Data Sufficiency: Bank Exam Practice Questions (SBI, IBPS, RRB, PO & Clerk)

Ans: E

Explanation: This question is incomplete. To determine the distance between City M and City O, we need more context. The question is missing statements I and II. Without those statements, we cannot determine the answer. Therefore, I’m unable to solve this question.

Correct Option: E

Ans: A

Explanation: We need to figure out if we can determine the total number of children. The number of sons and daughters would need to be known to determine the total number of children.

The question doesn’t state what statements I and II are, so we cannot answer the question definitively. However, based on the general premise, if we knew the number of sons and daughters individually, we could determine the total number of children.

Without the actual statements, let’s assume this is the setup:

Statement I: Mr. Sharma has 2 sons.
Statement II: Mr. Sharma has 3 daughters.

Using Statement I alone, we don’t know the total number of children, as we don’t know the number of daughters. Thus Statement I is not sufficient.

Using Statement II alone, we don’t know the total number of children, as we don’t know the number of sons. Thus Statement II is not sufficient.

Using both Statements I and II together, we can calculate the total number of children (2 sons + 3 daughters = 5 children). Therefore, both statements together are needed.

However, based on the question prompt, we can pick A, B, C, D or E. Without the statements, we can consider the two likely possibilities in this setup, as given below:

Case 1:
Statement I: Mr. Sharma has 2 sons.
Statement II: Mr. Sharma has 3 daughters.

Then we need both statements. Answer E.

Case 2:
Statement I: Mr. Sharma has 2 sons.
Statement II: Mr. Sharma has 3 children

Then Statement I isn’t sufficient, but Statement II is. Answer B.

Since we cannot see the statements, we are forced to conclude that it is impossible to determine the answer without them.

In the case where it could be solved, statement I alone is useless. And the other statement is helpful.
If the information provided is the number of sons, or the number of daughters, the other information is missing.

If we knew the number of sons, and didn’t know the number of daughters, we would not be able to answer the question.
If we knew the number of daughters, and didn’t know the number of sons, we would not be able to answer the question.
If we knew the number of sons, and we knew the total number of children, then we could calculate the number of daughters, and vice-versa.

Consider the following statements:

Statement I: Mr. Sharma has 3 sons.
Statement II: Mr. Sharma has 2 daughters.

Here, either one of the statements is insufficient and the second is sufficient.

Statement I: Mr. Sharma has 3 sons.
Statement II: Mr. Sharma has 5 children.

Statement I is insufficient to determine the total number of children, but if statement II states the total number, we know it is 5.

If we knew the number of sons, but didn’t know anything else, it could not be answered. However, if we know the total number of children, we can calculate the number of daughters (and vice versa).

A is the most likely case.

Correct Option: A

Ans: C

Explanation:
**Quantity A Calculation:**

Let x be the amount invested at 8% and y be the amount invested at 12%.
We know x + y = 16000 (Equation 1)
Simple interest earned on x at 8% for 3 years: (x * 0.08 * 3) = 0.24x
Simple interest earned on y at 12% for 3 years: (y * 0.12 * 3) = 0.36y
Total interest: 0.24x + 0.36y = 4680 (Equation 2)

From Equation 1, y = 16000 – x. Substitute into Equation 2:
0.24x + 0.36(16000 – x) = 4680
0.24x + 5760 – 0.36x = 4680
-0.12x = -1080
x = 9000

So, Quantity A = 9000

**Quantity B Calculation:**

The original investment doubles in 16 years under simple interest. Let P be the principal and R be the simple interest rate.
Simple Interest = (P * R * T)
In 16 years, interest = P
P = P * R * 16
R = 1/16 = 0.0625 or 6.25%

The investment is 8000. The interest rate is double the original rate: 2 * 6.25% = 12.5% or 0.125
Final Amount after 1 year: 8000 + (8000 * 0.125 * 1) = 8000 + 1000 = 9000

So, Quantity B = 9000

**Comparison:**
Quantity A = 9000
Quantity B = 9000
Quantity A = Quantity B

Correct Option: C

Ans: B

Explanation: Let’s analyze each statement:

* **Statement I:** D is immediately to A’s left. This tells us A and D are next to each other, but doesn’t tell us who is across from A.

* **Statement II:** C is immediately to A’s right. This tells us A and C are next to each other, but doesn’t tell us who is across from A.

* **Statement III:** B is two positions to A’s right. This means B is directly across from A (because there are four people, and two positions to the right is the same as being directly opposite).

Now let’s check the options:

* **A. Statements I and II together are not sufficient.** If we combine I and II, we know that D is to A’s left, C is to A’s right. This information still doesn’t tell us who is directly across from A (it could be B in this configuration, but is not guaranteed)

* **B. Statement III alone is sufficient.** This is correct, as statement III directly tells us who is across from A.

* **C. Statement I alone is sufficient.** Incorrect.

* **D. Statement II alone is sufficient.** Incorrect.

* **E. Insufficient data.** Incorrect.

Correct Option: B

Ans: A

Explanation:
First calculate Quantity A:
The person earns ₹24,000 per month and spends 75%, meaning they save 25% (100% – 75%).
Savings per month = 24,000 * 0.25 = ₹6,000
Savings in 4 months (Quantity A) = 6,000 * 4 = ₹24,000

Next calculate Quantity B:
The person earns ₹8,000 per month.
Earnings in 3 months (Quantity B) = 8,000 * 3 = ₹24,000

Compare Quantity A and Quantity B:
Quantity A = ₹24,000
Quantity B = ₹24,000
Thus, Quantity A = Quantity B. However there seems to be a slight error in the question, as per the question, we are trying to compare amount saved vs amount earned.
So, savings per month = 24,000 * 0.25 = ₹6,000. Amount saved in 4 months= 6000 * 4 = 24,000. This is Quantity A.
Then Quantity B is amount earned in 3 months. Amount earned per month is ₹8,000. So in 3 months it will be 8000 * 3 = 24,000.
So, the correct option is E, but if we go by how the question has been phrased.

Ans: D

Explanation:
Let’s analyze the statements:

Statement I: We are only given the relative positions of Amar, Krishna, and Kirti. We do not know where Pooja is, so we cannot determine who is two places to the left of her. Statement I alone is not sufficient.
Statement II: We are only given Pooja’s position relative to Govind. We do not know the position of any of the other people, so we cannot determine who is two places to the left of Pooja. Statement II alone is not sufficient.
Combining statements I and II, we still need to know where Krishna and Amar are related to Pooja. We are not given any position related to Pooja except from Govind. Therefore we cannot answer the question.
Combining both Statements together, we can place individuals relative to each other, but we are missing a key position relative to Pooja.

The question asks for the position relative to Pooja. Therefore, data in both statements I and II together are not sufficient to answer the question.

Correct Option: D

Ans: E

Explanation: Statement I tells us relative ages: Ravi > Suresh, Suresh = Kamal + 2. We don’t have enough information to determine the ages exactly. Statement II tells us the sum of their ages is 45. We have one equation with three variables, so we cannot determine their individual ages. Combining the statements, we can let Kamal’s age be ‘x’. Then Suresh’s age is ‘x+2’. Ravi’s age is greater than ‘x+2’. The equation becomes Ravi + x + x + 2 = 45. We still don’t have enough information to pinpoint Ravi’s age.

Ans: C

Explanation: Statement I tells us Ravi is older than Suresh, but it doesn’t give us Ravi’s age. Statement II tells us Suresh is 25 years old. Combining both statements, we know Suresh is 25 and Ravi is older, but we still don’t know Ravi’s exact age. Therefore, we need additional information. The statements individually are not sufficient, but also combined are still insufficient.

Ans: B

Explanation:
Let R be Rita’s present age and G be Geeta’s present age.

Statement I: R = G + 10. We can’t solve for R.

Statement II: R + G = 30. We can’t solve for R.

Statement III: R – 5 = 2(G – 5). R – 5 = 2G – 10, or R = 2G – 5. We can’t solve for R.

Combining Statements:

I & II: R = G + 10 and R + G = 30. Substituting, G + 10 + G = 30. 2G = 20, so G = 10, and R = 20. Sufficient.

II & III: R + G = 30 and R = 2G – 5. Substituting, 2G – 5 + G = 30. 3G = 35, so G = 35/3, and R = 30 – 35/3 = 55/3. Sufficient.

I & III: R = G + 10 and R = 2G – 5. G + 10 = 2G – 5, so G = 15. R = 15 + 10 = 25. Sufficient.

Any two statements are sufficient.