A few questions from this test, with the answer key and the method behind it. The full set of 100 runs under a timer, and every solution is on the analysis screen once you submit.
English Language · solved example
Financial inclusion in India is usually reported as a count of accounts opened, and by that measure the last decade looks like an unqualified success. Hundreds of millions of accounts have been created, many for people who had never before set foot in a bank. But an account is a tool, not a destination, and the distance between owning one and using one has turned out to be wide. A striking proportion of the accounts opened under inclusion drives fall dormant within a year, holding a zero balance and recording no transaction.
The usual explanation blames the customer's poverty, as though people with little money simply have nothing to deposit. The passage of time has undermined that view. Dormancy is high even among account holders who receive regular wage or welfare transfers, which means money does move through these accounts; it simply does not stay. The more careful reading is that the accounts fail a test of relevance. They are opened to satisfy a target, not to meet a need the holder recognises, and an instrument that answers no felt need is used once and then abandoned.
If that reading is right, the policy implication is uncomfortable. Counting accounts measures the ease of supply, which the system has largely solved, while saying nothing about demand, which it has not. A programme judged by the number of accounts it opens will keep opening accounts; a programme judged by whether people's financial lives actually improve would have to do something harder, and quite different.
Which of the following best expresses the central argument of the passage?
- ACounting accounts opened measures the supply of banking but ignores whether the accounts meet a real need, so the headline success hides an unsolved problem of demand.Correct
- BFinancial inclusion in India has been an unqualified success over the last decade.
- CPoor people leave their accounts dormant because they have nothing to deposit.
- DThe government should stop opening new bank accounts for the poor.
- EWelfare transfers ought to be paid in cash rather than into bank accounts.
Solution
The passage argues that the account-count metric captures supply, which is solved, but not demand or relevance, which is not - so the success is only apparent. Option A states exactly that. B repeats the opening fact the author then complicates. C is the explanation the author explicitly rejects. D and E are policies the author never proposes.
Quantitative Aptitude · solved example
What is the value of 24 x 15 + 18 x 12 - 144?
- A408
- B420
- C432Correct
- D444
- E456
Solution
Take it in order of the operations, not left to right. 24 x 15 = 360 and 18 x 12 = 216, so the sum is 360 + 216 = 576, and 576 - 144 = 432. The two subtraction traps are doing 24 x (15 + 18) or subtracting 144 before multiplying; both are avoided by clearing the products first.
Reasoning Ability · solved example
Seven people - A, B, C, D, E, F and G - have an examination on seven different days of the same week, from Monday to Sunday, one examination each day.
E has the examination on Wednesday.
G has the examination on Sunday.
Exactly one person has the examination before F.
D has the examination immediately before F.
C has the examination immediately after A.
B has the examination immediately before A.
Who has the examination on Friday?
Solution
Exactly one person sits before F, so F is second and the person before, D, is first: D on Monday, F on Tuesday. E is on Wednesday. B, A and C form a block - B immediately before A and C immediately after A - which fits Thursday, Friday and Saturday. G takes Sunday. So Friday belongs to A.
English Language · solved example
Financial inclusion in India is usually reported as a count of accounts opened, and by that measure the last decade looks like an unqualified success. Hundreds of millions of accounts have been created, many for people who had never before set foot in a bank. But an account is a tool, not a destination, and the distance between owning one and using one has turned out to be wide. A striking proportion of the accounts opened under inclusion drives fall dormant within a year, holding a zero balance and recording no transaction.
The usual explanation blames the customer's poverty, as though people with little money simply have nothing to deposit. The passage of time has undermined that view. Dormancy is high even among account holders who receive regular wage or welfare transfers, which means money does move through these accounts; it simply does not stay. The more careful reading is that the accounts fail a test of relevance. They are opened to satisfy a target, not to meet a need the holder recognises, and an instrument that answers no felt need is used once and then abandoned.
If that reading is right, the policy implication is uncomfortable. Counting accounts measures the ease of supply, which the system has largely solved, while saying nothing about demand, which it has not. A programme judged by the number of accounts it opens will keep opening accounts; a programme judged by whether people's financial lives actually improve would have to do something harder, and quite different.
According to the passage, why does dormancy remain high even among those who receive regular transfers?
- ABanks close such accounts to save on maintenance.
- BThe money moves through the accounts but does not stay, because the accounts meet no need the holder recognises.Correct
- CThe transfers are too small to be worth withdrawing.
- DSuch holders own several accounts and use only one.
- ERegulators forbid transactions on inclusion accounts for the first year.
Solution
The passage says dormancy is high even where transfers arrive, so money does move through the accounts but does not stay; the accounts fail a test of relevance. That is option B. The other options invent reasons the passage never gives.
English Language · solved example
Financial inclusion in India is usually reported as a count of accounts opened, and by that measure the last decade looks like an unqualified success. Hundreds of millions of accounts have been created, many for people who had never before set foot in a bank. But an account is a tool, not a destination, and the distance between owning one and using one has turned out to be wide. A striking proportion of the accounts opened under inclusion drives fall dormant within a year, holding a zero balance and recording no transaction.
The usual explanation blames the customer's poverty, as though people with little money simply have nothing to deposit. The passage of time has undermined that view. Dormancy is high even among account holders who receive regular wage or welfare transfers, which means money does move through these accounts; it simply does not stay. The more careful reading is that the accounts fail a test of relevance. They are opened to satisfy a target, not to meet a need the holder recognises, and an instrument that answers no felt need is used once and then abandoned.
If that reading is right, the policy implication is uncomfortable. Counting accounts measures the ease of supply, which the system has largely solved, while saying nothing about demand, which it has not. A programme judged by the number of accounts it opens will keep opening accounts; a programme judged by whether people's financial lives actually improve would have to do something harder, and quite different.
The author would most likely agree with which of the following statements?
- AA programme measured by accounts opened will tend to keep opening accounts rather than tackle whether they are used.Correct
- BThe number of accounts opened is the fairest measure of financial inclusion.
- CDormant accounts prove that inclusion drives were a waste of money.
- DPeople without regular income cannot benefit from a bank account.
- EBanks alone, not policy, decide whether inclusion succeeds.
Solution
The closing paragraph says a programme judged by accounts opened will keep opening accounts, while a programme judged by improved financial lives would have to do something harder - option A. B is the metric the author criticises; C overstates the case into 'waste', which the author avoids; D is the rejected poverty explanation; E is not claimed.