The pie chart given below shows the runs scored by a player against 6 different countries. The total runs scored by the player against these countries are 1600. <img src="https://cracku.in/media/uploads/blob_61CLAcb" /> How many runs has the play ?->(Show Answer!)

1. The pie chart given below shows the runs scored by a player against 6 different countries. The total runs scored by the player against these countries are 1600. How many runs has the player scored against Pakistan?

Write Comment

Comments

By: anil on 05 May 2019 01.46 am

% runs scored against Pakistan = 12% Total runs scored = 1600 => Runs scored against Pakistan = $$frac{12}{100} imes1600=192$$ => Ans - (B)

Tags

Show Similar Question And Answers

QA->Software which shows information about different geographical places?....

QA->A computer has 8 MB in main memory, 128 KB cache with block size of 4KB. If direct mapping scheme is used, how many different main memory blocks can map into a given physical cache block?....

QA->Which Cricketer has scored the highest total runs in test cricket....

QA->Which Cricketer has scored the highest total runs in test cricket?....

QA->Pakistan batsman Yasir Hameed, who played with the Pakistan team in the Test series against England, allegedly told a British tabloid newspaper that some of his teammates were cheats. Name of that news paper which came out with the sting operation on Pakistan cricketers?....

MCQ-> The pie chart given below shows the runs scored by a player against 6 different countries. The total runs scored by the player against these countries are 1600.

How many runs has the player scored against Pakistan? ....

MCQ-> Study the given information carefully to answer the given questions. Seven athletes — M, N, 0, P, Q, R and S live on seven different floors of a building but not necessarily in the same order. The lowermost floor of the building is numbered one, the one above that is numbered two and so on till the topmost floor is numbered seven. Each one of them runs for a different distance in marathon 850 m, on till the topmost floor is numbered seven. Each one of them runs for a different distance in marathon 850 m, 1300 m, 2200 m, 2800 m, 3300 m, 4000 m and 4700 m, but not necessarily in the same order. The one who runs for 2200 m lives on floor numbered 3. Only one person lives between 0 and the one who runs for 2200 m. The one who runs for 4000 m lives immediately above O. Only one person lives between the one who runs for 4000 m and the one who runs for 1300 m. The number of people living between O and the one who runs for 1300 m is same as that between the one who runs for 4000 m and R. N lives on an odd numbered floor. N ran for 2000 m more than the one who lives on floor number 4. Only two people live between Q and the one who runs for 3300 m. The one who runs for 2800 m lives on one of the floors below Q but not on the floor number 2, Only two people live between M and S. The one who runs for 850 m lives immediately below M.How many people live between S and N?
....

MCQ-> The pie chart given below shows the runs scored by Pujara against team of different countries.

The runs scored by Pujara against South Africa is more than runs scored against Bangladesh by what percentage? ....

MCQ-> Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions given. Certain words/phrases have been given in bold to help you locate them while answering some of the questions. From a technical and economic perspective, many assessments have highlighted the presence of cost-effective opportunities to reduce energy use in buildings. However several bodies note the significance of multiple barriers that prevent the take-up of energy efficiency measures in buildings. These include lack of awareness and concern, limited access to reliable information from trusted sources, fear about risk, disruption and other ‘transaction costs’ concerns about up-front costs and inadequate access to suitably priced finance, a lack of confidence in suppliers and technologies and the presence of split incentives between landlords and tenants. The widespread presence of these barriers led experts to predict thatwithout a concerted push from policy, two-thirds of the economically viable potential to improve energy efficiency will remain unexploited by 2035. These barriers are albatross around the neck that represent a classic market failure and a basis for governmental intervention. While these measurements focus on the technical, financial or economic barriers preventing the take-up of energy efficiency options in buildings, others emphasise the significance of the often deeply embedded social practices that shape energy use in buildings. These analyses focus not on the preferences and rationalities that might shape individual behaviours, but on the ‘entangled’ cultural practices, norms, values and routines that underpin domestic energy use. Focusing on the practice-related aspects of consumption generates very different conceptual framings and policy prescriptions than those that emerge from more traditional or mainstream perspectives. But the underlying case for government intervention to help to promote retrofit and the diffusion of more energy efficient particles is still apparent, even though the forms of intervention advocated are often very different to those that emerge from a more technical or economic perspective. Based on the recognition of the multiple barriers to change and the social, economic and environmental benefits that could be realised if they were overcome, government support for retrofit (renovating existing infrastructure to make it more energy efficient) has been widespread. Retrofit programmes have been supported and adopted in diverse forms in many setting and their ability to recruit householders and then to impact their energy use has been discussed quite extensively. Frequently, these discussions have criticised the extent to which retrofit schemes rely on incentives and the provision of new technologies to change behaviour whilst ignoring the many other factors that might limit either participation in the schemes or their impact on the behaviours and prac-tices that shape domestic energy use. These factors are obviously central to the success of retrofit schemes, but evaluations of different schemes have found that despite these they can still have significant impacts. Few experts that the best estimate of the gap between the technical potential and the actual in-situ performance of energy efficiency measures is 50%, with 35% coming from performance gaps and 15% coming from ‘comfort taking’ or direct rebound effects. They further suggest that the direct rebound effect of energy efficiency measures related to household heating is Ilkley to be less than 30% while rebound effects for various domestic energy efficiency measures vary from 5 to 15% and arise mostly from indirect effects (i.e., where savings from energy efficiency lead to increased demand for goods and services). Other analyses also note that the gap between technical potential and actual performance is likely to vary by measure, with the range extending from 0% for measures such as solar water heating to 50% for measures such as improved heating controls. And others note that levels of comfort taking are likely to vary according to the levels of consumption and fuel poverty in the sample of homes where insulation is installed, with the range extending from 30% when considering homes across all income groups to around 60% when considering only lower income homes. The scale of these gapsis significant because it materially affects the impacts of retrofit schemes and expectations and perceptions of these impacts go on to influence levels of political, financial and public support for these schemes. The literature on retrofit highlights the presence of multiple barriers to change and the need for government support, if these are to be overcome. Although much has been written on the extent to which different forms of support enable the wider take-up of domestic energy efficiency measures, behaviours and practices, various areas of contestation remain and there is still an absence of robust ex-post evidence on the extent to which these schemes actually do lead to the social, economic and environmental benefits that are widely claimed.Which of the following is most nearly the OPPOSITE in meaning to the word ‘CONCERTED’ as used in the passage ?
....

MCQ-> Study the given pie-charts carefully to answer the question that follows Break-up of numbers of employees working in different department of an organisation, the number of males and the number of employees who Recently Got promoted in Each Department Break-up of the employees working in different departments:Total number of employees=3,600Employees working in different departments

Break-up of Number of Males in Each Department Total number of males in the Organisation = 2,040 Break-up of Number of Males Working in Each Department

Break-up of Number of employees who recently Got Promoted in each Department Total number of Employees who got promoted = 1,200 Number of Employees who recently Got Promoted from Each Department

If half of the number of employees who got promoted from the IT department were males what was the approximate percentage of males who got promoted from the IT department ?
....