[sukhi]

Dear Friend,

I also attempted the same set.

Please consider the following Alternative distribution of sectional cut-offs (and total cutoffs) against what you have given below:

A B C D Total
c1 42* 42* 42* 50 176
c2 50 45*45* 35 175
c3 25 50 46* 50 171
c4 43* 40 50 45* 178
c5 45* 50 43* 42 180
c6 50 41* 41 44* 176
* : given figures
BOLD : Changed values from the table you provided below.

This table also satisfies the condition that Sum of Sectional Cut-offs for a college is <= Total Cut 0ff
(Although While Doing this question I did NOT consider this and still think that as per the given information, we should NOT make this assumption. But Anyway, the above table also satisfies this criterion)

Now, if this guy gets 49 marks in each section (196 total), he will still miss the cut-offs for one section for all colleges and hence NO ADMISSION TO ANY COLLEGE.

I guess you will agree to this solution?

Sorry buddy, know that if u get this wrong u come on the borderline for DI cut-off. All the Best to you. (BTW, I am near borderline in VA due to a few such misses that i regret now - nyway )

And for the other two, I guess we all agree now that the answers are:

25 and 181 ??

Please reply/give feedback.

Thanks!

Originally Posted by pokapoka

Hi i am having hard time to see my cat dreams shattered by 1 controversial question : the Aditya one.
so i am presenting my Ans. Someone please correct if i am missing something in my arguement.

Its a fairly detailed explanation.

we need to find the MAX marks a guy can get without getting calls.
The Criteria for getting calls : All sectional marks >= All Sectional cutoffs and Total Marks >= total cutoffs.

So not to get any call ---> either total marks < total cutoffs for all colleges
OR
sectional marks in one section < lowest sectional cutoffs in that section

So the max marks should be hihger of the following two :
1. The lowest total cutoff -1
2. [lowest sectional cutoff (across any college and in any 1 section) -1 ]+ 50 +50 +50

1. gives 171-1 = 170
2. Here we can try to maximise the sectional cutoffs for all the blanks left in the table.

the way to do it: For each college distribute the difference between the total cutoff and the given (filled) cutoffs across the inknown (unfilled) cutoffs .

(we cannot have the sum of the cutoffs to be greater than the total cutoffs.)
the difference can be distributed in the following manner :


A B C D Total
c1 42* 42* 42* 50 176
c2 43 45* 45* 42 175
c3 42 41 46* 42 171
c4 43* 45 45 45* 178
c5 45* 46 43* 46 180
c6 45 41* 46 44* 176
* : given figures

so all the unknown boxes can be filled with cut offs >= 41

Thus the lowest cutoff that a guy must miss is 41.
consequently the total marks that he can get without getting a call :
40 (section B)+50+50+50. (for the above arrangement of cutoffs. )

most classes keys say 184 but i am not the least convinced by their arguement.

FOR ppl saying 196 as answer : The total cutoff >= sum of the cutoffs
u can't have 50 cutoff for each section and say the overall cutoff is 171.

[nana86]

Originally Posted by maverickk_7

Hi Puys,
I have a doubt in one of the DI questions...........Would request you to please provide ur inputs....

Interesting observation!

I too marked that option (Chetan's profit higher than Bimal) .
I made my decision based on the CAT 2007 paper's stock rise and fall wala sum. In that sum, there was a case (i thought) where nothing was given regarding if the market neither rose nor fell. All institutes as well as the IIMs did not consider this possibility.
So this time I also didn't consider the possibility of the share price remaining same.

Lets hope for the best...

[sukhi]

Nice point buddy.

Let me admit that I assumed during the exam that there are missing values in the table. But your logic against it makes sense.

However, my concern:

The question says that ".......A student will get admission only if he/she gets marks greater than or equal to the cut-off marks in EACH OF THE SECTIONS and .............."

Now, when they say "..in EACH of the Sections..", don't you think that each section SHOULD have a Cut-off (Anywhere between, and including, 0 and 50) ???

So when we consider that The blanks mean "0" as cut-off, aren't we ASSUMING the cut-off to be Zero for such fields?
(Again something that some may claim to be as big an assumption as the assumption of 'missing values for some sectional cut-offs)

What say guys???

Well, Just opinions of course. We shall get to know the IIM's approach on Jan 9 I guess...

So, My Final Thoughts:

The answers to the other two questions in this set remain 25 and 181 (whether we consider missing values as Zero OR Not)

But the answer to this question depends on whether the missing values are zero OR not..

If they are Zero, Answer -> 41 + 40 + 41 + 43 -> 184
If they can be Non-Zero, Answer -> 49*4 -> 196 (Please see my post above for the reasoning)

Do weall agree?

Thanks..

Originally Posted by HakunaBatata

ohh thats quite a good logic, i must say ! That really puts a big question as to what the IIMs meant ! Initially i read your post with a bit of skepticism, trying to find some loopholes, but seems solid enough. The only argument one can make against this line of reasoning is that the paper did not mention that any data is missing, and hence, we should not assume that as such. If you see the past CAT papers, wherever there is any data missing, they explicitly mention that.

[maverickk_7]

Originally Posted by nana86

Interesting observation!

I too marked that option (Chetan's profit higher than Bimal) .
I made my decision based on the CAT 2007 paper's stock rise and fall wala sum. In that sum, there was a case (i thought) where nothing was given regarding if the market neither rose nor fell. All institutes as well as the IIMs did not consider this possibility.
So this time I also didn't consider the possibility of the share price remaining same.

Lets hope for the best...

hmm........But I have edited my post......Just after posting I realised the flaw
in my arguement...............You can see that the Option is actually
Chetan's Return is always greater than that of Bimal's.
The word is Return which can be same for both....
My arguement would have neem valid if it was profit.....

And also,in this case I think we can not assume the stock will have to change........
They can remain the same....I think i nlast year waala question me even if u take this into account
the ans will remain the same.....
Also in the very next question it is mentioned that one day the stock market fluctuated...this means it was open to
the ppossibility of remaining stagnant....

[HakunaBatata]

Originally Posted by sukhi

Nice point buddy.

Let me admit that I assumed during the exam that there are missing values in the table. But your logic against it makes sense.

However, my concern:

The question says that ".......A student will get admission only if he/she gets marks greater than or equal to the cut-off marks in EACH OF THE SECTIONS and .............."

Now, when they say "..in EACH of the Sections..", don't you think that each section SHOULD have a Cut-off (Anywhere between, and including, 0 and 50) ???

So when we consider that The blanks mean "0" as cut-off, aren't we ASSUMING the cut-off to be Zero for such fields?
(Again something that some may claim to be as big an assumption as the assumption of 'missing values for some sectional cut-offs)

What say guys???

Well, Just opinions of course. We shall get to know the IIM's approach on Jan 9 I guess...

So, My Final Thoughts:

The answers to the other two questions in this set remain 25 and 181 (whether we consider missing values as Zero OR Not)

But the answer to this question depends on whether the missing values are zero OR not..

If they are Zero, Answer -> 41 + 40 + 41 + 43 -> 184
If they can be Non-Zero, Answer -> 49*4 -> 196 (Please see my post above for the reasoning)

Do weall agree?

Thanks..

Well, i still feel the answer is more likely to be 184. in the sentence ".......A student will get admission only if he/she gets marks greater than or equal to the cut-off marks in EACH OF THE SECTIONS and .............."
i take it as each of the sections in which cutoffs is given. Anyways, this issue can't be solved until Jan 9th , so lets wait and see

[keepMovin...]

Well as a matter of fact one can infer that data is missing, the question states that: "only if he/she get marks greater than or equal to the cut-off marks in EACH of the sections" i.e. there does exist a cutoff in each of the sections, i.e. the blanks dont imply an absence of cutoff.

But of course the orignal objections holds i.e. the question no where states "some entries have been left blank" & so a DI question has turned into an FIJ: is it that we can infer that data is missing (EACH section) or is it a fact (verifiable info frm last years papers) that data is furnished completely....

I suggest we start a poll on what the junta thinks....

[Shantanu15]

Originally Posted by sukhi

Dear Friend,

I also attempted the same set.

Please consider the following Alternative distribution of sectional cut-offs (and total cutoffs) against what you have given below:

A B C D Total
c1 42* 42* 42* 50 176
c2 50 45*45* 35 175
c3 25 50 46* 50 171
c4 43* 40 50 45* 178
c5 45* 50 43* 42 180
c6 50 41* 41 44* 176
* : given figures
BOLD : Changed values from the table you provided below.

This table also satisfies the condition that Sum of Sectional Cut-offs for a college is <= Total Cut 0ff
(Although While Doing this question I did NOT consider this and still think that as per the given information, we should NOT make this assumption. But Anyway, the above table also satisfies this criterion)

Now, if this guy gets 49 marks in each section (196 total), he will still miss the cut-offs for one section for all colleges and hence NO ADMISSION TO ANY COLLEGE.

I guess you will agree to this solution?

Sorry buddy, know that if u get this wrong u come on the borderline for DI cut-off. All the Best to you. (BTW, I am near borderline in VA due to a few such misses that i regret now - nyway )

And for the other two, I guess we all agree now that the answers are:

25 and 181 ??

Please reply/give feedback.

Thanks!

That's a very interesting take and it might well be right ,but my thought process in the exam was as you said the sum of the sectional cut offs might not be equal to the aggregate cut off,much like in real life,it might be less.Therefore I hesitated to fill 50 in section D in the first college,as it might 49,40 or whatever as it doesn't have to be equal to 176.So I decided to work with the data we have,and in that case as the lowest sectional cutoff that was given was 41,and hence maximum aggregate that one could get was 50+50+50+40=190.



P.S whether this answer is correct or not wouldn't make much difference to my chances,because I have screwed this up big time,but extra 5 marks never hurts!

[freakinbubu]

Originally Posted by iimba08

Guys plz help me with that six houses on a road question...............
Is there any chance that the house which is diagonally opposite is orange and not red,,,,,,,,,,:nervous:

I am totally with you on this one........I dont care what all the keys of various institutes say......I am pretty sure it is the Orange house and the option to be marked is NONE OF THESE........

[anurag12singh]

Originally Posted by freakinbubu

I am totally with you on this one........I dont care what all the keys of various institutes say......I am pretty sure it is the Orange house and the option to be marked is NONE OF THESE........

Even I marked option 5 i.e. None of these. I think diagonally opposite is not a concept which is very well defined. I mean to say that there is no consistent definition of diagonally opposite.

[cat-alicious]

Can anybody tell me what will be the sectional cutoff of DI for IIM-A (assuming that IIM A wants a 95.66 percentile in each of the sections)