GATE CSE 2016 Set 1 | Question: GA08

Question

Consider the following statements relating to the level of poker play of four players $P,Q,R \ and  \ S$.

1. $P$ always beats $Q$
2. $R$ always beats $S$
3. $S$ loses to $P$ only sometimes.
4. $R$ always loses to $Q$

Which of the following can be logically inferred from the above statements?

1. $P$ is likely to beat all the three other players
2. $S$ is the absolute worst player in the set

• A. (i). only 
• B. (ii) only
• C. (i) and (ii) only'
• D. neither (i) nor (ii)

Comments

means P always beats Q and Q always beats R does not imply that P always beats R from above diagram..

---

yes..

---

@chirudeepnamini thanks for d explaination..

 

Answer 1

Answer is (D) because

1. $P$ is not likely to beat $S$ because $S$ only sometimes loses to $P$
2. $S$ is not worst player because he is likely to beat $P$

Comments

@Pranavpurkar S loses to P “only sometimes”. P winning over S has a very slight chance. Likely imply it is almost bound to happen.

---

Then it is true only in the case when  “P always beats everyone”.?

---

Yes

Answer 2

1) P is likely to beat all the three other players : False, there is no reference of P defeating R.

` 2) S is the absolute worst player in the set : False, S may be defeated by P.

Hence, option D.

Answer 3

From Statement 1,2,and 4

Level P>Q>R>S

But from 3rd statement S loses to P only sometimes.Here note that if S beat P then above statements will not hold true. So,statements are contracting each other and no conclusion can be drawn.

So Option D will be answer.

Answer 4

Both statements are wrong because data give is insufficient to conclude any of the statements.

P can beat Q and S but its not given whether P will beat R or not.

S is the worst player. We cant conclude that since all the data required to analyze them are not given like its not given whether S will beat Q or not.

Comments

yes Data is insufficient...

Because of no relation between P and R , can’t comment on truthness of 1^st inference.  And because of no relation between S and Q too can’t comment on truthness of 2^nd inference.