CAT 2020 Slot 1 Question Paper

Of the 1000 subjects, only 500 have been considered for the treatment. This constitutes our sample set. Thus the four drugs- A, B, C and D have been administered to this set of 500 individuals, while the rest 500 have been given the placebo. Based on the given information, we can then draw the following 4-set Venn diagram:

We can solve for the number of patients who were administered the drugs A, B and D excluding C by putting in the values for set A. The required value = 250 - (25+20+30+40+20+50+35) = 30. Based on condition (c), we know that 100 patients were treated with exactly three types of medicines. Thus, we can fill the slot for the number of patients who were administered only B, C and D excluding A by 100 - (40+20+30) = 10. 

 Similarly, based on condition (f), we know that the candidates who were administered only dug B are 75 - (25+20+10) = 20. Post this, we can easily calculate the number of people administered with only drugs B and C by 210 - (30+20+40+50+10+20+20) = 20. We can fill in the above values to obtain the following diagram:

The sum of all the values should add up to 500. On solving for 'x' [which represents the number of people who were administered drugs B and D only], we obtain x = 150. The final representation would appear as follows:

Based on the above, the number of patients who were treated with medicine type B is equal to 340.

Of the 1000 subjects, only 500 have been considered for the treatment. This constitutes our sample set. Thus the four drugs- A, B, C and D have been administered to this set of 500 individuals, while the rest 500 have been given the placebo. Based on the given information, we can then draw the following 4-set Venn diagram:

We can solve for the number of patients who were administered the drugs A, B and D excluding C by putting in the values for set A. The required value = 250 - (25+20+30+40+20+50+35) = 30. Based on condition (c), we know that 100 patients were treated with exactly three types of medicines. Thus, we can fill the slot for the number of patients who were administered only B, C and D excluding A by 100 - (40+20+30) = 10.

Similarly, based on condition (f), we know that the candidates who were administered only dug B are 75 - (25+20+10) = 20. Post this, we can easily calculate the number of people administered with only drugs B and C by 210 - (30+20+40+50+10+20+20) = 20. We can fill in the above values to obtain the following diagram:

The sum of all the values should add up to 500. On solving for 'x' [which represents the number of people who were administered drugs B and D only], we obtain x = 150. The final representation would appear as follows:

The number of patients who were treated with medicine types B, C and D, but not type A was: 10.

Of the 1000 subjects, only 500 have been considered for the treatment. This constitutes our sample set. Thus the four drugs- A, B, C and D have been administered to this set of 500 individuals, while the rest 500 have been given the placebo. Based on the given information, we can then draw the following 4-set Venn diagram:

We can solve for the number of patients who were administered the drugs A, B and D excluding C by putting in the values for set A. The required value = 250 - (25+20+30+40+20+50+35) = 30. Based on condition (c), we know that 100 patients were treated with exactly three types of medicines. Thus, we can fill the slot for the number of patients who were administered only B, C and D excluding A by 100 - (40+20+30) = 10.

Similarly, based on condition (f), we know that the candidates who were administered only dug B are 75 - (25+20+10) = 20. Post this, we can easily calculate the number of people administered with only drugs B and C by 210 - (30+20+40+50+10+20+20) = 20. We can fill in the above values to obtain the following diagram:

The sum of all the values should add up to 500. On solving for 'x' [which represents the number of people who were administered drugs B and D only], we obtain x = 150. The final representation would appear as follows:

The number of people who were administered drugs B and D only were 150.

Of the 1000 subjects, only 500 have been considered for the treatment. This constitutes our sample set. Thus the four drugs- A, B, C and D have been administered to this set of 500 individuals, while the rest 500 have been given the placebo. Based on the given information, we can then draw the following 4-set Venn diagram:

We can solve for the number of patients who were administered the drugs A, B and D excluding C by putting in the values for set A. The required value = 250 - (25+20+30+40+20+50+35) = 30. Based on condition (c), we know that 100 patients were treated with exactly three types of medicines. Thus, we can fill the slot for the number of patients who were administered only B, C and D excluding A by 100 - (40+20+30) = 10.

Similarly, based on condition (f), we know that the candidates who were administered only dug B are 75 - (25+20+10) = 20. Post this, we can easily calculate the number of people administered with only drugs B and C by 210 - (30+20+40+50+10+20+20) = 20. We can fill in the above values to obtain the following diagram:

The sum of all the values should add up to 500. On solving for 'x' [which represents the number of people who were administered drugs B and D only], we obtain x = 150. The final representation would appear as follows:

The number of patients who were treated with medicine type D was 325.

From IV: A, B, C, D have one 3, 7, 3, 4-year contract respectively and all other contracts are one-year contracts.

From I, Z has at least one contract every year, the only possible combination is 7+3 or 7+4 year contract and that 7-year contract must be from B.

From III, Vendor W had contracts only in 2012 and from VII, Institutes B and D each had exactly one contract in 2012 => W has got contracts from A and C.
From II. Vendor X had one or more contracts in every year up to 2015, but no contract in any year after that and from VI, VII: C and D didn't have any contract in 2011 and 2010 respectively => A should have X as a 3-year contract from 2010-2012. Now, for 2013-2015 X can't have B for the same. So, X must have got contracts from either C or D in that period.

Case 1:

X has C as a 3-year contract from 2013-2015 but in this case, D can't have any contract in 2012 so, this case is not valid.

Case 2:

X has D for a 4-year contract from 2012-2015 and C must have Z for a three-year contract in the period 2017-2019 such that Z has at least one contract every year.

It is known that over the decade, the institutes each got into two contracts with two of these vendors, and each vendor got into two contracts with two of these institutes => A hasn't got any contract from 2013-2019 as it has X, W in the period 2010-2012 and similarly, C shouldn't have any contracts in the years 2010, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016.

From III, Vendor Y had contracts in 2010 and 2019 and in 2010 D and C hasn't got any contract and A has already got 2 different contracts from two different vendors => Y has a contract from B in 2010 => B hasn't got any contracts in 2017, 2018, 2019.

For Y the only possible contract will be from D => D has got no contracts in the years 2011, 2016, 2017, 2018.

Now, the table looks like:

'N' represents no contract.

Out of the given options, only 2015 has two contracts and rest have only one contract in that particular year.

From IV: A, B, C, D have one 3, 7, 3, 4-year contract respectively and all other contracts are one-year contracts.

From I, Z has at least one contract every year, the only possible combination is 7+3 or 7+4 year contract and that 7-year contract must be from B.

From III, Vendor W had contracts only in 2012 and from VII, Institutes B and D each had exactly one contract in 2012 => W has got contracts from A and C.
From II. Vendor X had one or more contracts in every year up to 2015, but no contract in any year after that and from VI, VII: C and D didn't have any contract in 2011 and 2010 respectively => A should have X as a 3-year contract from 2010-2012. Now, for 2013-2015 X can't have B for the same. So, X must have got contracts from either C or D in that period.

Case 1:

X has C as a 3-year contract from 2013-2015 but in this case, D can't have any contract in 2012 so, this case is not valid. 

Case 2:

X has D for a 4-year contract from 2012-2015 and C must have Z for a three-year contract in the period 2017-2019 such that Z has at least one contract every year.

It is known that over the decade, the institutes each got into two contracts with two of these vendors, and each vendor got into two contracts with two of these institutes => A hasn't got any contract from 2013-2019 as it has X, W in the period 2010-2012 and similarly, C shouldn't have any contracts in the years 2010, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016.

From III, Vendor Y had contracts in 2010 and 2019 and in 2010 D and C hasn't got any contract and A has already got 2 different contracts from two different vendors => Y has a contract from B in 2010 => B hasn't got any contracts in 2017, 2018, 2019.

For Y the only possible contract will be from D => D has got no contracts in the years 2011, 2016, 2017, 2018.

Now, the table looks like:

'N' represents no contract. 

Option D is true. 

From IV: A, B, C, D have one 3, 7, 3, 4-year contract respectively and all other contracts are one-year contracts.

From I, Z has at least one contract every year, the only possible combination is 7+3 or 7+4 year contract and that 7-year contract must be from B.

From III, Vendor W had contracts only in 2012 and from VII, Institutes B and D each had exactly one contract in 2012 => W has got contracts from A and C.
From II. Vendor X had one or more contracts in every year up to 2015, but no contract in any year after that and from VI, VII: C and D didn't have any contract in 2011 and 2010 respectively => A should have X as a 3-year contract from 2010-2012. Now, for 2013-2015 X can't have B for the same. So, X must have got contracts from either C or D in that period.

Case 1:

X has C as a 3-year contract from 2013-2015 but in this case, D can't have any contract in 2012 so, this case is not valid.

Case 2:

X has D for a 4-year contract from 2012-2015 and C must have Z for a three-year contract in the period 2017-2019 such that Z has at least one contract every year.

It is known that over the decade, the institutes each got into two contracts with two of these vendors, and each vendor got into two contracts with two of these institutes => A hasn't got any contract from 2013-2019 as it has X, W in the period 2010-2012 and similarly, C shouldn't have any contracts in the years 2010, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016.

From III, Vendor Y had contracts in 2010 and 2019 and in 2010 D and C hasn't got any contract and A has already got 2 different contracts from two different vendors => Y has a contract from B in 2010 => B hasn't got any contracts in 2017, 2018, 2019.

For Y the only possible contract will be from D => D has got no contracts in the years 2011, 2016, 2017, 2018.

Now, the table looks like:

'N' represents no contract.

Only during 2016, 2017 and 2018, there was only one contract. 

From IV: A, B, C, D have one 3, 7, 3, 4-year contract respectively and all other contracts are one-year contracts.

From I, Z has at least one contract every year, the only possible combination is 7+3 or 7+4 year contract and that 7-year contract must be from B.

From III, Vendor W had contracts only in 2012 and from VII, Institutes B and D each had exactly one contract in 2012 => W has got contracts from A and C.
From II. Vendor X had one or more contracts in every year up to 2015, but no contract in any year after that and from VI, VII: C and D didn't have any contract in 2011 and 2010 respectively => A should have X as a 3-year contract from 2010-2012. Now, for 2013-2015 X can't have B for the same. So, X must have got contracts from either C or D in that period.

Case 1:

X has C as a 3-year contract from 2013-2015 but in this case, D can't have any contract in 2012 so, this case is not valid.

Case 2:

X has D for a 4-year contract from 2012-2015 and C must have Z for a three-year contract in the period 2017-2019 such that Z has at least one contract every year.

It is known that over the decade, the institutes each got into two contracts with two of these vendors, and each vendor got into two contracts with two of these institutes => A hasn't got any contract from 2013-2019 as it has X, W in the period 2010-2012 and similarly, C shouldn't have any contracts in the years 2010, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016.

From III, Vendor Y had contracts in 2010 and 2019 and in 2010 D and C hasn't got any contract and A has already got 2 different contracts from two different vendors => Y has a contract from B in 2010 => B hasn't got any contracts in 2017, 2018, 2019.

For Y the only possible contract will be from D => D has got no contracts in the years 2011, 2016, 2017, 2018.

Now, the table looks like:

'N' represents no contract.

The Number of contracts in 2010 is three. 

From IV: A, B, C, D have one 3, 7, 3, 4-year contract respectively and all other contracts are one-year contracts.\

From I, Z has at least one contract every year, the only possible combination is 7+3 or 7+4 year contract and that 7-year contract must be from B.

From III, Vendor W had contracts only in 2012 and from VII, Institutes B and D each had exactly one contract in 2012 => W has got contracts from A and C.
From II. Vendor X had one or more contracts in every year up to 2015, but no contract in any year after that and from VI, VII: C and D didn't have any contract in 2011 and 2010 respectively => A should have X as a 3-year contract from 2010-2012. Now, for 2013-2015 X can't have B for the same. So, X must have got contracts from either C or D in that period.

Case 1:

X has C as a 3-year contract from 2013-2015 but in this case, D can't have any contract in 2012 so, this case is not valid.

Case 2:

X has D for a 4-year contract from 2012-2015 and C must have Z for a three-year contract in the period 2017-2019 such that Z has at least one contract every year.

It is known that over the decade, the institutes each got into two contracts with two of these vendors, and each vendor got into two contracts with two of these institutes => A hasn't got any contract from 2013-2019 as it has X, W in the period 2010-2012 and similarly, C shouldn't have any contracts in years 2010, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016.

From III, Vendor Y had contracts in 2010 and 2019 and in 2010 D and C hasn't got any contract and A has already got 2 different contracts from two different vendors => Y has a contract from B in 2010 => B hasn't got any contracts in 2017, 2018, 2019.

For Y the only possible contract will be from D => D has got no contracts in the years 2011, 2016, 2017, 2018.

Now, the table looks like:

'N' represents no contract.

B and A have multiple contracts in a single year. 

From IV: A, B, C, D have one 3, 7, 3, 4-year contract respectively and all other contracts are one-year contracts.\

From I, Z has at least one contract every year, the only possible combination is 7+3 or 7+4 year contract and that 7-year contract must be from B.

From III, Vendor W had contracts only in 2012 and from VII, Institutes B and D each had exactly one contract in 2012 => W has got contracts from A and C.
From II. Vendor X had one or more contracts in every year up to 2015, but no contract in any year after that and from VI, VII: C and D didn't have any contract in 2011 and 2010 respectively => A should have X as a 3-year contract from 2010-2012. Now, for 2013-2015 X can't have B for the same. So, X must have got contracts from either C or D in that period.

Case 1:

X has C as a 3-year contract from 2013-2015 but in this case, D can't have any contract in 2012 so, this case is not valid.

Case 2:

X has D for a 4-year contract from 2012-2015 and C must have Z for a three-year contract in the period 2017-2019 such that Z has at least one contract every year.

It is known that over the decade, the institutes each got into two contracts with two of these vendors, and each vendor got into two contracts with two of these institutes => A hasn't got any contract from 2013-2019 as it has X, W in the period 2010-2012 and similarly, C shouldn't have any contracts in years 2010, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016.

From III, Vendor Y had contracts in 2010 and 2019 and in 2010 D and C hasn't got any contract and A has already got 2 different contracts from two different vendors => Y has a contract from B in 2010 => B hasn't got any contracts in 2017, 2018, 2019.

For Y the only possible contract will be from D => D has got no contracts in the years 2011, 2016, 2017, 2018.

Now, the table looks like:

'N' represents no contract.

A, B, W, X had more than one contracts in a single year