The mean salary in ICM LTD. was Rs. 1,500, and the standard deviation was Rs. 400. A year later each employee got a Rs. 100 raise. After another year each employee’s salary (including the above mentioned raise) was increased by 20%. The standard d ?->(Show Answer!)

1. The mean salary in ICM LTD. was Rs. 1,500, and the standard deviation was Rs. 400. A year later each employee got a Rs. 100 raise. After another year each employee’s salary (including the above mentioned raise) was increased by 20%. The standard deviation of the current salary is:

Write Comment

Comments

By: anil on 05 May 2019 02.40 am

Standard deviation is the measure of how much the values in the group differ from the average.
If the salary of each person is increased by 100, the average salary will also be increased by 100. Therefore, the standard deviation will remain unaltered in this case.
Every person is given a hike of 20%. Therefore, the standard deviation will also increase by 20%. Therefore, the new standard deviation will be 1.2*400 = 480. Therefore, option B is the right answer.

Tags

Show Similar Question And Answers

QA->The salary of a worker was first increased by 10% and thereafter decreased by 7%. What was the change in his salary?....

QA->Deviation from the common rule or standard.....

QA->Which city is at the highest altitude above mean sea level....

QA->Which city is at the highest altitude above mean sea level?....

QA->Which city is at the highest altitude above mean sea level ?....

MCQ->The mean salary in ICM LTD. was Rs. 1,500, and the standard deviation was Rs. 400. A year later each employee got a Rs. 100 raise. After another year each employee’s salary (including the above mentioned raise) was increased by 20%. The standard deviation of the current salary is:....

MCQ-> The table below presents the revenue (in million rupees) of four firms in three states. These firms, Honest Ltd., Aggressive Ltd., Truthful Ltd. and Profitable Ltd. are disguised in the table as A,B,C and D, in no particular order.

Further, it is known that:[list][*]In the state of MP, Truthful Ltd. has the highest market share.[*]Aggressive Ltd.’s aggregate revenue differs from Honest Ltd.’s by Rs. 5 million.[/list]What can be said regarding the following two statements?Statement 1: Profitable Ltd. has the lowest share in MP market.Statement 2: Honest Ltd.’s total revenue is more than Profitable Ltd.
....

MCQ-> Study the following information carefully and answer the questions given below : Eight friends - R, S, T, U, V, W. X and Y - are sitting around a circular table facing the centre, but not necessarily in the same order. Each of the them studies in the different Standards viz, Standard I to Standard VIII, but not necessarily in the same order. T is second to the right of the person who studies in Standard VII. Only one person sits between T and the person who studies in Standard V. X is sitting third to the left of the person who studies in Standard VIII. The person studying in Standard VIII is not an immediate neighbour of the person studying in Standard VII. T does not study in Standard VIII. The person studying in Standard VI is to the left of U. U does not study in Standard V or Standard VIII. The persons studying in Standard VI and VII are immediate neighbours of each other. One of the immediate neighbours of the person studying in Standard VIII, studies in Standard II. S and Y are immediate neighbours of each other. There is one person between S and R. V does not study in Standard I. R studies in Standard V. Y does not study in Standard II. W is sitting between the persons who study in Standard VII and Standard IV. X is second to the right of the person studying in Standard I.Who among the following is sitting third to the right of T.
....

MCQ-> Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions given below it. Certain words/phrases have been printed in bold to help you locate them while answering some of the questions. The past quarter of a century has seen several bursts of selling by the world’s governments, mostly but not always in benign market conditions. Those in the OECD, a rich-country club, divested plenty of stuff in the 20 years before the global financial crisis. The first privatisation wave, which built up from the mid-1980s and peaked in 2000, was largely European. The drive to cut state intervention under Margaret Thatcher in Britain soon spread to the continent. The movement gathered pace after 1991, when eastern Europe put thousands of rusting state-owned enterprises (SOEs) on the block. A second wave came in the mid-2000s, as European economies sought to cash in on buoyant markets. But activity in OECD countries slowed sharply as the financial crisis began. In fact, it reversed. Bailouts of failing banks and companies have contributed to a dramatic increase in government purchases of corporate equity during the past five years. A more lasting fea ture is the expansion of the state capitalism practised by China and other emerging economic powers. Governments have actually bought more equity than they have sold in most years since 2007, though sales far exceeded purchases in 2013. Today privatisation is once again “alive and well”, says William Megginson of the Michael Price College of Business at the University of Oklahoma. According to a global tally he recently completed, 2012 was the third-best year ever, and preliminary evidence suggests that 2013 may have been better. However, the geography of sell-offs has changed, with emerging markets now to the fore. China, for instance, has been selling minority stakes in banking, energy, engineering and broadcasting; Brazil is selling airports to help finance a $20 billion investment programme. Eleven of the 20 largest IPOs between 2005 and 2013 were sales of minority stakes by SOEs, mostly in developing countries. By contrast, state-owned assets are now “the forgotten side of the balance-sheet” in many advanced economies, says Dag Detter, managing partner of Whetstone Solutions, an adviser to governments on asset restructuring. They shouldn’t be. Governments of OECD countries still oversee vast piles of assets, from banks and utilities to buildings, land and the riches beneath (see table). Selling some of these holdings could work wonders: reduce debt, finance infrastructure, boost economic efficiency. But governments often barely grasp the value locked up in them. The picture is clearest for companies or company-like entities held by central governments. According to data compiled by the OECD and published on its website, its 34 member countries had 2,111 fully or majority-owned SOEs, with 5.9m employees, at the end of 2012. Their combined value (allowing for some but not all pension-fund liabilities) is estimated at $2.2 trillion, roughly the same size as the global hedge-fund industry. Most are in network industries such as telecoms, electricity and transport. In addition, many countries have large minority stakes in listed firms. Those in which they hold a stake of between 10% and 50% have a combined market value of $890 billion and employ 2.9m people. The data are far from perfect. The quality of reporting varies widely, as do definitions of what counts as a state-owned company: most include only centralgovernment holdings. If all assets held at sub-national level, such as local water companies, were included, the total value could be more than $4 trillion. Reckons Hans Christiansen, an OECD economist. Moreover, his team has had to extrapolate because some QECD members, including America and Japan, provide patchy data. America is apparently so queasy about discussions of public ownership of -commercial assets that the Treasury takes no part in the OECD’s working group on the issue, even though it has vast holdings, from Amtrak and the 520,000-employee Postal Service to power generators and airports. The club’s efforts to calculate the value that SOEs add to, or subtract from, economies were abandoned after several countries, including America, refused to co-operate. Privatisation has begun picking up again recently in the OECD for a variety of reasons. Britain’s Conservative-led coalition is fbcused on (some would say obsessed with) reducing the public debt-to-GDP ratio. Having recently sold the Royal Mail through a public offering, it is hoping to offload other assets, including its stake in URENCO, a uranium enricher, and its student-loan portfolio. From January 8th, under a new Treasury scheme, members of the public and businesses will be allowed to buy government land and buildings on the open market. A website will shortly be set up to help potential buyers see which bits of the government’s /..337 billion-worth of holdings ($527 billion at today’s rate, accounting for 40% of developable sites round Britain) might be surplus. The government, said the chief treasury secretary, Danny Alexander, “should not act as some kind of compulsive hoarder”. Japan has different reasons to revive sell-offs, such as to finance reconstruction after its devastating earthquake and tsunami in 2011. Eyes are once again turning to Japan Post, a giant postal-to-financial-services conglomerate whose oftpostponed partial sale could at last happen in 2015 and raise (Yen) 4 trillion ($40 billion) or more. Australia wants to sell financial, postal and aviation assets to offset the fall in revenues caused by the commodities slowdown. In almost all the countries of Europe, privatisation is likely “to surprise on the upside” as long as markets continue to mend, reckons Mr Megginson. Mr Christiansen expects to see three main areas of activity in coming years. First will be the resumption of partial sell-offs in industries such as telecoms, transport and utilities. Many residual stakes in partly privatised firms could be sold down further. France, for instance, still has hefty stakes in GDF SUEZ, Renault, Thales and Orange. The government of Francois Hollande may be ideologically opposed to privatisation, but it is hoping to reduce industrial stakes to raise funds for livelier sectors, such as broadband and health. The second area of growth should be in eastern Europe, where hundreds of large firms, including manufacturers, remain in state hands. Poland will sell down its stakes in listed firms to make up for an expected reduction in EU structural funds. And the third area is the reprivatisation of financial institutions rescued during the crisis. This process is under way: the largest privatisation in 2012 was the $18 billion offering of America’s residual stake in AIG, an insurance company.Which of the following statements is not true in the context of the given passage ?
....

MCQ->Mr. Raheja, the president of Alpha Ltd., a construction company, is studying his company’s chances of being awarded a Rs. 1,000 crore bridge building contract in Delhi. In this process, two events interest him. First, Alpha’s major competitor Gamma Ltd, is trying to import the latest bridge building technology from Europe, which it hopes to get before the deadline of the award of contact. Second, there are rumors that Delhi Government is investigating all recent contractors and Alpha Ltd is one of those contractors, while Gamma Ltd is not one of those. If Gamma is able to import the technology and there is no investigation by the Government, then Alpha’s chance of getting contract is 0.67. If there is investigation and Gamma Ltd is unable to import the technology in time, the Alpha’s chance is 0.72. If both events occur, then Alpha’s chance of getting the contract is 0.58 and if none events occur, its chances are 0.85. Raheja knows that the chance of Gamma Ltd being able to complete the import of technology before the award date is 0.80. How low must the probability of investigation be, so that the probability of the contract being awarded to Alpha Ltd is atleast 0.65? (Assume that occurrence of investigation and Gamma’s completion of import in time is independent to each other.)....