Logical Reasoning Test

Question 1
1 / -0.25

The Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019 provides for special provisions for citizenship for migrants from the following countries:

A. Myanmar

B. Afghanistan

C. Bangladesh

D. Pakistan

A
A, C and D only

B
B, C and D only

C
A, B and C only

D
All of these

Question 2
1 / -0.25

Nitya is Sam’s Sister. Mogan is Sam’s Father. Selvan is Rajan’s Son. Rajan is Mogan’s Brother. How is Nitya related to Selvan?

A
Daughter

B
Sister

C
Cousin sister

D
Wife

Question 3
1 / -0.25

Select the option that is true about the Statements and Conclusion given:

Statement:

No river is sea.

All seas are oceans.

Conclusion:

I. All rivers are oceans.

II. No river is oceans.

A
Only conclusion II follows

B
Only conclusion I follows

C
Neither conclusion I nor conclusion II follows

D
Both conclusion I and II follows

Question 4
1 / -0.25

Select the combination of letters that when sequentially placed in the gaps of the given letter series will complete the series.

V__B__ __TBW__T__W

A
TWVVB

B
TWVBV

C
WTVBV

D
TVWBB

Question 5
1 / -0.25

Directions For Questions

In each question below is given one/more statements that followed by two assumptions numbered I and II. Consider the statement and decide which of the given assumptions is implicit.

...view full instructions

Statement:

a) Sunita to Sahil, "Don't you have a presentation to make".

b) Sahil to Sunita, "Why hurry? I will do it tomorrow".

c) Sunita to Sahil," You have been saying the same thing for past five days".

Assumption:

I. Sahil is a procrastinator.

II. Sahil has been very busy in the last few days.

A
Only assumption I is implicit.

B
Only assumption II is implicit.

C
If either assumption I or II is implicit.

D
If neither I nor II is implicit.

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: A master is liable for the acts committed by his servant in the course of employment.

Facts: Sanjay is a driver working in Brooke bond and Co. one day, the Manager asked him to drop a customer at the airport and get back at the earliest. On his way back from the airport, he happened to see his fiancé Ruhina waiting for a bus to go home. He offered to drop her at home, which happened to be close to his office. She got into the car and soon thereafter; the car somersaulted due to the negligence to Sanjay. Ruhina was thrown out of the car suffered multiple injuries. She seeks compensation from Brooke bond and Co.

A
Brooke bond and Co. shall be liable, because Sanjay was in the course of employment at the time of accident.

B
Brooke bond and Co. Shall not be liable, Sanjay was not in the course of employment when he took Ruhina inside the car.

C
Ruhina got into the car at her own risk, and therefore, she cannot sue anybody.

D
None of the above

Question 7
1 / -0.25

Under Article 25 of the Constitution of India, the right to profess, practice and propagate religion is subject to the

following restrictions:

A. Public Interest

B. Morality

C. Health

D. Other Provisions of Part III (Fundamental Rights) of the Constitution of India

Choose the correct answer from the options given below:

A
A and B only

B
B, C and D only

C
B and C only

D
All of these

Question 8
1 / -0.25

If you are facing north-east and move 10 m forward, turn left and move 7.5 m, then you are:

A
north of your initial position

B
south of you initial position

C
12.5 m from the initial position

D
Both A and C

Question 9
1 / -0.25

An agreement not enforceable by law is stated to be void under:

A
section 2(d)

B
section 2(e)

C
section 2(f)

D
section 2(g)

Question 10
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.

...view full instructions

Principle: It is settled principle that an occupier should not do a dangerous act without adequate warning if he knows or suspects that a trespasser is present.

Fact: 'A' was cutting a large tree on his land. Some boys were fooling about nearby. 'A' paid no attention as the boys were clearly trespassers, when the tree fell, one of the boys was hit by a falling branch and suffered injury.

A
The boy was illegally present and cannot have the protection of law.

B
'A' was liable as he did not give warning of the danger likely to arise by the felling of tree although he knew that the boy was present.

C
'A' is not liable as there is no duty to do good and warning a person who was illegally on the premises.

D
'A' was carrying out his lawful profession on his own land and anyone came there, at his peril. Hence 'A' was not liable.

Submit Test

Logical Reasoni...

Question 1

A, C and D only

B, C and D only

A, B and C only

All of these

Question 2

Daughter

Sister

Cousin sister

Wife

Question 3

Only conclusion II follows

Only conclusion I follows

Neither conclusion I nor conclusion II follows

Both conclusion I and II follows

Question 4

TWVVB

TWVBV

WTVBV

TVWBB

Question 5

Only assumption I is implicit.

Only assumption II is implicit.

If either assumption I or II is implicit.

If neither I nor II is implicit.

Question 6

Brooke bond and Co. shall be liable, because Sanjay was in the course of employment at the time of accident.

Brooke bond and Co. Shall not be liable, Sanjay was not in the course of employment when he took Ruhina inside the car.

Ruhina got into the car at her own risk, and therefore, she cannot sue anybody.

None of the above

Question 7

A and B only

B, C and D only

B and C only

All of these

Question 8

north of your initial position

south of you initial position

12.5 m from the initial position

Both A and C

Question 9

section 2(d)

section 2(e)

section 2(f)

section 2(g)

Question 10

The boy was illegally present and cannot have the protection of law.

'A' was liable as he did not give warning of the danger likely to arise by the felling of tree although he knew that the boy was present.

'A' is not liable as there is no duty to do good and warning a person who was illegally on the premises.

'A' was carrying out his lawful profession on his own land and anyone came there, at his peril. Hence 'A' was not liable.

User

Question Analysis

Results Announcement on: coming Monday

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