SNAP Mock Test by SIBM Pune

From the given statements:

“No snake is a bird” means there is no overlap between snakes and birds.
“Some birds are animals” means part of the bird set overlaps with the animal set.
“All animals need food” means everything in the animal set (and its overlaps) belongs to the larger “need food” set.

Now, looking at the conclusions:

• Conclusion I: “Some snakes need food.” — This does not follow, because there’s no information connecting snakes with animals or food. Whether snakes are animals or not can't be concluded from the given statements, and hence, we can’t conclude that they need food.

• Conclusion II: “No bird is a snake.” — This is true, as it directly restates the first statement (“No snake is a bird”).

Hence, only II follows. 

Statement I defines the event that the price of the crops has increased significantly in the last month. A price increase can be caused by a rise in demand or a decrease in supply. Statement II outlines that unseasonal heavy rains in the previous month have damaged the crops; it follows that this might have led to a reduction in the supply of the crops. The most suitable answer, therefore, is option B. Statement II is the cause and statement I is its effect.

Following is a Venn diagram defining the three classes, "scientists", "hardworking", and "well-paid".

Based on the given info, we can draw the following conclusions:

Since all scientists are hardworking, the inputs in the scientist circle that are outside the hardworking circle are zero. Since there are some hardworking people who are not well paid, the inputs a and b will be such that a+b>0. No other information can be known.

Statement I says that some scientists are not well-paid. This requires the value of b to be greater than zero. The best we can say is that a+b>0. Therefore, statement I does not follow.

Statement II says that some well-paid people are scientists, this requires the central input of the venn diagram to be greater than zero, which we cannot say anything of.

The correct answer is option D; neither 1 nor 2 follows.

This statement directly weakens the argument because it challenges the assumption that providing vocational training will actually improve employment rates. If many individuals who already possess such training remain jobless, it suggests that vocational training alone does not necessarily lead to employment opportunities. The problem, therefore, may lie not in the lack of skills but in the availability of suitable jobs or market demand. The correct answer should therefore be option (a)

The other options may pose difficulties or practical challenges, but they do not directly undermine the effectiveness of vocational training in improving employment, which is the central claim of the statement.  Option (b) only questions cost, not effectiveness; option (c) suggests preference for degrees but doesn’t prove training fails as some sectors still rely on skills; option (d) shows a lack of interest, not ineffectiveness, and the logic that training improves employability still stands.\

The statement tells us that the company has decided to lay off 20% of its workforce because of an economic recession. This action suggests that the company is attempting to reduce expenses and improve its financial position. However, while this decision may help relieve financial strain, it does not guarantee that the company will completely overcome its crisis, as several other factors, such as market conditions, demand, and management decisions, also play a role. Therefore, the conclusion that the company will now be able to overcome its financial crisis cannot be said to definitely follow, but it probably follows based on the intent behind the layoffs.
The correct choice is therefore option B.

The statement highlights a problem: the quality of primary education in government schools is poor, and many students are failing to acquire basic literacy and numeracy skills. It does not, however, make any comparison with private schools, nor does it imply that private schools offer better education. Therefore, assumption I is not implicit. 

Similarly, the statement does not assume that the government necessarily has the resources or ability to improve the situation; it merely identifies the issue. The possibility of government action is not mentioned or suggested. Hence, assumption II is also not implicit. The statement confines itself to expressing concern about the present state of affairs without implying either assumption.

So, the correct choice would be option D: Neither I nor II is implicit

The correct answer is (b) A major competitor launched a new model with superior features at a lower price during the same quarter. This option best explains why sales of the ‘Alpha’ brand remained stagnant despite increased marketing expenditure. A strong competitor offering a better product at a lower price would naturally attract potential customers, neutralising the impact of Alpha’s marketing push.

The other options are not correct because: Option (a) is irrelevant, as praise for creativity doesn’t guarantee sales impact. Option (c) could contribute to lower demand, but it doesn’t explain stagnation despite marketing as clearly as the competitor’s move does. Option (d) shows market growth but doesn’t explain why Alpha’s sales didn’t grow along with it.

Thus, (b) provides the most direct and logical explanation.

The passage argues that there is no consistent relationship between national budget deficits and trade deficits once data are adjusted for proper comparison. This means that changes in one (the budget deficit) do not predict changes in the other (the trade deficit). Therefore, it logically follows that lowering a country’s budget deficit does not necessarily lead to a reduction in its trade deficit. The correct answer is therefore option (c) Reducing a country’s national budget deficit will not necessarily result in a lowering of any trade deficit that country may have.

Option (a) is unsupported; the passage never mentions trade restrictions. Option (b) is the opposite of what’s stated; it says comparisons are possible when adjusted. Option (d) introduces population, which is irrelevant to the argument.

Hence, (c) is the only valid inference.

The correct answer is (b) Britain is democratic but not secular. This statement directly contradicts the claim that democracy cannot exist without secularism. If Britain, a well-known democracy, functions successfully despite not being secular, it serves as evidence that democracy can exist without secularism.

Option (a) shows a case where democracy failed despite secularism — it doesn’t prove the two can exist independently. Options (c) and (d) are irrelevant because both describe countries lacking democracy, which doesn’t test the link between democracy and secularism.

Hence, (b) clearly shows the original statement to be false.