be examined using actual numbers, because a larger percentage in a smaller population does not always produce the largest count. The survey proposed using these figures to measure total coverage, compare the contribution of different schemes and identify groups requiring additional outreach. It cautioned that a coverage percentage does not reveal the quality of treatment or the adequacy of the insured amount; it only records whether a person belongs to one of the recognised coverage categories.
A
40,000
B
42,000
C
43,600
D
44,000
💡 Short Explanation
Urban employer coverage is 36,000 and rural employer coverage is 8,000. Their total is 44,000.
❓ Why Other Options Are Incorrect
A) 40,000: This is below the combined employer coverage of 36,000 urban and 8,000 rural adults.
B) 42,000: Adding the two stated employer-covered groups gives 44,000, not 42,000.
C) 43,600: This does not equal the sum of the urban and rural employer-provided insurance counts.
🎯 Strategy
Elimination: Use only the employer-provided counts from both areas and add 36,000 + 8,000. The total is 44,000, which uniquely matches option D.
✅ Final Logic
Employer-provided coverage totals 44,000 adults across urban and rural areas, so option D is correct.
🧠 Memory Trick
Total coverage = urban count + rural count.
8
📄 Passage
A state-wide health-protection survey covered 2,00,000 adults and divided the sample into urban and rural residents. Urban residents formed 60 per cent of the sample, or 1,20,000 adults, while rural residents formed 40 per cent, or 80,000 adults. Every person was placed in exactly one of four categories: public health scheme, private insurance, employer-provided insurance or uninsured. Consequently, the four percentages within each area total 100 per cent. Among urban residents, 25 per cent were covered by public schemes, 20 per cent by private insurance and 30 per cent by employer-provided plans. The remaining 25 per cent were uninsured. This means that 75 per cent of the urban population had some form of insurance. In rural areas, public schemes covered 42 per cent, private insurance covered 8 per cent and employer plans covered 10 per cent. The remaining 40 per cent were uninsured, leaving 60 per cent with some form of protection. The actual urban counts were therefore 30,000 under public schemes, 24,000 under private insurance, 36,000 under employer plans and 30,000 uninsured. The corresponding rural counts were 33,600, 6,400, 8,000 and 32,000. For all calculations, “insured” means the combined total under public, private and employer-provided coverage. No person is counted in more than one category. Officials observed that the structure of coverage differed as much as the overall coverage rate. Employer and private plans together protected half of all urban adults, whereas public schemes were the largest single source of rural coverage. Rural areas had fewer insured adults even though their public-scheme coverage rate was higher. The uninsured gap also had to be examined using actual numbers, because a larger percentage in a smaller population does not always produce the largest count. The survey proposed using these figures to measure total coverage, compare the contribution of different schemes and identify groups requiring additional outreach. It cautioned that a coverage percentage does not reveal the quality of treatment or the adequacy of the insured amount; it only records whether a person belongs to one of the recognised coverage categories.
A
1,00,000
B
1,08,000
C
1,20,000
D
1,30,000
💡 Short Explanation
If 30% equals 36,000, the complete urban population is 36,000 ÷ 0.30 = 1,20,000.
❓ Why Other Options Are Incorrect
A) 1,00,000: If the urban population were 1,00,000, then 36,000 would represent 36%, not 30%.
B) 1,08,000: 36,000 out of 1,08,000 is one-third, approximately 33.33%, not 30%.
D) 1,30,000: 36,000 is less than 30% of 1,30,000, so this base is too large.
🎯 Strategy
Inference Mapping: Map the known part to the unknown whole: if 30% equals 36,000, divide 36,000 by 0.30. This reconstructs the urban population as 1,20,000.
✅ Final Logic
A count of 36,000 representing 30% implies a total urban population of 1,20,000, making option C correct.
🧠 Memory Trick
Whole = part ÷ percentage.
9
📄 Passage
A state-wide health-protection survey covered 2,00,000 adults and divided the sample into urban and rural residents. Urban residents formed 60 per cent of the sample, or 1,20,000 adults, while rural residents formed 40 per cent, or 80,000 adults. Every person was placed in exactly one of four categories: public health scheme, private insurance, employer-provided insurance or uninsured. Consequently, the four percentages within each area total 100 per cent. Among urban residents, 25 per cent were covered by public schemes, 20 per cent by private insurance and 30 per cent by employer-provided plans. The remaining 25 per cent were uninsured. This means that 75 per cent of the urban population had some form of insurance. In rural areas, public schemes covered 42 per cent, private insurance covered 8 per cent and employer plans covered 10 per cent. The remaining 40 per cent were uninsured, leaving 60 per cent with some form of protection. The actual urban counts were therefore 30,000 under public schemes, 24,000 under private insurance, 36,000 under employer plans and 30,000 uninsured. The corresponding rural counts were 33,600, 6,400, 8,000 and 32,000. For all calculations, “insured” means the combined total under public, private and employer-provided coverage. No person is counted in more than one category. Officials observed that the structure of coverage differed as much as the overall coverage rate. Employer and private plans together protected half of all urban adults, whereas public schemes were the largest single source of rural coverage. Rural areas had fewer insured adults even though their public-scheme coverage rate was higher. The uninsured gap also had to be examined using actual numbers, because a larger percentage in a smaller population does not always produce the largest count. The survey proposed using these figures to measure total coverage, compare the contribution of different schemes and identify groups requiring additional outreach. It cautioned that a coverage percentage does not reveal the quality of treatment or the adequacy of the insured amount; it only records whether a person belongs to one of the recognised coverage categories.
A
18,400
B
16,400
C
20,000
D
21,600
💡 Short Explanation
Urban private and employer coverage totals 24,000 + 36,000 = 60,000. Rural public and employer coverage totals 33,600 + 8,000 = 41,600. The difference is 18,400.
❓ Why Other Options Are Incorrect
B) 16,400: The correct combined totals are 60,000 and 41,600, whose difference is not 16,400.
C) 20,000: This overstates the gap between the two combined coverage groups by 1,600 adults.
D) 21,600: This also exceeds the actual difference obtained from the stated coverage counts.
🎯 Strategy
Elimination: Combine urban private and employer coverage to get 60,000, then combine rural public and employer coverage to get 41,600. Their difference is 18,400, matching option A.
✅ Final Logic
The required difference is 60,000 − 41,600 = 18,400 adults, so option A is correct.
🧠 Memory Trick
Combine first, subtract second.
10
📄 Passage
A state-wide health-protection survey covered 2,00,000 adults and divided the sample into urban and rural residents. Urban residents formed 60 per cent of the sample, or 1,20,000 adults, while rural residents formed 40 per cent, or 80,000 adults. Every person was placed in exactly one of four categories: public health scheme, private insurance, employer-provided insurance or uninsured. Consequently, the four percentages within each area total 100 per cent. Among urban residents, 25 per cent were covered by public schemes, 20 per cent by private insurance and 30 per cent by employer-provided plans. The remaining 25 per cent were uninsured. This means that 75 per cent of the urban population had some form of insurance. In rural areas, public schemes covered 42 per cent, private insurance covered 8 per cent and employer plans covered 10 per cent. The remaining 40 per cent were uninsured, leaving 60 per cent with some form of protection. The actual urban counts were therefore 30,000 under public schemes, 24,000 under private insurance, 36,000 under employer plans and 30,000 uninsured. The corresponding rural counts were 33,600, 6,400, 8,000 and 32,000. For all calculations, “insured” means the combined total under public, private and employer-provided coverage. No person is counted in more than one category. Officials observed that the structure of coverage differed as much as the overall coverage rate. Employer and private plans together protected half of all urban adults, whereas public schemes were the largest single source of rural coverage. Rural areas had fewer insured adults even though their public-scheme coverage rate was higher. The uninsured gap also had to be examined using actual numbers, because a larger percentage in a smaller population does not always produce the largest count. The survey proposed using these figures to measure total coverage, compare the contribution of different schemes and identify groups requiring additional outreach. It cautioned that a coverage percentage does not reveal the quality of treatment or the adequacy of the insured amount; it only records whether a person belongs to one of the recognised coverage categories.
A
29%
B
31%
C
32%
D
34%
💡 Short Explanation
The total uninsured population is 30,000 + 32,000 = 62,000. Thus, 62,000 ÷ 2,00,000 × 100 = 31%.
❓ Why Other Options Are Incorrect
A) 29%: 29% of 2,00,000 would be 58,000, not the stated combined uninsured count of 62,000.
C) 32%: 32% would correspond to 64,000 uninsured adults, which is 2,000 too high.
D) 34%: 34% would correspond to 68,000 uninsured adults, exceeding the actual total by 6,000.
🎯 Strategy
Elimination: Add the uninsured counts, 30,000 + 32,000 = 62,000, and express this as a share of 2,00,000. The result is 31%, leaving option B.
✅ Final Logic
There are 62,000 uninsured adults out of 2,00,000, equal to 31%, so option B is correct.
🧠 Memory Trick
Overall % = combined count ÷ grand total.
11
📄 Passage
A state-wide health-protection survey covered 2,00,000 adults and divided the sample into urban and rural residents. Urban residents formed 60 per cent of the sample, or 1,20,000 adults, while rural residents formed 40 per cent, or 80,000 adults. Every person was placed in exactly one of four categories: public health scheme, private insurance, employer-provided insurance or uninsured. Consequently, the four percentages within each area total 100 per cent. Among urban residents, 25 per cent were covered by public schemes, 20 per cent by private insurance and 30 per cent by employer-provided plans. The remaining 25 per cent were uninsured. This means that 75 per cent of the urban population had some form of insurance. In rural areas, public schemes covered 42 per cent, private insurance covered 8 per cent and employer plans covered 10 per cent. The remaining 40 per cent were uninsured, leaving 60 per cent with some form of protection. The actual urban counts were therefore 30,000 under public schemes, 24,000 under private insurance, 36,000 under employer plans and 30,000 uninsured. The corresponding rural counts were 33,600, 6,400, 8,000 and 32,000. For all calculations, “insured” means the combined total under public, private and employer-provided coverage. No person is counted in more than one category. Officials observed that the structure of coverage differed as much as the overall coverage rate. Employer and private plans together protected half of all urban adults, whereas public schemes were the largest single source of rural coverage. Rural areas had fewer insured adults even though their public-scheme coverage rate was higher. The uninsured gap also had to be examined using actual numbers, because a larger percentage in a smaller population does not always produce the largest count. The survey proposed using these figures to measure total coverage, compare the contribution of different schemes and identify groups requiring additional outreach. It cautioned that a coverage percentage does not reveal the quality of treatment or the adequacy of the insured amount; it only records whether a person belongs to one of the recognised coverage categories.
A
4:1
B
5:2
C
18:5
D
9:2
💡 Short Explanation
The required ratio is 36,000:8,000. Dividing both numbers by 4,000 gives 9:2.
❓ Why Other Options Are Incorrect
A) 4:1: 4:1 is equivalent to 32,000:8,000, not the actual 36,000:8,000 relationship.
B) 5:2: 5:2 does not preserve the proportional relationship between 36,000 and 8,000.
C) 18:5: 36,000:8,000 simplifies to 18:4 and then 9:2, not 18:5.
🎯 Strategy
Elimination: Form the ratio in the requested order, 36,000:8,000, and divide both terms by 4,000. The simplified ratio is 9:2, which matches option D.
✅ Final Logic
The employer-coverage counts simplify from 36,000:8,000 to 9:2, so option D is correct.
🧠 Memory Trick
Divide both ratio terms by the same factor.
12
📄 Passage
A transport-ownership survey covered 80,000 households in four zones of a metropolitan region. North and West each contained 20,000 surveyed households, South contained 24,000 and East contained 16,000. Every household identified one primary ownership category: car, motorcycle or scooter, bicycle, or no private vehicle. The categories were mutually exclusive and totalled 100 per cent within each zone. In North, 30 per cent of households owned a car, 40 per cent owned a motorcycle or scooter, 20 per cent owned a bicycle and 10 per cent had no private vehicle. South reported 25 per cent car ownership, 45 per cent two-wheeler ownership, 15 per cent bicycle ownership and 15 per cent with no private vehicle. East reported 20 per cent cars, 35 per cent two-wheelers, 30 per cent bicycles and 15 per cent with none. West reported 35 per cent cars, 40 per cent two-wheelers, 10 per cent bicycles and 15 per cent with no private vehicle. These shares corresponded to 6,000 cars, 8,000 two-wheelers, 4,000 bicycles and 2,000 households without a private vehicle in North. South had 6,000 cars, 10,800 two-wheelers, 3,600 bicycles and 3,600 without a private vehicle. East had 3,200 cars, 5,600 two-wheelers, 4,800 bicycles and 2,400 without one. West had 7,000 cars, 8,000 two-wheelers, 2,000 bicycles and 3,000 households without a private vehicle. Across the four zones, the totals were 22,200 car-owning households, 32,400 two-wheeler households, 14,400 bicycle households and 11,000 households with no private vehicle. The survey treated these totals as the existing regional market distribution. Two planning scenarios were also defined. First, if East’s car-ownership rate rose from 20 per cent to 25 per cent while its household total remained unchanged, the additional car-owning households would come entirely from its no-private-vehicle category. Second, if 10 per cent of South’s current two-wheeler households shifted to public transport, they would move into the no-private-vehicle category. For a later weighted-market scenario, planners considered adding 10,000 newly surveyed households distributed as 20 per cent cars, 50 per cent two-wheelers, 20 per cent bicycles and 10 per cent with no private vehicle. Unless a question invokes a scenario, the original figures must be used.
A
20%
B
800%
C
25%
D
5%
💡 Short Explanation
East’s car-owning households increase from 3,200 to 4,000. The increase of 800 is 25% of the original 3,200.
❓ Why Other Options Are Incorrect
A) 20%: A 20% increase on the original 3,200 car-owning households would add only 640, not the actual 800.
B) 800%: The number 800 is the increase in households, not a percentage increase.
D) 5%: Five percentage points is the change in the ownership rate from 20% to 25%, but the question asks for the percentage increase in the number of car-owning households.
🎯 Strategy
Inference Mapping: Map the rate change to counts: East rises from 3,200 to 4,000 car-owning households, an increase of 800. Dividing 800 by the original 3,200 gives 25%.
✅ Final Logic
An increase of 800 from an original 3,200 is 25%, so option C is correct.
🧠 Memory Trick
Percentage-point change is not percentage increase.
13
📄 Passage
A transport-ownership survey covered 80,000 households in four zones of a metropolitan region. North and West each contained 20,000 surveyed households, South contained 24,000 and East contained 16,000. Every household identified one primary ownership category: car, motorcycle or scooter, bicycle, or no private vehicle. The categories were mutually exclusive and totalled 100 per cent within each zone. In North, 30 per cent of households owned a car, 40 per cent owned a motorcycle or scooter, 20 per cent owned a bicycle and 10 per cent had no private vehicle. South reported 25 per cent car ownership, 45 per cent two-wheeler ownership, 15 per cent bicycle ownership and 15 per cent with no private vehicle. East reported 20 per cent cars, 35 per cent two-wheelers, 30 per cent bicycles and 15 per cent with none. West reported 35 per cent cars, 40 per cent two-wheelers, 10 per cent bicycles and 15 per cent with no private vehicle. These shares corresponded to 6,000 cars, 8,000 two-wheelers, 4,000 bicycles and 2,000 households without a private vehicle in North. South had 6,000 cars, 10,800 two-wheelers, 3,600 bicycles and 3,600 without a private vehicle. East had 3,200 cars, 5,600 two-wheelers, 4,800 bicycles and 2,400 without one. West had 7,000 cars, 8,000 two-wheelers, 2,000 bicycles and 3,000 households without a private vehicle. Across the four zones, the totals were 22,200 car-owning households, 32,400 two-wheeler households, 14,400 bicycle households and 11,000 households with no private vehicle. The survey treated these totals as the existing regional market distribution. Two planning scenarios were also defined. First, if East’s car-ownership rate rose from 20 per cent to 25 per cent while its household total remained unchanged, the additional car-owning households would come entirely from its no-private-vehicle category. Second, if 10 per cent of South’s current two-wheeler households shifted to public transport, they would move into the no-private-vehicle category. For a later weighted-market scenario, planners considered adding 10,000 newly surveyed households distributed as 20 per cent cars, 50 per cent two-wheelers, 20 per cent bicycles and 10 per cent with no private vehicle. Unless a question invokes a scenario, the original figures must be used.
A
4,680
B
4,320
C
5,040
D
4,800
💡 Short Explanation
Ten per cent of 10,800 is 1,080. Adding this to the existing 3,600 households gives 4,680.
❓ Why Other Options Are Incorrect
B) 4,320: This adds only 720 households to the original 3,600, but 10% of South’s 10,800 two-wheeler households is 1,080.
C) 5,040: This would require an increase of 1,440 households, greater than the stated 10% shift.
D) 4,800: This would require 1,200 households to shift, which is not 10% of 10,800.
🎯 Strategy
Inference Mapping: Translate the 10% shift into a count: 10% of 10,800 is 1,080. Move that count into the no-private-vehicle category by adding it to the existing 3,600.
✅ Final Logic
South’s no-private-vehicle count becomes 3,600 + 1,080 = 4,680, so option A is correct.
🧠 Memory Trick
Shift means subtract there, add here.
14
📄 Passage
A transport-ownership survey covered 80,000 households in four zones of a metropolitan region. North and West each contained 20,000 surveyed households, South contained 24,000 and East contained 16,000. Every household identified one primary ownership category: car, motorcycle or scooter, bicycle, or no private vehicle. The categories were mutually exclusive and totalled 100 per cent within each zone. In North, 30 per cent of households owned a car, 40 per cent owned a motorcycle or scooter, 20 per cent owned a bicycle and 10 per cent had no private vehicle. South reported 25 per cent car ownership, 45 per cent two-wheeler ownership, 15 per cent bicycle ownership and 15 per cent with no private vehicle. East reported 20 per cent cars, 35 per cent two-wheelers, 30 per cent bicycles and 15 per cent with none. West reported 35 per cent cars, 40 per cent two-wheelers, 10 per cent bicycles and 15 per cent with no private vehicle. These shares corresponded to 6,000 cars, 8,000 two-wheelers, 4,000 bicycles and 2,000 households without a private vehicle in North. South had 6,000 cars, 10,800 two-wheelers, 3,600 bicycles and 3,600 without a private vehicle. East had 3,200 cars, 5,600 two-wheelers, 4,800 bicycles and 2,400 without one. West had 7,000 cars, 8,000 two-wheelers, 2,000 bicycles and 3,000 households without a private vehicle. Across the four zones, the totals were 22,200 car-owning households, 32,400 two-wheeler households, 14,400 bicycle households and 11,000 households with no private vehicle. The survey treated these totals as the existing regional market distribution. Two planning scenarios were also defined. First, if East’s car-ownership rate rose from 20 per cent to 25 per cent while its household total remained unchanged, the additional car-owning households would come entirely from its no-private-vehicle category. Second, if 10 per cent of South’s current two-wheeler households shifted to public transport, they would move into the no-private-vehicle category. For a later weighted-market scenario, planners considered adding 10,000 newly surveyed households distributed as 20 per cent cars, 50 per cent two-wheelers, 20 per cent bicycles and 10 per cent with no private vehicle. Unless a question invokes a scenario, the original figures must be used.
A
800 households
B
1,000 households
C
1,200 households
D
1,400 households
💡 Short Explanation
The car difference is 7,000 − 3,200 = 3,800. The two-wheeler difference is 10,800 − 8,000 = 2,800. The first is larger by 1,000.
❓ Why Other Options Are Incorrect
A) 800 households: The two differences are 3,800 and 2,800, leaving a gap of 1,000 rather than 800.
C) 1,200 households: This is 200 more than the actual excess of the first difference over the second.
D) 1,400 households: This overstates the gap between the two calculated differences by 400 households.
🎯 Strategy
Elimination: Calculate each pairwise difference separately: West–East cars = 3,800 and South–North two-wheelers = 2,800. Then subtract the second difference from the first to get 1,000.
✅ Final Logic
The first difference exceeds the second by 3,800 − 2,800 = 1,000 households, making option B correct.
🧠 Memory Trick
Difference of differences: calculate twice, subtract once.
15
📄 Passage
A transport-ownership survey covered 80,000 households in four zones of a metropolitan region. North and West each contained 20,000 surveyed households, South contained 24,000 and East contained 16,000. Every household identified one primary ownership category: car, motorcycle or scooter, bicycle, or no private vehicle. The categories were mutually exclusive and totalled 100 per cent within each zone. In North, 30 per cent of households owned a car, 40 per cent owned a motorcycle or scooter, 20 per cent owned a bicycle and 10 per cent had no private vehicle. South reported 25 per cent car ownership, 45 per cent two-wheeler ownership, 15 per cent bicycle ownership and 15 per cent with no private vehicle. East reported 20 per cent cars, 35 per cent two-wheelers, 30 per cent bicycles and 15 per cent with none. West reported 35 per cent cars, 40 per cent two-wheelers, 10 per cent bicycles and 15 per cent with no private vehicle. These shares corresponded to 6,000 cars, 8,000 two-wheelers, 4,000 bicycles and 2,000 households without a private vehicle in North. South had 6,000 cars, 10,800 two-wheelers, 3,600 bicycles and 3,600 without a private vehicle. East had 3,200 cars, 5,600 two-wheelers, 4,800 bicycles and 2,400 without one. West had 7,000 cars, 8,000 two-wheelers, 2,000 bicycles and 3,000 households without a private vehicle. Across the four zones, the totals were 22,200 car-owning households, 32,400 two-wheeler households, 14,400 bicycle households and 11,000 households with no private vehicle. The survey treated these totals as the existing regional market distribution. Two planning scenarios were also defined. First, if East’s car-ownership rate rose from 20 per cent to 25 per cent while its household total remained unchanged, the additional car-owning households would come entirely from its no-private-vehicle category. Second, if 10 per cent of South’s current two-wheeler households shifted to public transport, they would move into the no-private-vehicle category. For a later weighted-market scenario, planners considered adding 10,000 newly surveyed households distributed as 20 per cent cars, 50 per cent two-wheelers, 20 per cent bicycles and 10 per cent with no private vehicle. Unless a question invokes a scenario, the original figures must be used.
A
16%
B
17.5%
C
18.5%
D
18%
💡 Short Explanation
There were 14,400 bicycle-owning households out of 80,000. Therefore, 14,400 ÷ 80,000 × 100 = 18%.
❓ Why Other Options Are Incorrect
A) 16%: 16% of 80,000 would be 12,800 bicycle-owning households, below the stated total of 14,400.
B) 17.5%: 17.5% of 80,000 would be 14,000, not 14,400.
C) 18.5%: 18.5% of 80,000 would be 14,800, which is higher than the stated bicycle total.
🎯 Strategy
Elimination: Divide the regional bicycle total of 14,400 by the full sample of 80,000 and multiply by 100. The result is exactly 18%, matching option D.
✅ Final Logic
Bicycle-owning households make up 14,400 ÷ 80,000 = 18% of the sample, so option D is correct.
🧠 Memory Trick
Category share = category total ÷ overall total.
16
📄 Passage
A transport-ownership survey covered 80,000 households in four zones of a metropolitan region. North and West each contained 20,000 surveyed households, South contained 24,000 and East contained 16,000. Every household identified one primary ownership category: car, motorcycle or scooter, bicycle, or no private vehicle. The categories were mutually exclusive and totalled 100 per cent within each zone. In North, 30 per cent of households owned a car, 40 per cent owned a motorcycle or scooter, 20 per cent owned a bicycle and 10 per cent had no private vehicle. South reported 25 per cent car ownership, 45 per cent two-wheeler ownership, 15 per cent bicycle ownership and 15 per cent with no private vehicle. East reported 20 per cent cars, 35 per cent two-wheelers, 30 per cent bicycles and 15 per cent with none. West reported 35 per cent cars, 40 per cent two-wheelers, 10 per cent bicycles and 15 per cent with no private vehicle. These shares corresponded to 6,000 cars, 8,000 two-wheelers, 4,000 bicycles and 2,000 households without a private vehicle in North. South had 6,000 cars, 10,800 two-wheelers, 3,600 bicycles and 3,600 without a private vehicle. East had 3,200 cars, 5,600 two-wheelers, 4,800 bicycles and 2,400 without one. West had 7,000 cars, 8,000 two-wheelers, 2,000 bicycles and 3,000 households without a private vehicle. Across the four zones, the totals were 22,200 car-owning households, 32,400 two-wheeler households, 14,400 bicycle households and 11,000 households with no private vehicle. The survey treated these totals as the existing regional market distribution. Two planning scenarios were also defined. First, if East’s car-ownership rate rose from 20 per cent to 25 per cent while its household total remained unchanged, the additional car-owning households would come entirely from its no-private-vehicle category. Second, if 10 per cent of South’s current two-wheeler households shifted to public transport, they would move into the no-private-vehicle category. For a later weighted-market scenario, planners considered adding 10,000 newly surveyed households distributed as 20 per cent cars, 50 per cent two-wheelers, 20 per cent bicycles and 10 per cent with no private vehicle. Unless a question invokes a scenario, the original figures must be used.
A
16:35
B
7:4
C
35:16
D
21:10
💡 Short Explanation
The ratio is 7,000:3,200. Dividing both terms by 200 gives 35:16.
❓ Why Other Options Are Incorrect
A) 16:35: This is the reverse of the requested West-to-East order.
B) 7:4: 7:4 would correspond to 7,000:4,000, but East has 3,200 car-owning households.
D) 21:10: This is not proportionally equivalent to 7,000:3,200.
🎯 Strategy
Elimination: Write the ratio in the required order as 7,000:3,200 and divide both terms by 200. This gives 35:16, uniquely matching option C.
✅ Final Logic
West-to-East car ownership simplifies from 7,000:3,200 to 35:16, so option C is correct.
🧠 Memory Trick
Write first-mentioned quantity first.
17
📄 Passage
A transport-ownership survey covered 80,000 households in four zones of a metropolitan region. North and West each contained 20,000 surveyed households, South contained 24,000 and East contained 16,000. Every household identified one primary ownership category: car, motorcycle or scooter, bicycle, or no private vehicle. The categories were mutually exclusive and totalled 100 per cent within each zone. In North, 30 per cent of households owned a car, 40 per cent owned a motorcycle or scooter, 20 per cent owned a bicycle and 10 per cent had no private vehicle. South reported 25 per cent car ownership, 45 per cent two-wheeler ownership, 15 per cent bicycle ownership and 15 per cent with no private vehicle. East reported 20 per cent cars, 35 per cent two-wheelers, 30 per cent bicycles and 15 per cent with none. West reported 35 per cent cars, 40 per cent two-wheelers, 10 per cent bicycles and 15 per cent with no private vehicle. These shares corresponded to 6,000 cars, 8,000 two-wheelers, 4,000 bicycles and 2,000 households without a private vehicle in North. South had 6,000 cars, 10,800 two-wheelers, 3,600 bicycles and 3,600 without a private vehicle. East had 3,200 cars, 5,600 two-wheelers, 4,800 bicycles and 2,400 without one. West had 7,000 cars, 8,000 two-wheelers, 2,000 bicycles and 3,000 households without a private vehicle. Across the four zones, the totals were 22,200 car-owning households, 32,400 two-wheeler households, 14,400 bicycle households and 11,000 households with no private vehicle. The survey treated these totals as the existing regional market distribution. Two planning scenarios were also defined. First, if East’s car-ownership rate rose from 20 per cent to 25 per cent while its household total remained unchanged, the additional car-owning households would come entirely from its no-private-vehicle category. Second, if 10 per cent of South’s current two-wheeler households shifted to public transport, they would move into the no-private-vehicle category. For a later weighted-market scenario, planners considered adding 10,000 newly surveyed households distributed as 20 per cent cars, 50 per cent two-wheelers, 20 per cent bicycles and 10 per cent with no private vehicle. Unless a question invokes a scenario, the original figures must be used.
A
8,100
B
8,000
C
8,200
D
8,400
💡 Short Explanation
The four-zone total is 32,400. Dividing by four gives an average of 8,100 households.
❓ Why Other Options Are Incorrect
B) 8,000: Multiplying this by four zones gives only 32,000, below the stated two-wheeler total of 32,400.
C) 8,200: Four times 8,200 is 32,800, which exceeds the stated total.
D) 8,400: Four times 8,400 is 33,600, also above the four-zone total.
🎯 Strategy
Elimination: Use the stated four-zone total of 32,400 and divide by the four zones. The quotient is 8,100, which matches option A.
✅ Final Logic
The average is 32,400 ÷ 4 = 8,100 two-wheeler-owning households per zone, so option A is correct.
🧠 Memory Trick
Average = total ÷ number of groups.
18
📄 Passage
A transport-ownership survey covered 80,000 households in four zones of a metropolitan region. North and West each contained 20,000 surveyed households, South contained 24,000 and East contained 16,000. Every household identified one primary ownership category: car, motorcycle or scooter, bicycle, or no private vehicle. The categories were mutually exclusive and totalled 100 per cent within each zone. In North, 30 per cent of households owned a car, 40 per cent owned a motorcycle or scooter, 20 per cent owned a bicycle and 10 per cent had no private vehicle. South reported 25 per cent car ownership, 45 per cent two-wheeler ownership, 15 per cent bicycle ownership and 15 per cent with no private vehicle. East reported 20 per cent cars, 35 per cent two-wheelers, 30 per cent bicycles and 15 per cent with none. West reported 35 per cent cars, 40 per cent two-wheelers, 10 per cent bicycles and 15 per cent with no private vehicle. These shares corresponded to 6,000 cars, 8,000 two-wheelers, 4,000 bicycles and 2,000 households without a private vehicle in North. South had 6,000 cars, 10,800 two-wheelers, 3,600 bicycles and 3,600 without a private vehicle. East had 3,200 cars, 5,600 two-wheelers, 4,800 bicycles and 2,400 without one. West had 7,000 cars, 8,000 two-wheelers, 2,000 bicycles and 3,000 households without a private vehicle. Across the four zones, the totals were 22,200 car-owning households, 32,400 two-wheeler households, 14,400 bicycle households and 11,000 households with no private vehicle. The survey treated these totals as the existing regional market distribution. Two planning scenarios were also defined. First, if East’s car-ownership rate rose from 20 per cent to 25 per cent while its household total remained unchanged, the additional car-owning households would come entirely from its no-private-vehicle category. Second, if 10 per cent of South’s current two-wheeler households shifted to public transport, they would move into the no-private-vehicle category. For a later weighted-market scenario, planners considered adding 10,000 newly surveyed households distributed as 20 per cent cars, 50 per cent two-wheelers, 20 per cent bicycles and 10 per cent with no private vehicle. Unless a question invokes a scenario, the original figures must be used.
A
26.67%
B
26.89%
C
27.25%
D
27.75%
💡 Short Explanation
The additional group contributes 2,000 car-owning households. The new total is 24,200 out of 90,000, which is approximately 26.89%.
❓ Why Other Options Are Incorrect
A) 26.67%: This is lower than the share obtained after adding 2,000 new car-owning households to the existing 22,200.
C) 27.25%: This overstates the car share of the expanded 90,000-household sample.
D) 27.75%: This is still higher than the percentage produced by the revised car total of 24,200.
🎯 Strategy
Inference Mapping: Map the added group into counts first: 20% of 10,000 adds 2,000 car-owning households. The revised car total is 24,200 and the revised sample is 90,000, giving approximately 26.89%.
✅ Final Logic
With 24,200 car-owning households out of 90,000, the expanded-sample share is approximately 26.89%, so option B is correct.
🧠 Memory Trick
For new shares, update numerator and denominator.