Six persons namely viz A B C D E and F bought six different branded shoes namely viz Adidas Fila Lot...........

Logical Reasoning(SBI-PO) Data Sufficiency

Direction (): In the following question, a given question is followed by information in three statements. You have to decide the data in which statement(s) is sufficient to answer the question and mark your answer accordingly.

Six persons namely viz. A, B, C, D, E and F bought six different branded shoes namely viz. Adidas, Fila, Lotto, Nike, Puma and Reebok but not necessarily in same order. Each of these shoes worth of different amounts among Rs.1700, Rs.2200, Rs.2500, Rs.2700, Rs.3000 and Rs.3600. Who bought Nike shoes and how much does they cost?

I. E bought Lotto shoes. C did not buy Fila shoes. A did not buy Nike shoes. The difference in cost of shoes that A bought and Adidas shoes is Rs.800.

II. F bought Reebok shoes, which costs Rs.3600. D did not but Adidas shoes or Puma shoes. The cost of Puma shoes is Rs.2500. The cost of Nike shoes is more than that of A and C’s shoes. The cost of shoes that C bought is more than that of E’s shoes.

III. D bought shoes for Rs.2700, which were not of Fila. A and C did not buy Adidas shoes. E bought shoes worth lowest price. The cost of C’s shoes is more than that of A’s shoes but less than F’s shoes. F bought Reebok shoes.

All the statements are required.

Only I and II are sufficient.

Only II is sufficient.

Either I and II or I and III are sufficient.

Insufficient data.

छोटे Courses बड़े Results

Master Data Sufficiency

Prepare through Micro-courses

Try Now

Explanation:

Statement I: Six persons: A, B, C, D, E and F. Six different shoes brands: Adidas, Fila, Lotto, Nike, Puma and Reebok. Six different costs: s.1700, Rs.2200, Rs.2500, Rs.2700, Rs.3000 and Rs.3600. From statement I: E bought Lotto shoes. C did not buy Fila shoes. A did not buy Nike shoes. The difference in cost of shoes that A bought and Adidas shoes is Rs.800.

Hence, statement I alone is not sufficient to answer the question.

From statement II: F bought Reebok shoes, which costs Rs.3600. D did not but Adidas shoes or Puma shoes. The cost of Puma shoes is Rs.2500. The cost of Nike shoes is more than that of A and C’s shoes. The cost of shoes that C bought is more than that of E’s shoes.
Hence, statement II alone is not sufficient to answer the question.

From statement III: D bought shoes for Rs.2700, which were not of Fila. A and C did not buy Adidas shoes. E bought shoes worth lowest price. The cost of C’s shoes is more than that of A’s shoes but less than F’s shoes. F bought Reebok shoes.
Therefore, Statement III alone is not sufficient to answer the question.

On combining I and II,

Therefore, statements I and II together are sufficient to answer the question.