SRCC GBO 2010

Doctors can be termed as literate people, hence the former is a sub set of the latter. Also, hospitals can be put in different space altogether in this question, considering there is no relation between literate person and hospitals. 

Lawyers, Professors, and Doctors: all of these are different kinds of professions that have no commonality between them. Hence, they are different sets. 

Flour is made out of wheat, and bread is made using flour. Hence, option A describes this relation in the best manner, as one item is made out of other. 

None of the options can describe a relationship between farm, farmers, and wheat. This is because none of them is a subset of the other entity.

Earth is a planet, while the Sun is not. Hence, C describes the relation in the best manner. 

The statement has two basic premises: a) Mr. Mehta is being accused of tampering with documents, and b) The officers are thinking about withdrawing the charges if Mr. Mehta swears on Geeta.

Now, we shall check each assumption by negation test (If the assumption is negated and, as a result, the statement stands invalid, it is a valid assumption). 

Assumption 1: Had it not been in the hands of the officers to withdraw the charges, they would not have spoken about the possibility of withdrawing the charges if Mr. Mehta had sworn on Geeta. Hence, this is a valid assumption. 

Assumption 2: On negating the assumption that 'Mr. Mehta is a religious person', so there is no effect on the main statement since even then, the sanctity of Geeta stands intact. Hence, this is not a valid assumption. 

Assumption 3: On negating the assumption that "General Manager will agree to the proposal', nothing would be done to the main statement as the officers have stated their plan of action, and there is no utility of pondering over the reaction of the General Manager.

We need to negate the assumption in these questions and see if it invalidates the main statement. 

Assumption 1: We are not sure (from the main statement) that the Commissioner is not satisfied with the present situation. It can be the case that they are merely talking about the factors that must be considered before proceeding to the elections. Hence on negating the assumption, there will be no effect on the main statement. This means that the assumption is not a valid one. 

Assumption 2: Had it not been in the hands of the Commissioner to decide upon the dates of the election, the main statement would not be there in the first place. Hence, the assumption is a valid one.

Assumption 3: On negating the assumption, there will be no effect on the main contention of having proper law and order for elections. Hence, the assumption is invalid. 

The main statement merely talks about the campaigns having a special focus on women. Nowhere does it indicate anything about 'why' behind such a special focus. Hence, we cannot conclude as to if it is related to enlightening future generations, or whether this is done because of any comparison between men and women. Hence, all the assumptions are invalid. 

The main statement talks about deploying mobile dispensaries in areas with no hospitals. 

Assumption 1: Because we are talking about deploying mobile dispensaries in areas with no hospitals, it is implicit that there are at least certain areas that have hospitals. Hence, this is a valid assumption. 

Assumption 2: The main statement talks about deploying mobile dispensaries, and it does not say anything about the possibility of having hospitals in certain areas. It might be the fact that having hospitals is possible, and mobile dispensaries are temporary solutions. 

Assumption 3: The statement does not talk about anything related to climate, hence it is an invalid assumption.

The main statement talks about schools interviewing parents for the admission of children. 

Assumption 1: Other factors can also be tested in the interview apart from being financially sound. Hence, this is an invalid assumption. 

Assumption 2: Just because there is an interview for parents, that doesn't imply that there are also courses for them. Hence, an invalid assumption.

Assumption 3: The main statement does not talk about 'smartness', and hence, an invalid assumption.