MAH MBA CET Puzzles Questions

We will write down the direct information given above.

We are told that employee from sales team visits on Monday. And the employee from Network team visits on Friday.

We are also told that A didn't visit on Thursday. So, the only possible days that A would can visit Tuesday or Wednesday. Statement 4 says that Tech and sales Visited on consecutive days. So, the only possibitlity for Tech is Tuesday.

We are also told that tech and sales team visited on consecutive days. So, Tech team employee visited on Tuesday.

We are told that Teach and Design team didn't visit on consective days. So, Design team employee didn't visit on Wednesday. 

The only possibility for Design team employee will be thursday. Hence Marketing employee will be on Saturday.

Wednesday is the correct answer.

We will write down the direct information given above.

We are told that employee from sales team visits on Monday. And the employee from Network team visits on Friday.

We are also told that A didn't visit on Thursday. So, the only possible days that A would can visit Tuesday or Wednesday. Statement 4 says that Tech and sales Visited on consecutive days. So, the only possibitlity for Tech is Tuesday.

We are also told that tech and sales team visited on consecutive days. So, Tech team employee visited on Tuesday.

We are told that Teach and Design team didn't visit on consective days. So, Design team employee didn't visit on Wednesday. 

The only possibility for Design team employee will be thursday. Hence Marketing employee will be on Saturday.

We know that C didn't visit on Friday. So, C can't be from Networking. C is either from Sales or from Design.

Not the remaining two can be given to D and F in two ways.

So, 2*2 = 4 ways.

We will write down the direct information given above.

We are told that employee from sales team visits on Monday. And the employee from Network team visits on Friday.

We are also told that A didn't visit on Thursday. So, the only possible days that A would can visit Tuesday or Wednesday. Statement 4 says that Tech and sales Visited on consecutive days. So, the only possibitlity for Tech is Tuesday.

We are also told that tech and sales team visited on consecutive days. So, Tech team employee visited on Tuesday.

We are told that Teach and Design team didn't visit on consective days. So, Design team employee didn't visit on Wednesday. 

The only possibility for Design team employee will be thursday. Hence Marketing employee will be on Saturday.

We know that C didn't visit on Friday. So, C can't be from Networking. C is either from Sales or from Design.

We are told that F is from Sales. So, C will be from marketing. Hence, D will be from Networking.

From statement 1, 2, and 7 we can gather the following information:

Now, as per statement 2 Tanya will be interviewed either on Tuesday or Thursday and Sachin will be interviewed on either Saturday or Sunday.

If Tanya is interviewed on Thursday and Sachin is interviewed on Saturday then Gayatri must be interviewed on Sunday since statement 5 says at least a one day gap is required between Mahima and Gayatri's interview. So, Abhinav will have to be interviewed on Tuesday. [Case 1]

Similarly, If Tanya is interviewed on Thursday and Sachin is interviewed on Sunday then Gayatri must be interviewed on Saturday since statement 5 says at least a one day gap is required between Mahima and Gayatri's interview. However, Gayatri is asked questions on Indian Bankruptcy Code (IBC) (from statement 6) while the person interviewed on Saturday is asked admin law (statement 1) so this case is not possible.

If Tanya is interviewed on Tuesday and Sachin on Sunday then Gayatri will have to be interviewed on Thursday since she is asked about IBC and not admin law.

From statement 4 we know that the ones wearing blazers must be on consecutive days apart from the weekend. Also, Digivijay does not wear a blazer (statement 1) so the ones wearing a blazer can either be on Monday and Tuesday or Thursday and Friday. From statement 3 we know that the ones carrying files are interviewed before Thursday, so on any two of the days among Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday. 

Even if one of the days is Wednesday, at least one person must carry a file on Monday and Tuesday. So, the ones wearing a blazer must be on Thursday and Friday.

In Case 1, upon placing the information we get the following:

However, as per statement 8, this is not possible. So, this case can be eliminated.

Similarly we can eliminate other cases. The only possible way, all the conditions are followed is:

So Option C is correct.

From statement 1, 2, and 7 we can gather the following information:

Now, as per statement 2 Tanya will be interviewed either on Tuesday or Thursday and Sachin will be interviewed on either Saturday or Sunday.

If Tanya is interviewed on Thursday and Sachin is interviewed on Saturday then Gayatri must be interviewed on Sunday since statement 5 says at least a one day gap is required between Mahima and Gayatri's interview. So, Abhinav will have to be interviewed on Tuesday. [Case 1]

Similarly, If Tanya is interviewed on Thursday and Sachin is interviewed on Sunday then Gayatri must be interviewed on Saturday since statement 5 says at least a one day gap is required between Mahima and Gayatri's interview. However, Gayatri is asked questions on Indian Bankruptcy Code (IBC) (from statement 6) while the person interviewed on Saturday is asked admin law (statement 1) so this case is not possible.

If Tanya is interviewed on Tuesday and Sachin on Sunday then Gayatri will have to be interviewed on Thursday since she is asked about IBC and not admin law.

From statement 4 we know that the ones wearing blazers must be on consecutive days apart from the weekend. Also, Digivijay does not wear a blazer (statement 1) so the ones wearing a blazer can either be on Monday and Tuesday or Thursday and Friday. From statement 3 we know that the ones carrying files are interviewed before Thursday, so on any two of the days among Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday. 

Even if one of the days is Wednesday, at least one person must carry a file on Monday and Tuesday. So, the ones wearing a blazer must be on Thursday and Friday.

In Case 1, upon placing the information we get the following:

However, as per statement 8, this is not possible. So, this case can be eliminated.

Similarly we can eliminate other cases. The only possible way, all the conditions are followed is:

So Option A is correct.

From statement 1, 2, and 7 we can gather the following information:

Now, as per statement 2 Tanya will be interviewed either on Tuesday or Thursday and Sachin will be interviewed on either Saturday or Sunday.

If Tanya is interviewed on Thursday and Sachin is interviewed on Saturday then Gayatri must be interviewed on Sunday since statement 5 says at least a one day gap is required between Mahima and Gayatri's interview. So, Abhinav will have to be interviewed on Tuesday. [Case 1]

Similarly, If Tanya is interviewed on Thursday and Sachin is interviewed on Sunday then Gayatri must be interviewed on Saturday since statement 5 says at least a one day gap is required between Mahima and Gayatri's interview. However, Gayatri is asked questions on Indian Bankruptcy Code (IBC) (from statement 6) while the person interviewed on Saturday is asked admin law (statement 1) so this case is not possible.

If Tanya is interviewed on Tuesday and Sachin on Sunday then Gayatri will have to be interviewed on Thursday since she is asked about IBC and not admin law.

From statement 4 we know that the ones wearing blazers must be on consecutive days apart from the weekend. Also, Digivijay does not wear a blazer (statement 1) so the ones wearing a blazer can either be on Monday and Tuesday or Thursday and Friday. From statement 3 we know that the ones carrying files are interviewed before Thursday, so on any two of the days among Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday. 

Even if one of the days is Wednesday, at least one person must carry a file on Monday and Tuesday. So, the ones wearing a blazer must be on Thursday and Friday.

In Case 1, upon placing the information we get the following:

However, as per statement 8, this is not possible. So, this case can be eliminated.

Similarly we can eliminate other cases. The only possible way, all the conditions are followed is:

From statement 1, 2, and 7 we can gather the following information:

Now, as per statement 2 Tanya will be interviewed either on Tuesday or Thursday and Sachin will be interviewed on either Saturday or Sunday.

If Tanya is interviewed on Thursday and Sachin is interviewed on Saturday then Gayatri must be interviewed on Sunday since statement 5 says at least a one day gap is required between Mahima and Gayatri's interview. So, Abhinav will have to be interviewed on Tuesday. [Case 1]

Similarly, If Tanya is interviewed on Thursday and Sachin is interviewed on Sunday then Gayatri must be interviewed on Saturday since statement 5 says at least a one day gap is required between Mahima and Gayatri's interview. However, Gayatri is asked questions on Indian Bankruptcy Code (IBC) (from statement 6) while the person interviewed on Saturday is asked admin law (statement 1) so this case is not possible.

If Tanya is interviewed on Tuesday and Sachin on Sunday then Gayatri will have to be interviewed on Thursday since she is asked about IBC and not admin law.

From statement 4 we know that the ones wearing blazers must be on consecutive days apart from the weekend. Also, Digivijay does not wear a blazer (statement 1) so the ones wearing a blazer can either be on Monday and Tuesday or Thursday and Friday. From statement 3 we know that the ones carrying files are interviewed before Thursday, so on any two of the days among Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday. 

Even if one of the days is Wednesday, at least one person must carry a file on Monday and Tuesday. So, the ones wearing a blazer must be on Thursday and Friday.

In Case 1, upon placing the information we get the following:

However, as per statement 8, this is not possible. So, this case can be eliminated.

Similarly we can eliminate other cases. The only possible way, all the conditions are followed is:

Option D is correct.

Let us try to tabulate the given information.
From the given hints we can form a partially filled table as shown below.

Now from statement 5 we know that the person from Maharashtra is pursuing Finance.
It is given that Bhavya is not pursuing Finance and Dani is not from Maharashtra.
From this we can infer that Farhan is from Maharashtra and is pursuing Finance.
Now we know that Eknath and Bhavya are not pursuing Marketing.
This means that Dani is pursuing Marketing.
Now we can conclude that Bhavya is from Telangana and is pursuing Strategy.
Now the completely filled table will be as shown below.

Let us try to tabulate the given information.
From the given hints we can form a partially filled table as shown below.

Now from statement 5 we know that the person from Maharashtra is pursuing Finance.
It is given that Bhavya is not pursuing Finance and Dani is not from Maharashtra.
From this we can infer that Farhan is from Maharashtra and is pursuing Finance.
Now we know that Eknath and Bhavya are not pursuing Marketing.
This means that Dani is pursuing Marketing.
Now we can conclude that Bhavya is from Telangana and is pursuing Strategy.
Now the completely filled table will be as shown below.

Let us try to tabulate the given information.
From the given hints we can form a partially filled table as shown below.

Now from statement 5 we know that the person from Maharashtra is pursuing Finance.
It is given that Bhavya is not pursuing Finance and Dani is not from Maharashtra.
From this we can infer that Farhan is from Maharashtra and is pursuing Finance.
Now we know that Eknath and Bhavya are not pursuing Marketing.
This means that Dani is pursuing Marketing.
Now we can conclude that Bhavya is from Telangana and is pursuing Strategy.
Now the completely filled table will be as shown below.

We know that Tushar is from Guwahati and Umesh is from Delhi.
Now Pawan visited Allahabad so, Pawan cannot be from Allahabad. Thus, one among, Rohit, Sanjay and Vivek has to be from Allahabad. However, from 3 we can rule out Rohit. Thus, either Sanjay or Vivek will be from Allahabad. However, from 2 and 5 we can infer that Sanjay is from Hyderabad and visited Lucknow. Thus, Vivek must be from Allahabad. One among Rohit and Pawan will be from Bhopal and the other one will be from Lucknow.
Now we know that Pawan visited Allahabad, Sanjay visited Lucknow, Rohit visited Guwahati and Vivek visited Delhi. Thus one among Tushar and Umesh will visit Hyderabad and the other one will visit Bhopal.
Thus we have the following table

All options represent the person and the city he visited. This is not followed in option A. Hence A is the odd one out.

We know that Tushar is from Guwahati and Umesh is from Delhi.
Now Pawan visited Allahabad so, Pawan cannot be from Allahabad. Thus, one among, Rohit, Sanjay and Vivek has to be from Allahabad. However, from 3 we can rule out Rohit. Thus, either Sanjay or Vivek will be from Allahabad. However, from 2 and 5 we can infer that Sanjay is from Hyderabad and visited Lucknow. Thus, Vivek must be from Allahabad. One among Rohit and Pawan will be from Bhopal and the other one will be from Lucknow.
Now we know that Pawan visited Allahabad, Sanjay visited Lucknow, Rohit visited Guwahati and Vivek visited Delhi. Thus one among Tushar and Umesh will visit Hyderabad and the other one will visit Bhopal.
Thus we have the following table

We know that Tushar is from Guwahati and Umesh is from Delhi.
Now Pawan visited Allahabad so, Pawan cannot be from Allahabad. Thus, one among, Rohit, Sanjay and Vivek has to be from Allahabad. However, from 3 we can rule out Rohit. Thus, either Sanjay or Vivek will be from Allahabad. However, from 2 and 5 we can infer that Sanjay is from Hyderabad and visited Lucknow. Thus, Vivek must be from Allahabad. One among Rohit and Pawan will be from Bhopal and the other one will be from Lucknow.
Now we know that Pawan visited Allahabad, Sanjay visited Lucknow, Rohit visited Guwahati and Vivek visited Delhi. Thus one among Tushar and Umesh will visit Hyderabad and the other one will visit Bhopal.
Thus we have the following table

We know that Tushar is from Guwahati and Umesh is from Delhi.
Now Pawan visited Allahabad so, Pawan cannot be from Allahabad. Thus, one among, Rohit, Sanjay and Vivek has to be from Allahabad. However, from 3 we can rule out Rohit. Thus, either Sanjay or Vivek will be from Allahabad. However, from 2 and 5 we can infer that Sanjay is from Hyderabad and visited Lucknow. Thus, Vivek must be from Allahabad. One among Rohit and Pawan will be from Bhopal and the other one will be from Lucknow.
Now we know that Pawan visited Allahabad, Sanjay visited Lucknow, Rohit visited Guwahati and Vivek visited Delhi. Thus one among Tushar and Umesh will visit Hyderabad and the other one will visit Bhopal.
Thus we have the following table

We have the following table to fill according to the arrangement:

According to the statement 2, T attended the conference on Friday but not in New York and Q attended the conference in Paris

Further, statement 3 says that the person who attended the Tokyo conference did so on Wednesday.

Now, according to statement 4, S and Q attended the conference on consecutive days and none of them attended the conference on Tokyo. Therefore, none of them would have attended the conference on Wednesday. Hence, they attended the conference on Monday and Tuesday or they attended on Thursday and Friday.

However, T attended the conference on Thursday and Friday. Hence, S and Q must have attended the conference on Monday and Tuesday.

According to statement 1, P attended the conference in Sydney, he must have attended the conference on Thursday. Hence, R is left so he/she must have attended the conference on Wednesday in Tokyo.

Now, we are left with S and T to uniquely identify the locations. The remaining locations are London or New York so they must have attended at one of the location.

With this, we have the following table:

We have the following table to fill according to the arrangement:

According to the statement 2, T attended the conference on Friday but not in New York and Q attended the conference in Paris

Further, statement 3 says that the person who attended the Tokyo conference did so on Wednesday.

Now, according to statement 4, S and Q attended the conference on consecutive days and none of them attended the conference on Tokyo. Therefore, none of them would have attended the conference on Wednesday. Hence, they attended the conference on Monday and Tuesday or they attended on Thursday and Friday.

However, T attended the conference on Thursday and Friday. Hence, S and Q must have attended the conference on Monday and Tuesday.

According to statement 1, P attended the conference in Sydney, he must have attended the conference on Thursday. Hence, R is left so he/she must have attended the conference on Wednesday in Tokyo.

Now, we are left with S and T to uniquely identify the locations. The remaining locations are London or New York so they must have attended at one of the location.

With this, we have the following table:

We have the following table to fill according to the arrangement:

According to the statement 2, T attended the conference on Friday but not in New York and Q attended the conference in Paris

Further, statement 3 says that the person who attended the Tokyo conference did so on Wednesday.

Now, according to statement 4, S and Q attended the conference on consecutive days and none of them attended the conference on Tokyo. Therefore, none of them would have attended the conference on Wednesday. Hence, they attended the conference on Monday and Tuesday or they attended on Thursday and Friday.

However, T attended the conference on Thursday and Friday. Hence, S and Q must have attended the conference on Monday and Tuesday.

According to statement 1, P attended the conference in Sydney, he must have attended the conference on Thursday. Hence, R is left so he/she must have attended the conference on Wednesday in Tokyo.

Now, we are left with S and T to uniquely identify the locations. The remaining locations are London or New York so they must have attended at one of the location.

With this, we have the following table:

We have the following table to fill according to the arrangement:

According to the statement 2, T attended the conference on Friday but not in New York and Q attended the conference in Paris

Further, statement 3 says that the person who attended the Tokyo conference did so on Wednesday.

Now, according to statement 4, S and Q attended the conference on consecutive days and none of them attended the conference on Tokyo. Therefore, none of them would have attended the conference on Wednesday. Hence, they attended the conference on Monday and Tuesday or they attended on Thursday and Friday.

However, T attended the conference on Thursday and Friday. Hence, S and Q must have attended the conference on Monday and Tuesday.

According to statement 1, P attended the conference in Sydney, he must have attended the conference on Thursday. Hence, R is left so he/she must have attended the conference on Wednesday in Tokyo.

Now, we are left with S and T to uniquely identify the locations. The remaining locations are London or New York so they must have attended at one of the location.

With this, we have the following table: