Numerical Ability Worksheet 1
Numerical Ability Worksheet 1
In turn 1, assuming the lowest score possible on two dice is 2, the sum of 31 indicates he likely scored higher. If Michael's total by turn 4 is 30, his contributions in other turns minus turn 4 must add to 28 (30 - his turn 1 score of 2 = 28). Without knowing any tie for lowest or highest intermediate scores, turn 4 can be calculated as the residual (30 - sum of others) to reach 30. Hence, his score in turn 4 is 6 .
In the given system, '-' means '*', '.' means '+', and '+' means '-'. Thus, '71 - 21.672 + 312' becomes '71 * 21 + 672 - 312'. Calculating this, 71 * 21 = 1,491, then 1,491 + 672 = 2,163, and finally 2,163 - 312 = 1,851 .
R finished first at 11:57 AM, followed by P at 12:49 PM, Q at 1:02 PM, and S at 1:24 PM. To determine non-consecutive pairs, compare the time differences: from R to P is 52 minutes, P to Q is 13 minutes, and Q to S is 22 minutes. The gap between R (11:57 AM) and P (12:49 PM) indicates they did not finish consecutively .
To achieve a prime, change '-' to 'x' and '+' to '-'. The expression '(5 x 5) - (6 x 3)' becomes '25 - 18', resulting in 7, which is a prime number .
The problem provides two clues: Arijit has 2 mangoes less than Shaan, and Mohit has 1 mango. With a total of 7 mangoes, this translates into the equation S + (S - 2) + 1 = 7, where S is the number of mangoes Shaan has. This simplifies to 2S - 1 = 7, leading to S = 4 .
Altering standard symbols challenges understanding: '+' to 'x' and 'x' to '+' in '(5 - 5) + (6 x 3)' initially absurd because base arithmetic setup suggests impossible typical solutions, relying on advanced mental abstraction to envision tangible outcomes independently of canonical arithmetic tables .
Adjusting '-' to '+' and '+' to 'x' for '(5 - 5) + (6 x 3)' yields '(5 + 5) x (6 x 3)', which is '(10) x (18)', giving 180, a non-prime. No prime results from those changes alone .
Given 'A @ B' (A = B), 'B # C' (B < C), and 'C ! D' (C > D), we cannot have 'A # C' as A and B are equal, but B is less than C. Thus, 'A # C' would contradict that C is greater .
Based on 'A @ B', 'B # C', 'C ! D', B being equal to A, less than C, and since C is greater than D, it's plausible B can equal D if C is slightly greater. Hence, 'B @ D' isn't immediately inconsistent, but also not guaranteed .
From listed finishing times (R at 11:57 AM, P at 12:49 PM, Q at 1:02 PM, S at 1:24 PM), P and R not being consecutive shows an over-hour gap, highlighting transition intervals crucially affect sequence interpretation. It tests understanding of timing relationships beyond exact succession .