CAT: Logical ReasoningArrangements. Free, no login required.

10 players - P1, P2, ..., P10 - competed in an international javelin throw event. The number (after P) of a player reflects his rank at the beginning of the event, with rank 1 going to the topmost player. There were two phases in the event with the first phase consisting of rounds 1,2, and 3, and the second phase consisting of rounds 4, 5, and 6. A throw is measured in terms of the distance it covers (in meters, up to one decimal point accuracy), only if the throw is a 'valid' one. For an invalid throw, the distance is taken as zero. A player's score at the end of around is the maximum distance of all his throws up to that round. Players are re-ranked after every round based on their current scores. In case of a tie in scores, the player with a prevailing higher rank retains the higher rank. This ranking determines the order in which the players go for their throws in the next round.

In each of the rounds in the first phase, the players throw in increasing order of their latest rank, i.e. the player ranked 1 at that point throws first, followed by the player ranked 2 at that point and so on. The top six players at the end of the first phase qualify for the second phase. In each of the rounds in the second phase, the players throw in decreasing order of their latest rank i.e. the player ranked 6 at that point throws first, followed by the player ranked 5 at that point and so on. The players ranked 1, 2, and 3 at the end of the sixth round receive gold, silver, and bronze medals respectively.

All the valid throws of the event were of distinct distances (as per stated measurement accuracy). The tables below show distances (in meters) covered by all valid throws in the first and the third round in the event.

Distances covered by all the valid throws in the first round

Player	Distance (in m)
P1	82.9
P3	81.5
P5	86.4
P6	82.5
P7	87.2
P9	84.1

Distances covered by all the valid throws in the third round

Player	Distance (in m)
P1	88.6
P3	79.0
P9	81.4

The following facts are also known.

i. Among the throws in the second round, only the last two were valid. Both the throws enabled these players to qualify for the second phase, with one of them qualifying with the least score. None of these players won any medal.

ii. If a player throws first in a round AND he was also the last (among the players in the current round) to throw in the previous round, then the player is said to get a double. Two players got a double.

iii. In each round of the second phase, exactly one player improved his score. Each of these improvements was by the same amount.

iv. The gold and bronze medalists improved their scores in the fifth and the sixth rounds respectively. One medal winner improved his score in the fourth round.

v. The difference between the final scores of the gold medalist and the silver medalist, as well as the difference between the final scores of the silver medalist and the bronze medalist was $1.0$ m.

10 players - P1, P2, ..., P10 - competed in an international javelin throw event. The number (after P) of a player reflects his rank at the beginning of the event, with rank 1 going to the topmost player. There were two phases in the event with the first phase consisting of rounds 1,2, and 3, and the second phase consisting of rounds 4, 5, and 6. A throw is measured in terms of the distance it covers (in meters, up to one decimal point accuracy), only if the throw is a 'valid' one. For an invalid throw, the distance is taken as zero. A player's score at the end of around is the maximum distance of all his throws up to that round. Players are re-ranked after every round based on their current scores. In case of a tie in scores, the player with a prevailing higher rank retains the higher rank. This ranking determines the order in which the players go for their throws in the next round.

In each of the rounds in the first phase, the players throw in increasing order of their latest rank, i.e. the player ranked 1 at that point throws first, followed by the player ranked 2 at that point and so on. The top six players at the end of the first phase qualify for the second phase. In each of the rounds in the second phase, the players throw in decreasing order of their latest rank i.e. the player ranked 6 at that point throws first, followed by the player ranked 5 at that point and so on. The players ranked 1, 2, and 3 at the end of the sixth round receive gold, silver, and bronze medals respectively.

All the valid throws of the event were of distinct distances (as per stated measurement accuracy). The tables below show distances (in meters) covered by all valid throws in the first and the third round in the event.

Distances covered by all the valid throws in the first round

Player	Distance (in m)
P1	82.9
P3	81.5
P5	86.4
P6	82.5
P7	87.2
P9	84.1

Distances covered by all the valid throws in the third round

Player	Distance (in m)
P1	88.6
P3	79.0
P9	81.4

The following facts are also known.

i. Among the throws in the second round, only the last two were valid. Both the throws enabled these players to qualify for the second phase, with one of them qualifying with the least score. None of these players won any medal.

ii. If a player throws first in a round AND he was also the last (among the players in the current round) to throw in the previous round, then the player is said to get a double. Two players got a double.

iii. In each round of the second phase, exactly one player improved his score. Each of these improvements was by the same amount.

iv. The gold and bronze medalists improved their scores in the fifth and the sixth rounds respectively. One medal winner improved his score in the fourth round.

v. The difference between the final scores of the gold medalist and the silver medalist, as well as the difference between the final scores of the silver medalist and the bronze medalist was $1.0$ m.

10 players - P1, P2, ..., P10 - competed in an international javelin throw event. The number (after P) of a player reflects his rank at the beginning of the event, with rank 1 going to the topmost player. There were two phases in the event with the first phase consisting of rounds 1,2, and 3, and the second phase consisting of rounds 4, 5, and 6. A throw is measured in terms of the distance it covers (in meters, up to one decimal point accuracy), only if the throw is a 'valid' one. For an invalid throw, the distance is taken as zero. A player's score at the end of around is the maximum distance of all his throws up to that round. Players are re-ranked after every round based on their current scores. In case of a tie in scores, the player with a prevailing higher rank retains the higher rank. This ranking determines the order in which the players go for their throws in the next round.

In each of the rounds in the first phase, the players throw in increasing order of their latest rank, i.e. the player ranked 1 at that point throws first, followed by the player ranked 2 at that point and so on. The top six players at the end of the first phase qualify for the second phase. In each of the rounds in the second phase, the players throw in decreasing order of their latest rank i.e. the player ranked 6 at that point throws first, followed by the player ranked 5 at that point and so on. The players ranked 1, 2, and 3 at the end of the sixth round receive gold, silver, and bronze medals respectively.

All the valid throws of the event were of distinct distances (as per stated measurement accuracy). The tables below show distances (in meters) covered by all valid throws in the first and the third round in the event.

Distances covered by all the valid throws in the first round

Player	Distance (in m)
P1	82.9
P3	81.5
P5	86.4
P6	82.5
P7	87.2
P9	84.1

Distances covered by all the valid throws in the third round

Player	Distance (in m)
P1	88.6
P3	79.0
P9	81.4

The following facts are also known.

i. Among the throws in the second round, only the last two were valid. Both the throws enabled these players to qualify for the second phase, with one of them qualifying with the least score. None of these players won any medal.

ii. If a player throws first in a round AND he was also the last (among the players in the current round) to throw in the previous round, then the player is said to get a double. Two players got a double.

iii. In each round of the second phase, exactly one player improved his score. Each of these improvements was by the same amount.

iv. The gold and bronze medalists improved their scores in the fifth and the sixth rounds respectively. One medal winner improved his score in the fourth round.

v. The difference between the final scores of the gold medalist and the silver medalist, as well as the difference between the final scores of the silver medalist and the bronze medalist was $1.0$ m.

10 players - P1, P2, ..., P10 - competed in an international javelin throw event. The number (after P) of a player reflects his rank at the beginning of the event, with rank 1 going to the topmost player. There were two phases in the event with the first phase consisting of rounds 1,2, and 3, and the second phase consisting of rounds 4, 5, and 6. A throw is measured in terms of the distance it covers (in meters, up to one decimal point accuracy), only if the throw is a 'valid' one. For an invalid throw, the distance is taken as zero. A player's score at the end of around is the maximum distance of all his throws up to that round. Players are re-ranked after every round based on their current scores. In case of a tie in scores, the player with a prevailing higher rank retains the higher rank. This ranking determines the order in which the players go for their throws in the next round.

In each of the rounds in the first phase, the players throw in increasing order of their latest rank, i.e. the player ranked 1 at that point throws first, followed by the player ranked 2 at that point and so on. The top six players at the end of the first phase qualify for the second phase. In each of the rounds in the second phase, the players throw in decreasing order of their latest rank i.e. the player ranked 6 at that point throws first, followed by the player ranked 5 at that point and so on. The players ranked 1, 2, and 3 at the end of the sixth round receive gold, silver, and bronze medals respectively.

All the valid throws of the event were of distinct distances (as per stated measurement accuracy). The tables below show distances (in meters) covered by all valid throws in the first and the third round in the event.

Distances covered by all the valid throws in the first round

Player	Distance (in m)
P1	82.9
P3	81.5
P5	86.4
P6	82.5
P7	87.2
P9	84.1

Distances covered by all the valid throws in the third round

Player	Distance (in m)
P1	88.6
P3	79.0
P9	81.4

The following facts are also known.

i. Among the throws in the second round, only the last two were valid. Both the throws enabled these players to qualify for the second phase, with one of them qualifying with the least score. None of these players won any medal.

ii. If a player throws first in a round AND he was also the last (among the players in the current round) to throw in the previous round, then the player is said to get a double. Two players got a double.

iii. In each round of the second phase, exactly one player improved his score. Each of these improvements was by the same amount.

iv. The gold and bronze medalists improved their scores in the fifth and the sixth rounds respectively. One medal winner improved his score in the fourth round.

v. The difference between the final scores of the gold medalist and the silver medalist, as well as the difference between the final scores of the silver medalist and the bronze medalist was $1.0$ m.

10 players - P1, P2, ..., P10 - competed in an international javelin throw event. The number (after P) of a player reflects his rank at the beginning of the event, with rank 1 going to the topmost player. There were two phases in the event with the first phase consisting of rounds 1,2, and 3, and the second phase consisting of rounds 4, 5, and 6. A throw is measured in terms of the distance it covers (in meters, up to one decimal point accuracy), only if the throw is a 'valid' one. For an invalid throw, the distance is taken as zero. A player's score at the end of around is the maximum distance of all his throws up to that round. Players are re-ranked after every round based on their current scores. In case of a tie in scores, the player with a prevailing higher rank retains the higher rank. This ranking determines the order in which the players go for their throws in the next round.

In each of the rounds in the first phase, the players throw in increasing order of their latest rank, i.e. the player ranked 1 at that point throws first, followed by the player ranked 2 at that point and so on. The top six players at the end of the first phase qualify for the second phase. In each of the rounds in the second phase, the players throw in decreasing order of their latest rank i.e. the player ranked 6 at that point throws first, followed by the player ranked 5 at that point and so on. The players ranked 1, 2, and 3 at the end of the sixth round receive gold, silver, and bronze medals respectively.

All the valid throws of the event were of distinct distances (as per stated measurement accuracy). The tables below show distances (in meters) covered by all valid throws in the first and the third round in the event.

Distances covered by all the valid throws in the first round

Player	Distance (in m)
P1	82.9
P3	81.5
P5	86.4
P6	82.5
P7	87.2
P9	84.1

Distances covered by all the valid throws in the third round

Player	Distance (in m)
P1	88.6
P3	79.0
P9	81.4

The following facts are also known.

i. Among the throws in the second round, only the last two were valid. Both the throws enabled these players to qualify for the second phase, with one of them qualifying with the least score. None of these players won any medal.

ii. If a player throws first in a round AND he was also the last (among the players in the current round) to throw in the previous round, then the player is said to get a double. Two players got a double.

iii. In each round of the second phase, exactly one player improved his score. Each of these improvements was by the same amount.

iv. The gold and bronze medalists improved their scores in the fifth and the sixth rounds respectively. One medal winner improved his score in the fourth round.

v. The difference between the final scores of the gold medalist and the silver medalist, as well as the difference between the final scores of the silver medalist and the bronze medalist was $1.0$ m.

10 players - P1, P2, ..., P10 - competed in an international javelin throw event. The number (after P) of a player reflects his rank at the beginning of the event, with rank 1 going to the topmost player. There were two phases in the event with the first phase consisting of rounds 1,2, and 3, and the second phase consisting of rounds 4, 5, and 6. A throw is measured in terms of the distance it covers (in meters, up to one decimal point accuracy), only if the throw is a 'valid' one. For an invalid throw, the distance is taken as zero. A player's score at the end of around is the maximum distance of all his throws up to that round. Players are re-ranked after every round based on their current scores. In case of a tie in scores, the player with a prevailing higher rank retains the higher rank. This ranking determines the order in which the players go for their throws in the next round.

In each of the rounds in the first phase, the players throw in increasing order of their latest rank, i.e. the player ranked 1 at that point throws first, followed by the player ranked 2 at that point and so on. The top six players at the end of the first phase qualify for the second phase. In each of the rounds in the second phase, the players throw in decreasing order of their latest rank i.e. the player ranked 6 at that point throws first, followed by the player ranked 5 at that point and so on. The players ranked 1, 2, and 3 at the end of the sixth round receive gold, silver, and bronze medals respectively.

All the valid throws of the event were of distinct distances (as per stated measurement accuracy). The tables below show distances (in meters) covered by all valid throws in the first and the third round in the event.

Distances covered by all the valid throws in the first round

Player	Distance (in m)
P1	82.9
P3	81.5
P5	86.4
P6	82.5
P7	87.2
P9	84.1

Distances covered by all the valid throws in the third round

Player	Distance (in m)
P1	88.6
P3	79.0
P9	81.4

The following facts are also known.

i. Among the throws in the second round, only the last two were valid. Both the throws enabled these players to qualify for the second phase, with one of them qualifying with the least score. None of these players won any medal.

ii. If a player throws first in a round AND he was also the last (among the players in the current round) to throw in the previous round, then the player is said to get a double. Two players got a double.

iii. In each round of the second phase, exactly one player improved his score. Each of these improvements was by the same amount.

iv. The gold and bronze medalists improved their scores in the fifth and the sixth rounds respectively. One medal winner improved his score in the fourth round.

v. The difference between the final scores of the gold medalist and the silver medalist, as well as the difference between the final scores of the silver medalist and the bronze medalist was $1.0$ m.

Three reviewers Amal, Bimal, and Komal are tasked with selecting questions from a pool of 13 questions (Q01 to Q13). Questions can be created by external "subject matter experts" (SMEs) or by one of the three reviewers. Each of the reviewers either approves or disapproves a question that is shown to them. Their decisions lead to eventual acceptance or rejection of the question in the manner described below.

If a question is created by an SME, it is reviewed first by Amal, and then by Bimal. If both of them approve the question, then the question is accepted and is not reviewed by Komal. If both disapprove the question, it is rejected and is not reviewed by Komal. If one of them approves the question and the other disapproves it, then the question is reviewed by Komal. Then the question is accepted only if she approves it.

A question created by one of the reviewers is decided upon by the other two. If a question is created by Amal, then it is first reviewed by Bimal. If Bimal approves the question, then it is accepted. Otherwise, it is reviewed by Komal. The question is then accepted only if Komal approves it. A similar process is followed for questions created by Bimal, whose questions are first reviewed by Komal, and then by Amal only if Komal disapproves it. Questions created by Komal are first reviewed by Amal, and then, if required, by Bimal.

The following facts are also known.

1. Q02, Q06, Q09, Q11, and Q12 were rejected and the other questions were accepted.
2. Amal reviewed only Q02, Q03, Q04, Q06, Q08, Q10, Q11, and Q13.
3. Bimal reviewed only Q02, Q04, Q06 through Q09, Q12, and Q13.
4. Komal reviewed only Q01 through Q05, Q07, Q08, Q09, Q11, and Q12.

Three reviewers Amal, Bimal, and Komal are tasked with selecting questions from a pool of 13 questions (Q01 to Q13). Questions can be created by external "subject matter experts" (SMEs) or by one of the three reviewers. Each of the reviewers either approves or disapproves a question that is shown to them. Their decisions lead to eventual acceptance or rejection of the question in the manner described below.

If a question is created by an SME, it is reviewed first by Amal, and then by Bimal. If both of them approve the question, then the question is accepted and is not reviewed by Komal. If both disapprove the question, it is rejected and is not reviewed by Komal. If one of them approves the question and the other disapproves it, then the question is reviewed by Komal. Then the question is accepted only if she approves it.

A question created by one of the reviewers is decided upon by the other two. If a question is created by Amal, then it is first reviewed by Bimal. If Bimal approves the question, then it is accepted. Otherwise, it is reviewed by Komal. The question is then accepted only if Komal approves it. A similar process is followed for questions created by Bimal, whose questions are first reviewed by Komal, and then by Amal only if Komal disapproves it. Questions created by Komal are first reviewed by Amal, and then, if required, by Bimal.

The following facts are also known.

1. Q02, Q06, Q09, Q11, and Q12 were rejected and the other questions were accepted.
2. Amal reviewed only Q02, Q03, Q04, Q06, Q08, Q10, Q11, and Q13.
3. Bimal reviewed only Q02, Q04, Q06 through Q09, Q12, and Q13.
4. Komal reviewed only Q01 through Q05, Q07, Q08, Q09, Q11, and Q12.

Three reviewers Amal, Bimal, and Komal are tasked with selecting questions from a pool of 13 questions (Q01 to Q13). Questions can be created by external "subject matter experts" (SMEs) or by one of the three reviewers. Each of the reviewers either approves or disapproves a question that is shown to them. Their decisions lead to eventual acceptance or rejection of the question in the manner described below.

If a question is created by an SME, it is reviewed first by Amal, and then by Bimal. If both of them approve the question, then the question is accepted and is not reviewed by Komal. If both disapprove the question, it is rejected and is not reviewed by Komal. If one of them approves the question and the other disapproves it, then the question is reviewed by Komal. Then the question is accepted only if she approves it.

A question created by one of the reviewers is decided upon by the other two. If a question is created by Amal, then it is first reviewed by Bimal. If Bimal approves the question, then it is accepted. Otherwise, it is reviewed by Komal. The question is then accepted only if Komal approves it. A similar process is followed for questions created by Bimal, whose questions are first reviewed by Komal, and then by Amal only if Komal disapproves it. Questions created by Komal are first reviewed by Amal, and then, if required, by Bimal.

The following facts are also known.

1. Q02, Q06, Q09, Q11, and Q12 were rejected and the other questions were accepted.
2. Amal reviewed only Q02, Q03, Q04, Q06, Q08, Q10, Q11, and Q13.
3. Bimal reviewed only Q02, Q04, Q06 through Q09, Q12, and Q13.
4. Komal reviewed only Q01 through Q05, Q07, Q08, Q09, Q11, and Q12.

Three reviewers Amal, Bimal, and Komal are tasked with selecting questions from a pool of 13 questions (Q01 to Q13). Questions can be created by external "subject matter experts" (SMEs) or by one of the three reviewers. Each of the reviewers either approves or disapproves a question that is shown to them. Their decisions lead to eventual acceptance or rejection of the question in the manner described below.

If a question is created by an SME, it is reviewed first by Amal, and then by Bimal. If both of them approve the question, then the question is accepted and is not reviewed by Komal. If both disapprove the question, it is rejected and is not reviewed by Komal. If one of them approves the question and the other disapproves it, then the question is reviewed by Komal. Then the question is accepted only if she approves it.

A question created by one of the reviewers is decided upon by the other two. If a question is created by Amal, then it is first reviewed by Bimal. If Bimal approves the question, then it is accepted. Otherwise, it is reviewed by Komal. The question is then accepted only if Komal approves it. A similar process is followed for questions created by Bimal, whose questions are first reviewed by Komal, and then by Amal only if Komal disapproves it. Questions created by Komal are first reviewed by Amal, and then, if required, by Bimal.

The following facts are also known.

1. Q02, Q06, Q09, Q11, and Q12 were rejected and the other questions were accepted.
2. Amal reviewed only Q02, Q03, Q04, Q06, Q08, Q10, Q11, and Q13.
3. Bimal reviewed only Q02, Q04, Q06 through Q09, Q12, and Q13.
4. Komal reviewed only Q01 through Q05, Q07, Q08, Q09, Q11, and Q12.

Three reviewers Amal, Bimal, and Komal are tasked with selecting questions from a pool of 13 questions (Q01 to Q13). Questions can be created by external "subject matter experts" (SMEs) or by one of the three reviewers. Each of the reviewers either approves or disapproves a question that is shown to them. Their decisions lead to eventual acceptance or rejection of the question in the manner described below.

If a question is created by an SME, it is reviewed first by Amal, and then by Bimal. If both of them approve the question, then the question is accepted and is not reviewed by Komal. If both disapprove the question, it is rejected and is not reviewed by Komal. If one of them approves the question and the other disapproves it, then the question is reviewed by Komal. Then the question is accepted only if she approves it.

A question created by one of the reviewers is decided upon by the other two. If a question is created by Amal, then it is first reviewed by Bimal. If Bimal approves the question, then it is accepted. Otherwise, it is reviewed by Komal. The question is then accepted only if Komal approves it. A similar process is followed for questions created by Bimal, whose questions are first reviewed by Komal, and then by Amal only if Komal disapproves it. Questions created by Komal are first reviewed by Amal, and then, if required, by Bimal.

The following facts are also known.

1. Q02, Q06, Q09, Q11, and Q12 were rejected and the other questions were accepted.
2. Amal reviewed only Q02, Q03, Q04, Q06, Q08, Q10, Q11, and Q13.
3. Bimal reviewed only Q02, Q04, Q06 through Q09, Q12, and Q13.
4. Komal reviewed only Q01 through Q05, Q07, Q08, Q09, Q11, and Q12.

Three reviewers Amal, Bimal, and Komal are tasked with selecting questions from a pool of 13 questions (Q01 to Q13). Questions can be created by external "subject matter experts" (SMEs) or by one of the three reviewers. Each of the reviewers either approves or disapproves a question that is shown to them. Their decisions lead to eventual acceptance or rejection of the question in the manner described below.

If a question is created by an SME, it is reviewed first by Amal, and then by Bimal. If both of them approve the question, then the question is accepted and is not reviewed by Komal. If both disapprove the question, it is rejected and is not reviewed by Komal. If one of them approves the question and the other disapproves it, then the question is reviewed by Komal. Then the question is accepted only if she approves it.

A question created by one of the reviewers is decided upon by the other two. If a question is created by Amal, then it is first reviewed by Bimal. If Bimal approves the question, then it is accepted. Otherwise, it is reviewed by Komal. The question is then accepted only if Komal approves it. A similar process is followed for questions created by Bimal, whose questions are first reviewed by Komal, and then by Amal only if Komal disapproves it. Questions created by Komal are first reviewed by Amal, and then, if required, by Bimal.

The following facts are also known.

1. Q02, Q06, Q09, Q11, and Q12 were rejected and the other questions were accepted.
2. Amal reviewed only Q02, Q03, Q04, Q06, Q08, Q10, Q11, and Q13.
3. Bimal reviewed only Q02, Q04, Q06 through Q09, Q12, and Q13.
4. Komal reviewed only Q01 through Q05, Q07, Q08, Q09, Q11, and Q12.

Ganga, Kaveri, and Narmada are three women who buy four raw materials (Mango, Apple, Banana and Milk) and sell five finished products (Mango smoothie, Apple smoothie, Banana smoothie, Mixed fruit smoothie and Fruit salad). Table-1 gives information about the raw materials required to produce the five finished products. One unit of a finished product requires one unit of each of the raw materials mentioned in the second column of the table.

Finished product	Raw materials required
Mango smoothie	Mango, Milk
Apple smoothie	Apple, Milk
Banana smoothie	Banana, Milk
Mixed fruit smoothie	Mango, Apple, Banana, Milk
Fruit salad	Mango, Apple, Banana

One unit of milk, mango, apple, and banana cost ₹5, ₹3, ₹2, and ₹1 respectively. Each unit of a finished product is sold for a profit equal to two times the number of raw materials used to make that product. For example, apple smoothie is made with two raw materials (apple and milk) and will be sold for a profit of ₹4 per unit. Leftover raw materials are sold during the last business hour of the day for a loss of ₹1 per unit.

The amount, in rupees, received from sales (revenue) for each woman in each of the four business hours of the day is given in Table-2.

Business Hour	Ganga	Kaveri	Narmada
Hour 1	23	19	31
Hour 2	21	22	21
Hour 3	29	30	23
Hour 4 (last hour)	30	27	22

The following additional facts are known.

No one except possibly Ganga sold any Mango smoothie.

Each woman sold either zero or one unit of any single finished product in any hour.

Each woman had exactly one unit each of two different raw materials as leftovers.

No one had any banana leftover.

Ganga, Kaveri, and Narmada are three women who buy four raw materials (Mango, Apple, Banana and Milk) and sell five finished products (Mango smoothie, Apple smoothie, Banana smoothie, Mixed fruit smoothie and Fruit salad). Table-1 gives information about the raw materials required to produce the five finished products. One unit of a finished product requires one unit of each of the raw materials mentioned in the second column of the table.

Finished product	Raw materials required
Mango smoothie	Mango, Milk
Apple smoothie	Apple, Milk
Banana smoothie	Banana, Milk
Mixed fruit smoothie	Mango, Apple, Banana, Milk
Fruit salad	Mango, Apple, Banana

One unit of milk, mango, apple, and banana cost ₹5, ₹3, ₹2, and ₹1 respectively. Each unit of a finished product is sold for a profit equal to two times the number of raw materials used to make that product. For example, apple smoothie is made with two raw materials (apple and milk) and will be sold for a profit of ₹4 per unit. Leftover raw materials are sold during the last business hour of the day for a loss of ₹1 per unit.

The amount, in rupees, received from sales (revenue) for each woman in each of the four business hours of the day is given in Table-2.

Business Hour	Ganga	Kaveri	Narmada
Hour 1	23	19	31
Hour 2	21	22	21
Hour 3	29	30	23
Hour 4 (last hour)	30	27	22

The following additional facts are known.

No one except possibly Ganga sold any Mango smoothie.

Each woman sold either zero or one unit of any single finished product in any hour.

Each woman had exactly one unit each of two different raw materials as leftovers.

No one had any banana leftover.

Ganga, Kaveri, and Narmada are three women who buy four raw materials (Mango, Apple, Banana and Milk) and sell five finished products (Mango smoothie, Apple smoothie, Banana smoothie, Mixed fruit smoothie and Fruit salad). Table-1 gives information about the raw materials required to produce the five finished products. One unit of a finished product requires one unit of each of the raw materials mentioned in the second column of the table.

Finished product	Raw materials required
Mango smoothie	Mango, Milk
Apple smoothie	Apple, Milk
Banana smoothie	Banana, Milk
Mixed fruit smoothie	Mango, Apple, Banana, Milk
Fruit salad	Mango, Apple, Banana

One unit of milk, mango, apple, and banana cost ₹5, ₹3, ₹2, and ₹1 respectively. Each unit of a finished product is sold for a profit equal to two times the number of raw materials used to make that product. For example, apple smoothie is made with two raw materials (apple and milk) and will be sold for a profit of ₹4 per unit. Leftover raw materials are sold during the last business hour of the day for a loss of ₹1 per unit.

The amount, in rupees, received from sales (revenue) for each woman in each of the four business hours of the day is given in Table-2.

Business Hour	Ganga	Kaveri	Narmada
Hour 1	23	19	31
Hour 2	21	22	21
Hour 3	29	30	23
Hour 4 (last hour)	30	27	22

The following additional facts are known.

No one except possibly Ganga sold any Mango smoothie.

Each woman sold either zero or one unit of any single finished product in any hour.

Each woman had exactly one unit each of two different raw materials as leftovers.

No one had any banana leftover.

A journal plans to publish 18 research papers, written by eight authors (A, B, C, D, E, F, G, and H) in four issues of the journal scheduled in January, April, July and October. Each of the research papers was written by exactly one of the eight authors. Five papers were scheduled in each of the first two issues, while four were scheduled in each of the last two issues. Every author wrote at least one paper and at most three papers. The total number of papers written by A, D, G and H was double the total number of papers written by the other four authors.

Four of the authors were from India and two each were from Japan and China. Each author belonged to exactly one of the three areas Manufacturing, Automation and Logistics. Four of the authors were from the Logistics area and two from the Automation area. As per the journal policy, none of the authors could have more than one paper in any issue of the journal.

The following facts are also known.

F, an Indian author from the Logistics area, wrote only one paper. It was scheduled in the October issue.

A was from the Automation area and did not have a paper scheduled in the October issue.

None of the Indian authors were from the Manufacturing area and none of the Japanese or Chinese authors were from the Automation area.

A and H were from different countries, but had their papers scheduled in exactly the same issues.

C and E, both Chinese authors from different areas, had the same number of papers scheduled. Further, E had papers scheduled in consecutive issues of the journal but C did not.

B, from the Logistics area, had a paper scheduled in the April issue of the journal.

B and G belonged to the same country. None of their papers were scheduled in the same issue of the journal.

D, a Japanese author from the Manufacturing area, did not have a paper scheduled in the July issue.

C and H belonged to different areas.

A journal plans to publish 18 research papers, written by eight authors (A, B, C, D, E, F, G, and H) in four issues of the journal scheduled in January, April, July and October. Each of the research papers was written by exactly one of the eight authors. Five papers were scheduled in each of the first two issues, while four were scheduled in each of the last two issues. Every author wrote at least one paper and at most three papers. The total number of papers written by A, D, G and H was double the total number of papers written by the other four authors.

Four of the authors were from India and two each were from Japan and China. Each author belonged to exactly one of the three areas Manufacturing, Automation and Logistics. Four of the authors were from the Logistics area and two from the Automation area. As per the journal policy, none of the authors could have more than one paper in any issue of the journal.

The following facts are also known.

F, an Indian author from the Logistics area, wrote only one paper. It was scheduled in the October issue.

A was from the Automation area and did not have a paper scheduled in the October issue.

None of the Indian authors were from the Manufacturing area and none of the Japanese or Chinese authors were from the Automation area.

A and H were from different countries, but had their papers scheduled in exactly the same issues.

C and E, both Chinese authors from different areas, had the same number of papers scheduled. Further, E had papers scheduled in consecutive issues of the journal but C did not.

B, from the Logistics area, had a paper scheduled in the April issue of the journal.

B and G belonged to the same country. None of their papers were scheduled in the same issue of the journal.

D, a Japanese author from the Manufacturing area, did not have a paper scheduled in the July issue.

C and H belonged to different areas.

A journal plans to publish 18 research papers, written by eight authors (A, B, C, D, E, F, G, and H) in four issues of the journal scheduled in January, April, July and October. Each of the research papers was written by exactly one of the eight authors. Five papers were scheduled in each of the first two issues, while four were scheduled in each of the last two issues. Every author wrote at least one paper and at most three papers. The total number of papers written by A, D, G and H was double the total number of papers written by the other four authors.

Four of the authors were from India and two each were from Japan and China. Each author belonged to exactly one of the three areas Manufacturing, Automation and Logistics. Four of the authors were from the Logistics area and two from the Automation area. As per the journal policy, none of the authors could have more than one paper in any issue of the journal.

The following facts are also known.

F, an Indian author from the Logistics area, wrote only one paper. It was scheduled in the October issue.

A was from the Automation area and did not have a paper scheduled in the October issue.

None of the Indian authors were from the Manufacturing area and none of the Japanese or Chinese authors were from the Automation area.

A and H were from different countries, but had their papers scheduled in exactly the same issues.

C and E, both Chinese authors from different areas, had the same number of papers scheduled. Further, E had papers scheduled in consecutive issues of the journal but C did not.

B, from the Logistics area, had a paper scheduled in the April issue of the journal.

B and G belonged to the same country. None of their papers were scheduled in the same issue of the journal.

D, a Japanese author from the Manufacturing area, did not have a paper scheduled in the July issue.

C and H belonged to different areas.

A journal plans to publish 18 research papers, written by eight authors (A, B, C, D, E, F, G, and H) in four issues of the journal scheduled in January, April, July and October. Each of the research papers was written by exactly one of the eight authors. Five papers were scheduled in each of the first two issues, while four were scheduled in each of the last two issues. Every author wrote at least one paper and at most three papers. The total number of papers written by A, D, G and H was double the total number of papers written by the other four authors.

Four of the authors were from India and two each were from Japan and China. Each author belonged to exactly one of the three areas Manufacturing, Automation and Logistics. Four of the authors were from the Logistics area and two from the Automation area. As per the journal policy, none of the authors could have more than one paper in any issue of the journal.

The following facts are also known.

F, an Indian author from the Logistics area, wrote only one paper. It was scheduled in the October issue.

A was from the Automation area and did not have a paper scheduled in the October issue.

None of the Indian authors were from the Manufacturing area and none of the Japanese or Chinese authors were from the Automation area.

A and H were from different countries, but had their papers scheduled in exactly the same issues.

C and E, both Chinese authors from different areas, had the same number of papers scheduled. Further, E had papers scheduled in consecutive issues of the journal but C did not.

B, from the Logistics area, had a paper scheduled in the April issue of the journal.

B and G belonged to the same country. None of their papers were scheduled in the same issue of the journal.

D, a Japanese author from the Manufacturing area, did not have a paper scheduled in the July issue.

C and H belonged to different areas.

A journal plans to publish 18 research papers, written by eight authors (A, B, C, D, E, F, G, and H) in four issues of the journal scheduled in January, April, July and October. Each of the research papers was written by exactly one of the eight authors. Five papers were scheduled in each of the first two issues, while four were scheduled in each of the last two issues. Every author wrote at least one paper and at most three papers. The total number of papers written by A, D, G and H was double the total number of papers written by the other four authors.

Four of the authors were from India and two each were from Japan and China. Each author belonged to exactly one of the three areas Manufacturing, Automation and Logistics. Four of the authors were from the Logistics area and two from the Automation area. As per the journal policy, none of the authors could have more than one paper in any issue of the journal.

The following facts are also known.

F, an Indian author from the Logistics area, wrote only one paper. It was scheduled in the October issue.

A was from the Automation area and did not have a paper scheduled in the October issue.

None of the Indian authors were from the Manufacturing area and none of the Japanese or Chinese authors were from the Automation area.

A and H were from different countries, but had their papers scheduled in exactly the same issues.

C and E, both Chinese authors from different areas, had the same number of papers scheduled. Further, E had papers scheduled in consecutive issues of the journal but C did not.

B, from the Logistics area, had a paper scheduled in the April issue of the journal.

B and G belonged to the same country. None of their papers were scheduled in the same issue of the journal.

D, a Japanese author from the Manufacturing area, did not have a paper scheduled in the July issue.

C and H belonged to different areas.

A journal plans to publish 18 research papers, written by eight authors (A, B, C, D, E, F, G, and H) in four issues of the journal scheduled in January, April, July and October. Each of the research papers was written by exactly one of the eight authors. Five papers were scheduled in each of the first two issues, while four were scheduled in each of the last two issues. Every author wrote at least one paper and at most three papers. The total number of papers written by A, D, G and H was double the total number of papers written by the other four authors.

Four of the authors were from India and two each were from Japan and China. Each author belonged to exactly one of the three areas Manufacturing, Automation and Logistics. Four of the authors were from the Logistics area and two from the Automation area. As per the journal policy, none of the authors could have more than one paper in any issue of the journal.

The following facts are also known.

F, an Indian author from the Logistics area, wrote only one paper. It was scheduled in the October issue.

A was from the Automation area and did not have a paper scheduled in the October issue.

None of the Indian authors were from the Manufacturing area and none of the Japanese or Chinese authors were from the Automation area.

A and H were from different countries, but had their papers scheduled in exactly the same issues.

C and E, both Chinese authors from different areas, had the same number of papers scheduled. Further, E had papers scheduled in consecutive issues of the journal but C did not.

B, from the Logistics area, had a paper scheduled in the April issue of the journal.

B and G belonged to the same country. None of their papers were scheduled in the same issue of the journal.

D, a Japanese author from the Manufacturing area, did not have a paper scheduled in the July issue.

C and H belonged to different areas.

Amudha, Bharatan, Chandran, Dhinesh, Ezhil, Fani and Gowtham are seven people in a town. Any pair of them could either be strangers, acquaintances, or friends. All relationships are mutual. For example, if Amudha is a friend of Bharatan, then Bharatan is also a friend of Amudha. Similarly, if Amudha is a stranger to Bharatan, then Bharatan is also a stranger to Amudha.

Partial information about the number of friends, acquaintances, and strangers of each of these people among them is given in the table below.

	No. of Friends	No. of Acquaintances	No. of Strangers
Amudha		1	4
Bharatan
Chandran		1
Dhinesh			2
Ezhil			1
Fani	1
Gowtham		3	2

The following additional facts are also known.

1. Amudha, Bharatan, and Chandran are mutual strangers.
2. Amudha, Dhinesh, and Fani are Ezhil's friends.
3. Chandran and Gowtham are friends.
4. Every friend of Amudha is an acquaintance of Bharatan, and every acquaintance of Bharatan is a friend of Amudha.
5. Every friend of Bharatan is an acquaintance of Amudha, and every acquaintance of Amudha is a friend of Bharatan.

Amudha, Bharatan, Chandran, Dhinesh, Ezhil, Fani and Gowtham are seven people in a town. Any pair of them could either be strangers, acquaintances, or friends. All relationships are mutual. For example, if Amudha is a friend of Bharatan, then Bharatan is also a friend of Amudha. Similarly, if Amudha is a stranger to Bharatan, then Bharatan is also a stranger to Amudha.

Partial information about the number of friends, acquaintances, and strangers of each of these people among them is given in the table below.

	No. of Friends	No. of Acquaintances	No. of Strangers
Amudha		1	4
Bharatan
Chandran		1
Dhinesh			2
Ezhil			1
Fani	1
Gowtham		3	2

The following additional facts are also known.

1. Amudha, Bharatan, and Chandran are mutual strangers.
2. Amudha, Dhinesh, and Fani are Ezhil's friends.
3. Chandran and Gowtham are friends.
4. Every friend of Amudha is an acquaintance of Bharatan, and every acquaintance of Bharatan is a friend of Amudha.
5. Every friend of Bharatan is an acquaintance of Amudha, and every acquaintance of Amudha is a friend of Bharatan.

Amudha, Bharatan, Chandran, Dhinesh, Ezhil, Fani and Gowtham are seven people in a town. Any pair of them could either be strangers, acquaintances, or friends. All relationships are mutual. For example, if Amudha is a friend of Bharatan, then Bharatan is also a friend of Amudha. Similarly, if Amudha is a stranger to Bharatan, then Bharatan is also a stranger to Amudha.

Partial information about the number of friends, acquaintances, and strangers of each of these people among them is given in the table below.

	No. of Friends	No. of Acquaintances	No. of Strangers
Amudha		1	4
Bharatan
Chandran		1
Dhinesh			2
Ezhil			1
Fani	1
Gowtham		3	2

The following additional facts are also known.

1. Amudha, Bharatan, and Chandran are mutual strangers.
2. Amudha, Dhinesh, and Fani are Ezhil's friends.
3. Chandran and Gowtham are friends.
4. Every friend of Amudha is an acquaintance of Bharatan, and every acquaintance of Bharatan is a friend of Amudha.
5. Every friend of Bharatan is an acquaintance of Amudha, and every acquaintance of Amudha is a friend of Bharatan.

Amudha, Bharatan, Chandran, Dhinesh, Ezhil, Fani and Gowtham are seven people in a town. Any pair of them could either be strangers, acquaintances, or friends. All relationships are mutual. For example, if Amudha is a friend of Bharatan, then Bharatan is also a friend of Amudha. Similarly, if Amudha is a stranger to Bharatan, then Bharatan is also a stranger to Amudha.

Partial information about the number of friends, acquaintances, and strangers of each of these people among them is given in the table below.

	No. of Friends	No. of Acquaintances	No. of Strangers
Amudha		1	4
Bharatan
Chandran		1
Dhinesh			2
Ezhil			1
Fani	1
Gowtham		3	2

The following additional facts are also known.

1. Amudha, Bharatan, and Chandran are mutual strangers.
2. Amudha, Dhinesh, and Fani are Ezhil's friends.
3. Chandran and Gowtham are friends.
4. Every friend of Amudha is an acquaintance of Bharatan, and every acquaintance of Bharatan is a friend of Amudha.
5. Every friend of Bharatan is an acquaintance of Amudha, and every acquaintance of Amudha is a friend of Bharatan.

Amudha, Bharatan, Chandran, Dhinesh, Ezhil, Fani and Gowtham are seven people in a town. Any pair of them could either be strangers, acquaintances, or friends. All relationships are mutual. For example, if Amudha is a friend of Bharatan, then Bharatan is also a friend of Amudha. Similarly, if Amudha is a stranger to Bharatan, then Bharatan is also a stranger to Amudha.

Partial information about the number of friends, acquaintances, and strangers of each of these people among them is given in the table below.

	No. of Friends	No. of Acquaintances	No. of Strangers
Amudha		1	4
Bharatan
Chandran		1
Dhinesh			2
Ezhil			1
Fani	1
Gowtham		3	2

The following additional facts are also known.

1. Amudha, Bharatan, and Chandran are mutual strangers.
2. Amudha, Dhinesh, and Fani are Ezhil's friends.
3. Chandran and Gowtham are friends.
4. Every friend of Amudha is an acquaintance of Bharatan, and every acquaintance of Bharatan is a friend of Amudha.
5. Every friend of Bharatan is an acquaintance of Amudha, and every acquaintance of Amudha is a friend of Bharatan.

Amudha, Bharatan, Chandran, Dhinesh, Ezhil, Fani and Gowtham are seven people in a town. Any pair of them could either be strangers, acquaintances, or friends. All relationships are mutual. For example, if Amudha is a friend of Bharatan, then Bharatan is also a friend of Amudha. Similarly, if Amudha is a stranger to Bharatan, then Bharatan is also a stranger to Amudha.

Partial information about the number of friends, acquaintances, and strangers of each of these people among them is given in the table below.

	No. of Friends	No. of Acquaintances	No. of Strangers
Amudha		1	4
Bharatan
Chandran		1
Dhinesh			2
Ezhil			1
Fani	1
Gowtham		3	2

The following additional facts are also known.

1. Amudha, Bharatan, and Chandran are mutual strangers.
2. Amudha, Dhinesh, and Fani are Ezhil's friends.
3. Chandran and Gowtham are friends.
4. Every friend of Amudha is an acquaintance of Bharatan, and every acquaintance of Bharatan is a friend of Amudha.
5. Every friend of Bharatan is an acquaintance of Amudha, and every acquaintance of Amudha is a friend of Bharatan.

A shopping mall has a large basement parking lot with parking slots painted in it along a single row. These slots are quite narrow; a compact car can fit in a single slot but an SUV requires two slots. When a car arrives, the parking attendant guides the car to the first available slot from the beginning of the row into which the car can fit.

For our purpose, cars are numbered according to the order in which they arrive at the lot. For example, the first car to arrive is given a number 1, the second a number 2, and so on. This numbering does not indicate whether a car is a compact or an SUV. The configuration of a parking lot is a sequence of the car numbers in each slot. Each single vacant slot is represented by letter V.

For instance, suppose cars numbered 1 through 5 arrive and park, where cars 1, 3 and 5 are compact cars and 2 and 4 are SUVs. At this point, the parking lot would be described by the sequence 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. If cars 2 and 5 now vacate their slots, the parking lot would now be described as 1, V, V, 3, 4. If a compact car (numbered 6) arrives subsequently followed by an SUV (numbered 7), the parking lot would be described by the sequence 1, 6, V, 3, 4, 7.

Answer the following questions INDEPENDENTLY of each other.

A shopping mall has a large basement parking lot with parking slots painted in it along a single row. These slots are quite narrow; a compact car can fit in a single slot but an SUV requires two slots. When a car arrives, the parking attendant guides the car to the first available slot from the beginning of the row into which the car can fit.

For our purpose, cars are numbered according to the order in which they arrive at the lot. For example, the first car to arrive is given a number 1, the second a number 2, and so on. This numbering does not indicate whether a car is a compact or an SUV. The configuration of a parking lot is a sequence of the car numbers in each slot. Each single vacant slot is represented by letter V.

For instance, suppose cars numbered 1 through 5 arrive and park, where cars 1, 3 and 5 are compact cars and 2 and 4 are SUVs. At this point, the parking lot would be described by the sequence 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. If cars 2 and 5 now vacate their slots, the parking lot would now be described as 1, V, V, 3, 4. If a compact car (numbered 6) arrives subsequently followed by an SUV (numbered 7), the parking lot would be described by the sequence 1, 6, V, 3, 4, 7.

Answer the following questions INDEPENDENTLY of each other.

A shopping mall has a large basement parking lot with parking slots painted in it along a single row. These slots are quite narrow; a compact car can fit in a single slot but an SUV requires two slots. When a car arrives, the parking attendant guides the car to the first available slot from the beginning of the row into which the car can fit.

For our purpose, cars are numbered according to the order in which they arrive at the lot. For example, the first car to arrive is given a number 1, the second a number 2, and so on. This numbering does not indicate whether a car is a compact or an SUV. The configuration of a parking lot is a sequence of the car numbers in each slot. Each single vacant slot is represented by letter V.

For instance, suppose cars numbered 1 through 5 arrive and park, where cars 1, 3 and 5 are compact cars and 2 and 4 are SUVs. At this point, the parking lot would be described by the sequence 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. If cars 2 and 5 now vacate their slots, the parking lot would now be described as 1, V, V, 3, 4. If a compact car (numbered 6) arrives subsequently followed by an SUV (numbered 7), the parking lot would be described by the sequence 1, 6, V, 3, 4, 7.

Answer the following questions INDEPENDENTLY of each other.