Logical Reasoning Test

Result

Logical Reasoning Test - 14

Score
-
out of -
Rank
-
out of -

TIME Taken - -

SHARING IS CARING

If our Website helped you a little, then kindly spread our voice using Social Networks. Spread our word to your readers, friends, teachers, students & all those close ones who deserve to know what you know now.

Weekly Quiz Competition

Question 1
1 / -0.25

What is the maximum number of companies a person can be a director in at a time in case of a public company?

A
15

B
10

C
20

D
25

Solution

Under section 165 of the Companies Act, no person shall hold office as a director at the same time in more than twenty companies including any alternate director and in the case of a public company the maximum number of companies in which one person may be appointed as a director may be appointed in, shall not exceed ten.
Question 2
1 / -0.25

In the question below is given a statement followed by two assumptions numbered I and II. You have to consider the statement and the following assumptions and decide which of the assumptions is implicit in the statement.

Statement: The concession in rail fares for the journey to hill stations has been cancelled because it is not needed for people who can spend their holidays there.

Assumptions:

I. Railways should give concession only to needy persons.

II. Railways should not encourage people to spend their holidays at hill stations.

A
Only assumption I is implicit

B
Only assumption II is implicit

C
Either I or II is implicit

D
Neither I nor II is implicit

Solution

The statement mentions that concessions should not be given to people who can afford to spend holidays in hill stations. This means they should be given only to needy persons. So, I is implicit. But, II does not follow from the statement and is not implicit.
Question 3
1 / -0.25

Where a minor has entered into a contract for the purchase of necessary items. In such cases:

A
The minor is not personally liable.

B
Minor’s estates are liable to make good.

C
Minor’s guardian is liable.

D
The minor is personally liable

Solution

Where a minor has entered into a contract for the purchase of necessary items. In such cases, the minor is not personally liable.

Minors lack the capacity to make a contract. So a minor who signs a contract can either honor the deal or void the contract. In most states, if a minor turns 18 and hasn't done anything to void the contract, then the contract can no longer be voided.
Question 4
1 / -0.25

The question consists of legal propositions/ principles (hereinafter referred to as 'principle') and facts. These principles have to be applied to the given facts to arrive at the most reasonable conclusion.

Principles: The object of an agreement is lawful unless it is forbidden by law; is of such a nature that, if permitted, it would defeat the provisions of any law; is fraudulent; involves or implied injury to the person or property of another person; the court regards it as immoral; it is opposed to public policy.

Facts : A and B entered into a contract, whereby A agreed to get married to B, if her parents paid A Rs. 1,00,000 before the wedding. B’s parents failed to pay the promised amount. A sues B and her parents.

A
A will succeed because all the requirements of a contract are met.

B
A will succeed since the payment of the amount was the condition precedent for the wedding.

C
A will not succeed since the contract is void, its object being against the law.

D
A will not succeed since B was not a party to the contract.

Solution

According to the facts, A will not succeed since the contract is void, its object being against the law.
Question 5
1 / -0.25

The question consists of legal propositions/ principles (hereinafter referred to as 'principle') and facts. These principles have to be applied to the given facts to arrive at the most reasonable conclusion.

Principle: Private nuisance is the interference with the use and enjoyment of the premises and it is actionable by the person whose rights have been disturbed.

Facts: Ashish and Salma were next-door neighbours who lived in the same building. Ashish was a chain-smoker and smoked a number of cigarettes everyday within the confines of his house which entered Salma’s house too. Salma feared that the passive smoking she was being subjected to would cause her health complications and bough herself air-fresheners and purification devices as a result of which electricity bill shot up. She complained about Ashish to the building secretary who agreed with her. Finally, Salma filed a case against Ashish asking for compensation on the grounds of nuisance. Will Salma succeed?

A
Salma will not succeed because there is no law against smoking in India.

B
Salma will succeed because even after her complaints to the building secretary, Ashish continued to smoke.

C
Salma will succeed as Ashish’s habit of continuous smoking created a lot of smoke and it interfered in the enjoyment of her property and constituted a private nuisance.

D
Salma will not succeed as she is being paranoid and as long as Ashish smokes inside the four walls of his house, he cannot be alleged of causing a nuisance.

Solution

According to the principle, Ashish and Salma were next-door neighbours who lived in the same building. Ashish was a chain-smoker and smoked a number of cigarettes every day within the confines of his house Salma will succeed as Ashish’s habit of continuous smoking created a lot of smoke and it interfered in the enjoyment of her property and constituted a private nuisance.
Question 6
1 / -0.25

The question consists of legal propositions/ principles (hereinafter referred to as 'principle') and facts. These principles have to be applied to the given facts to arrive at the most reasonable conclusion.

Principle: Statement/actions that appear innocent at face value but are in reality defamatory when viewed in the light of certain events, are known as innuendos and actionable as defamation.

Facts: Bhatia was accused of being a series killer known as the ‘midnight marauder’. His unshaven and unkempt appearance added to his criminal persona and many people had no doubt that he was the criminal. Devina who owned a museum that had wax statues in it got a wax model of Bhatia made and put it in the room adjoining the Chamber of Horrors. However, Bhatia was acquitted due to lack of evidence and on discovering his wax statue in the museum he initiated legal action against Devina.

Decide.

A
Bhatia’s suit will fail as his appearance and arrest would lead people to think that he was the murderer.

B
Bhatia’s suit will fail since Devina has the freedom of expression to portray him in any way she wants.

C
Bhatia’s suit will succeed because Devina is implying his guilt by portraying him as someone to be feared.

D
Bhatia’s suit will succeed because he was acquitted.

Solution

According to the facts, Bhatia’s suit will succeed because Devina is implying his guilt by portraying him as someone to be feared.
Question 7
1 / -0.25

Directions For Questions

The question consists of legal propositions/ principles (hereinafter referred to as 'principle') and facts. These principles have to be applied to the given facts to arrive at the most reasonable conclusion.

Principle I: The right to be silent is an essential component of the right against self-incrimination which is a fundamental right of every citizen.

Principle II: During the trial, an accused person has the right not to testify by exercising his or her right to remain silent.

Principle III: When an accused person does decide to testify, his or her right to remain silent is waived and he can no longer take the defence of self-incrimination in the court.

Facts: K R Kejriwal was a brilliant scientist and statistician who was arrested one fateful night by the Noida police department and brought in for questioning for his involvement in the mafia responsible for the smuggling of arms to Pakistan. In the police custody, the chief inspector Mr Thakur beat up Mr Kejriwal repeatedly and threatened to cause him serious bodily harm if he did not confess that he was guilty of the offence of abetment. However, Mr Kejriwal did not admit to the offence despite numerous attacks and finally passed out in his custodian cell. In the court, the defence attorney for Mr Kejriwal brought Mr Thakur to the stand and questioned him for attacking his client. During one of the questions, Mr Thakur stated that he is no longer interested in answering any further questions and wished to exercise his right to remain silent in court.

...view full instructions

Can Mr Thakur exercise his right to remain silent?

A
Yes, since Mr. Thakur is a citizen of the nation and has the fundamental right to remain silent.

B
Yes, since Mr. Thakur has every right to protect himself from being incriminated in the act of harming the accused in police custody.

C
No, since Mr. Thakur has waived his right to remain silent and must answer all the questions addressed to him in the court.

D
No, since Mr. Thakur has waived his fundamental right of self-incrimination and could be held liable for perjury if he decides to remain silent in the court.

Solution

The right to remain silent subsists as long as the accused does not testify in court. In this case, Mr. Thakur was already brought to stand and questioned for attacking his client. Therefore, he has waived his right to remain silent.
Question 8
1 / -0.25

The question consists of legal propositions/ principles (hereinafter referred to as 'principle') and facts. These principles have to be applied to the given facts to arrive at the most reasonable conclusion.

Principle: The state shall not discriminate against any person on the grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth, or any of them.

Facts: A, who was not a Brahmin, was appointed as a Priest of a particular temple.The action was opposed by some who claimed that as a matter of custom, only Brahmins could be appointed to that post. A responded, by pointing out that he had been trained in the shastras, in a school set up by the temple authorities with the very aim of training such priests, and was otherwise perfectly capable of carrying on his duties. Decide

A
A cannot be appointed to the Board as being a priest is not a secular activity.

B
A can be appointed to the Board as he is a specially trained and qualified candidate and cannot be dismissed merely for not being born in a particular caste.

C
A can be appointed to the Board as barring him would amount to discrimination on the grounds of caste.

D
None of the above

Solution

According to the facts, A can be appointed to the Board as he is a specially trained and qualified candidate and cannot be dismissed merely for not being born in a particular caste.
Question 9
1 / -0.25

The question consists of legal propositions/ principles (hereinafter referred to as 'principle') and facts. These principles have to be applied to the given facts to arrive at the most reasonable conclusion.

Principle I: In order to constitute fraud, there should be a representation as to certain untrue facts.

Principle II: Active concealment has also been considered to be equivalent to a statement because in that case, there is a positive effort to conceal the truth and create an untrue impression in the minds of the other.

Principle III: Mere silence as to facts, however is no fraud.

Facts: A let his house to B which he knew was in a dilapidated condition. He also knew that the house was going to be occupied by B immediately as B is in a hurry and just takes a cursory look around the house. A did not disclose the condition to B. B later finds out and sues A for fraud.

A
A has committed fraud and can hence be sued by B.

B
A has not committed fraud as B had the option of checking the house properly.

C
A has not committed fraud as there is no active concealment and mere silence does not amount to fraud.

D
None of the above

Solution

According to the facts, A has not committed fraud as there is no active concealment and mere silence does not amount to fraud.
Question 10
1 / -0.25

The question consists of legal propositions/ principles (hereinafter referred to as 'principle') and facts. These principles have to be applied to the given facts to arrive at the most reasonable conclusion.

Principle: A contract is concluded when an offer is made by one party and the same offer is accepted by the other party. Any other method will not constitute a contract.

Facts: A wrote to B indicating his willingness to sell 100 kgs of iron at Rs 3000 per kg. On the same day B also wrote to A offering to buy 100 kgs of iron at Rs 3000. The two letters crossed each other in post. But later A closes down his factory and stops supplying iron. B brought an action against A for the supply of iron contending that a valid contract had been created an action against A for the supply of iron contending that a valid contract had been created between the two parties. Is there a contract?

A
A valid contract has been concluded between A and B as A has made an offer which has been accepted by B.

B
There is no contract between A and B.

C
There is no contract as there is no offer and acceptance, just two offers made simultaneously containing the same terms and conditions.

D
None of the above

Solution

According to the facts, there is no contract as there is no offer and acceptance, just two offers made simultaneously containing the same terms and conditions.

User

Question Analysis

Correct -
Wrong -
Skipped -

My Perfomance

Score
-
out of -
Rank
-
out of -

Re-Attempt Weekly Quiz Competition

Logical Reasoning Test - 14

Result

Logical Reasoning Test - 14

Score

-

Rank

-

SHARING IS CARING

Question 1

15

10

20

25

Solution

Question 2

Only assumption I is implicit

Only assumption II is implicit

Either I or II is implicit

Neither I nor II is implicit

Solution

Question 3

The minor is not personally liable.

Minor’s estates are liable to make good.

Minor’s guardian is liable.

The minor is personally liable

Solution

Question 4

A will succeed because all the requirements of a contract are met.

A will succeed since the payment of the amount was the condition precedent for the wedding.

A will not succeed since the contract is void, its object being against the law.

A will not succeed since B was not a party to the contract.

Solution

Question 5

Salma will not succeed because there is no law against smoking in India.

Salma will succeed because even after her complaints to the building secretary, Ashish continued to smoke.

Salma will succeed as Ashish’s habit of continuous smoking created a lot of smoke and it interfered in the enjoyment of her property and constituted a private nuisance.

Salma will not succeed as she is being paranoid and as long as Ashish smokes inside the four walls of his house, he cannot be alleged of causing a nuisance.

Solution

Question 6

Bhatia’s suit will fail as his appearance and arrest would lead people to think that he was the murderer.

Bhatia’s suit will fail since Devina has the freedom of expression to portray him in any way she wants.

Bhatia’s suit will succeed because Devina is implying his guilt by portraying him as someone to be feared.

Bhatia’s suit will succeed because he was acquitted.

Solution

Question 7

Yes, since Mr. Thakur is a citizen of the nation and has the fundamental right to remain silent.

Yes, since Mr. Thakur has every right to protect himself from being incriminated in the act of harming the accused in police custody.

No, since Mr. Thakur has waived his right to remain silent and must answer all the questions addressed to him in the court.

No, since Mr. Thakur has waived his fundamental right of self-incrimination and could be held liable for perjury if he decides to remain silent in the court.

Solution

Question 8

A cannot be appointed to the Board as being a priest is not a secular activity.

A can be appointed to the Board as he is a specially trained and qualified candidate and cannot be dismissed merely for not being born in a particular caste.

A can be appointed to the Board as barring him would amount to discrimination on the grounds of caste.

None of the above

Solution

Question 9

A has committed fraud and can hence be sued by B.

A has not committed fraud as B had the option of checking the house properly.

A has not committed fraud as there is no active concealment and mere silence does not amount to fraud.

None of the above

Solution

Question 10

A valid contract has been concluded between A and B as A has made an offer which has been accepted by B.

There is no contract between A and B.

There is no contract as there is no offer and acceptance, just two offers made simultaneously containing the same terms and conditions.

None of the above

Solution

User

Question Analysis

My Perfomance

Score

-

Rank

-

Results Announcement on: coming Monday

Stay Tuned: We’ll update you on your result via email or SMS.