if u hv heard of euler theorem then....
solution = 2R(2^468/11) + R(3^268/22)
euler no. for both of 11 and 22 is 10 hence n^10 / 11 or 22 = 1
if n and 11/22 are coprime....
hence ans. = 2R(2^8/11) + R(3^8/22)
now put value and get answer. 3^4/22 = -7 , 2^4 = -6
ans = 2R(6*6/11) + R(7*7/22) = 6 + 5 = 11 is the answer.......
In qsn no. 29 rectangle -> cylinder rolled breadth wise (vol. - C1) and rolled length wise (vol. - C2). Square of similar area is rolled along one of the sides (vol. - C3). We need to determine the decreasing order of volumes.
The solution is given on the assumption that Length > breadth(which is a general notion). But in the problem it is no where explicitly mentioned that length>breadth. So in general should we go by this assumption?
In 1992, James Carville coined the phrase "It's the economy, stupid." This simple phrase was a major driver behind why Bill Clinton became our forty-second president. Much has happened since 1992, with the most powerful change being the ubiquitous adoption ...
... that people win. Companies can elect to do business as usual at their own peril. We are at the start of a newer and brighter world for consumers and businesses; this is the world of Socialnomics.
No. of words - 508
I am posting a passage. Can this passage be a benchmark to measure the reading speed as the passages which appear in the Mocks are extreamly difficult to comprehend. Please pour in your views of how you rate this passage if this were to be attempted in CAT.
One catches the unholiness of the Christian means in flagranti if one once measures the Christian end against the end of the law of Manuif one throws a strong light on this greatest contrast of ends. The critic of Christianity cannot be spared the task of making Christianity look contemptible. Such a law as that of Manu originates like every good code of laws: it sums up the experience, prudence, and experimental morality of many centuries; it concludes: it creates nothing further. The presupposition for a codification of this sort is the insight that the means of ensuring authority for a truth, which has been won slowly and at considerable expense, are utterly different from the means needed to prove it. A code of laws never relates the advantage, the reasons, the casuistry, in the prehistory of a law: if it did, it would lose the imperative tone, the "thou shalt," the presupposition for being obeyed. This is precisely where the problem lies. At a certain point in the development of a people, the most circumspect stratum, that is, the one which sees farthest back and ahead, declares the experience according to which one should livethat is, can liveto be concluded. Their aim is to bring home as rich and complete a harvest as possible from the times of experiment and bad experience. Consequently, what must now be prevented above all is further experimentation, a continuation of the fluid state of values, testing, choosing, criticizing values in infinitum. Against this a double wall is put up: one, revelation, the claim that the reason in these laws is not of human origin, not sought and found slowly and after many errors, but of divine origin, and hence whole, perfect, without history, a gift, a miracle, merely communicated ... Then, tradition, the claim that the law has existed since time immemorial and that it would be irreverent, a crime against one's forefathers, to raise any doubt against it. The authority of the law is founded on the theses: God gave it, the forefathers lived it. The higher reason in such a procedure lies in the aim, step by step, to push consciousness back from what had been recognized as the right life (that is, proved right by a tremendous and rigorously filtered experience), so as to attain the perfect automatism of instinctthat presupposition of all mastery, of every kind of perfection in the art of life. To set up a code of laws after the manner of Manu means to give a people the chance henceforth to become master, to become perfectto aspire to the highest art of life. To that end, it must be made unconscious: this is the aim of every holy lie.
Please post your time duration of reading the passage.
My take on this passage:
1. I took 6 min to read this passage. speed 70 wpm.
2. If this were to be a passage in CAT I will leave it after reading it for 2 min as it will be dead end.
feels scary to be on this thread after looking at the scores of the members around... i m here with a paltry 47 :(
16 C and 17 W
certainly doing a lot of damage to my confidence , although i havent really prepared much ..but still thought last years preparation which got me 97 should suffice
how wrong was i !!
anyways i found RCs easy to comprehend and some DI sets were sitters
Quant was tough with some sitters in offer...
anywas a messed up aimcat ..back to blackboard for analysis !
its the same wid me...i even entered my access code bt d same window popped up again..
I hope my marks r registered nd do not get overwritten...