LR1

Twelve people are sitting in two parallel rows containing six people each such that they are
equidistant from each other. In row 1, Anika, Bianca, Catlyn, Dhruv, Esha and Feroj are sitting
facing South. In row 2, Parul, Qadir, Rudra, Saumya, Tanuj and Vikram are sitting facing North.
Therefore, in the given seating arrangement, each member sitting in a row faces another
member of the other row. Three persons sit between Catlyn and Dhruv. Either Catlyn or Dhruv
sits at an extreme end of the line. The one who faces Dhruv sits third to the left of Rudra.
Saumya faces the one who sits third to the left of Anika and he cannot sit adjacent to Rudra.
The immediate neighbour of Qadir faces the immediate neighbour of Anika. Only one person
sits between Parul and Tanuj, who is facing the one sitting on the immediate right of Esha.
Neither Esha nor Feroj faces Rudra. Vikram and Qadir cannot sit adjacent to each other.
Q1. Who among the following faces Bianca?
(a) Parul
(b) Qadir
(c) Tanuj
(d) Rudra
(e) Saumya
Q2. Who among the following sit at the extreme ends of the rows?
(a) Dhruv, Qadir
(b) Tanuj, Feroj
(c) Esha, Saumya
(d) Bianca, Tanuj
(e) Feroj, Qadir
Q3. If Esha is related to Parul in the same way as Catlyn is related to Saumya, which of
the following is Anika related to, following the same pattern?
(a) Vikram
(b) Rudra
(c) Qadir
(d) Tanuj
(e) Can’t be determined
Q4. How many persons are sitting between Esha and Feroj?
(a) None
(b) One
(c) Two
(d) Three
(e) Four
Q5. Four of the following five are alike in a certain way based on the given arrangement and so
form a group. Which is the one that does not belong to that group?
(a) Parul–Dhruv
(b) Qadir–Anika
(c) Qadir–Feroj
(d) Saumya–Bianca
(e) Tanuj– Anika
LR2
Exactly six trade representatives negotiate a treaty: K, L,M, N, O, P. There are
exactly six chairs evenly spaced around a circular table. The chairs are
numbered 1 through 6, with successively numbered chairs next to each other
and chair number 1 next to chair number 6. Each chair is occupied by exactly
one of the representatives. The following conditions apply:

I. P sits immediately next to N.

II. L sits immediately next to M, N, or both.
III. K does not sit immediately next to M.
IV. If O sits immediately next to P, O does not sit immediately next to M.
1. Which one of the following seating arrangements of the six
representatives in chairs 1 through 6 would NOT violate the stated
conditions?
A. K, P, N,M, O, L
B. K, L,M, P, N, O
C. K, L,M, O, P, N
D. K, O, P, N, L,M
E. K, N, L, O,M, P
2. If L sits immediately next to P, which one of the following is a pair of
representatives who must sit immediately next to each other?
A. K and O
B. L and N
C. L and O
D. M and N
E. M and P
3. If K sits directly between L and P, then M must sit directly between
A. L and N
B. L and O
C. N and O
D. N and P
E. O and P
4. If N sits immediately next to M, then K can sit directly between
A. L and M
B. L and P
C. N and O
D. N and P
E. P and O
 5. If L sits immediately next to M, then which one of the following is a
complete and accurate list of representatives any one of whom could
also sit immediately next to L?
A. K
B. K, N
C. N, P
D. K, O, P
E. K, N, O, P
6. If L sits immediately next to N, which one of the following statements
must be false?
A. K sits immediately next to O.
B. L sits immediately next to M.
C. O sits immediately next to P.
D. N sits directly between L and P.
E. O sits directly between K and M.
7. If K sits immediately next to O, then L CANNOT sit directly between
A. K and M
B. K and N
C. M and N
D. M and P
E. N and O

RC

Recent years have brought minority-owned businesses in the United States

unprecedented opportunities—as well as new and significant risks. Civil rights
activists have long argued that one of the principal reasons why Blacks,
Hispanics, and other minority groups have difficulty establishing themselves
in business is that they lack access to the sizable orders and subcontracts that
are generated by large companies. Now Congress, in apparent agreement,
has required by law that businesses awarded federal contracts of more than
$500,000 do their best to find minority subcontractors and record their efforts
to do so on forms filed with the government. Indeed, some federal and local
agencies have gone so far as to set specific percentage goals for apportioning
parts of public works contracts to minority enterprises.
Corporate response appears to have been substantial. According to figures
collected in 1977, the total of corporate contracts with minority businesses
rose from

77

1972

77���������1972��

1.1 billion in 1977. The projected total of corporate contracts with minority
businesses for the early 1980’s is estimated to be over 53 billion per year with
no letup anticipated in the next decade. Promising as it is for minority
businesses, this increased patronage poses dangers for them, too. First,
minority firms risk expanding too fast and overextending themselves
financially, since most are small concerns and, unlike large businesses, they
often need to make substantial investments in new plants, staff, equipment,
and the like in order to perform work subcontracted to them. If, thereafter,
their subcontracts are for some reason reduced, such firms can face
potentially crippling fixed expenses. The world of corporate purchasing can be
frustrating for small entrepreneurs who get requests for elaborate formal
estimates and bids. Both consume valuable time and resources, and a small
company’s efforts must soon result in orders, or both the morale and the
financial health of the business will suffer.

A second risk is that White-owned companies may seek to cash in on the

increasing apportionments through formation of joint ventures with
minority-owned concerns. Of course, in many instances there are legitimate
reasons for joint ventures; clearly, White and minority enterprises can team up
, , ) to acquire business that neither could acquire alone. But civil rights groups
and minority business owners have complained to Congress about minorities
being set up as “fronts ” with White backing, rather than being accepted as
full partners in legitimate joint ventures.

Third, a minority enterprise that secures the business of one large corporate
customer often runs the danger of becoming—and remaining—dependent.
Even in the best of circumstances, fierce competition from larger, more
established companies makes it difficult for small concerns to broaden their
customer bases: when such firms have nearly guaranteed orders from a single
corporate benefactor, they may truly have to struggle against complacency
arising from their current success.

Question: The primary purpose of the passage is to

1. present a commonplace idea and its inaccuracies

2. describe a situation and its potential drawbacks
3. propose a temporary solution to a problem
4. analyze a frequent source of disagreement
5. explore the implications of a finding
Question: The passage supplies information that would answer which of the
following questions?

1. What federal agencies have set percentage goals for the use of
minority-owned businesses in public works contracts?
2. To which government agencies must businesses awarded federal
contracts report their efforts to find minority subcontractors?
3. How widespread is the use of minority-owned concerns as “fronts” by
White backers seeking to obtain subcontracts?
 4. How many more minority-owned businesses were there in 1977 than in
1972?
5. What is one set of conditions under which a small business might find
itself financially overextended?
Question: According to the passage, civil rights activists maintain that one
disadvantage under which minority-owned businesses have traditionally had
to labor is that they have

1. been especially vulnerable to governmental mismanagement of the

economy
2. been denied bank loans at rates comparable to those afforded larger
competitors
3. not had sufficient opportunity to secure business created by large
corporations
4. not been able to advertise in those media that reach large numbers of
potential customers
5. not had adequate representation in the centers of government power
Question: The passage suggests that the failure of a large business to have its
bids for subcontracts result quickly in orders might cause it to

1. experience frustration but not serious financial harm

2. face potentially crippling fixed expenses
3. have to record its efforts on forms filed with the government
4. increase its spending with minority subcontractors
5. revise its procedure for making bids for federal contracts and
subcontracts
Question: The author implies that a minority-owned concern that does the
greater part of its business with one large corporate customer should

1. avoid competition with larger, more established concerns by not

expanding
2. concentrate on securing even more business from that corporation
3. try to expand its customer base to avoid becoming dependent on the
corporation
4. pass on some of the work to be done for the corporation to other
minority-owned concerns
5. use its influence with the corporation to promote subcontracting with
other minority concerns
Question: It can be inferred from the passage that, compared with the
requirements of law, the percentage goals set by “some federal and local
agencies” are

1. more popular with large corporations

2. more specific
3. less controversial
4. less expensive to enforce
5. easier to comply with