Three friends P, Q and R are wearing hats, either black or white. Each person can see the hats of the other two persons. What is the colour of P's hat? I. P says that he can see one black hat and one white hat. II. Q says that he can see one white ha ?->(Show Answer!)

1. Three friends P, Q and R are wearing hats, either black or white. Each person can see the hats of the other two persons. What is the colour of P's hat? I. P says that he can see one black hat and one white hat. II. Q says that he can see one white hat and one black hat.

Write Comment

Comments

By: anil on 05 May 2019 02.32 am

Considering first statement alone:
Nothing absolute can be said about the hats of Q and R, as Q might have black hat or white hat similarly R might have white or black hat as seen by P.
Considering second statement alone:
Nothing absolute can be said about the hats of P and R as they can have either Black or White caps
Even considering both statements together, we were not be able to reduce the possibilities of having black hats and white hats
Hence answer will be D.

Tags

Show Similar Question And Answers

QA->There are 50 students in a class. In a class test 22 students get 25 marks each, 18 students get 30 marks each. Each of the remaining gets 16 marks. The average mark of the whole class is :....

QA->Name thePolar Satellite Launch Vehicle carrying three satellites from India, three fromAlgeria and one each from Canada and the US from Sriharikota in Andhra Pradesh?....

QA->Which city is known for silk wearing industry?....

QA->Which two time grand slam title winner and the first French woman to be ranked world No 1, is among the three persons included into the International Tennis Hall of Fame?....

QA->Capable of being understood in either of two or more possible senses and therefore not definite.....

MCQ-> Study the given information carefully to answer the given questions. Eight different people viz. C, D, E, F, W, X, Y and Z are sitting around a circular table facing the centre but not necessarily in the same order. Each one of them is wearing a watch of a different brand viz. Titan, Rado, Casio, Tissot, Rolex, Swass, Omega and Longines but not necessarily in the same order. Only two people sit between the one wearing Rado and X. The one wearing Tissot sits second to the left of X. Only three people sit between the one wearing Rado and W. The one wearing Casio sits second to the right of the one wearing Swass. Neither X nor W is wearing Swass. The one wearing Swass is not an immediate neighbour of the one wearing Tissot. Z is not wearing Tissot. The one wearing Titan sits to the immediate right of Z. C is an immediate neighbour of one wearing Titan. Only three people sit between C and Y. Only three people sit between F and the one wearing Omega. Neither F nor E is wearing Rado. Only one person sits between the ones wearing Omega and Rolex.Who amongst the following sits to the immediate left of the one wearing Rado ?
....

MCQ->Three friends P, Q and R are wearing hats, either black or white. Each person can see the hats of the other two persons. What is the colour of P's hat? I. P says that he can see one black hat and one white hat. II. Q says that he can see one white hat and one black hat.....

MCQ-> Study the following information to answer the given questions : Eight people — L, M, 0, P, 9, R and S — are sitting around a circular table facing the centre. Each of them likes different colours, viz., Red Orange, Blue, Pink, Black, Purple, Brown and Green, but not necessarily in the same order. S is sitting second to the left of N. There are two persons between S and the person who likes Orange colour. M is second to the left of the person who likes Orange colour. L is the immediate neighbour of S. R is the third to the right of P. 0 likes Purple colour. The person who likes Pink colour is second to the right of P. The person who likes Brown colour is the third to the left of the person who likes Blue colour. Neither S nor P likes Brown colour. N likes neither Green nor Blue colour. L likes Red colour.Who among the following is second to the right of the person who likes Orange colour ?
....

MCQ-> Social life is an outflow and meeting of personality, which means that its end is the meeting of character, temperament, and sensibility, in which our thoughts and feelings, and sense perceptions are brought into play at their lightest and yet keenest.This aspect, to my thinking, is realized as much in large parties composed of casual acquaintances or even strangers, as in intimate meetings of old friends. I am not one of those superior persons who hold cocktail parties in contempt, looking upon them as barren or at best as very tryingly kaleidoscopic places for gathering, because of the strangers one has to meet in them; which is no argument, for even our most intimate friends must at one time have been strangers to us. These large gatherings will be only what we make of them if not anything better, they can be as good places to collect new friends from as the slavemarkets of Istanbul were for beautiful slaves or New Market for race horses.But they do offer more immediate enjoyment. For one thing, in them one can see the external expression of social life in appearance and behaviour at its widest and most varied where one can admire beauty of body or air, hear voices remarkable either for sweetness of refinement, look on elegance of clothes or deportment. What is more, these parties are schools for training in sociability, for in them we have to treat strangers as friends. So, in them we see social sympathy in widest commonalty spread, or at least should. We show an atrophy of the natural human instinct of getting pleasure and happiness out of other human beings if we cannot treat strangers as friends for the moment. And I would go further and paraphrase Pater to say that not to be able to discriminate every moment some passionate attitude in those about us, even when we meet them casually, is on this short day of frost and sun which out life is, to sleep before evening.So, it will be seen that my conception of social life is modest, for it makes no demands on what we have, though it does make some on what we are. Interest, wonder, sympathy, and love, the first two leading to the last two, are the psychological prerequisites for social life; and the need for the first two must not be underrated. We cannot make the most even of our intimate social life unless we are able to make strangers of our oldest friends everyday by discovering unknown areas in their personality, and transform them into new friends. In sum, social life is a function of vitality.It is tragic, however, to observe that it is these very natural springs of social life which are drying up among us. It is becoming more and more difficult to come across fellow-feeling for human beings as such in our society and in all its strata. In the poor middle class, in the course of all my life. I have hardly seen any social life properly so-called. Not only has the grinding routine of making a living killed all desire for it in them, it has also generated a standing mood of peevish hostility to other human beings. Increasing economic distress in recent years has infinitely worsened this state of affairs, and has also brought a sinister addition class hatred. This has become the greatest collective emotional enjoyment of the poor middle class, and indeed they feel most social when they form a pack, and snarl or howl at people who are better off than they.Their most innocent exhibition of sociability is seen when they spill out from their intolerable homes into the streets and bazaars. I was astonished to see the milling crowds in the poor suburbs of Calcutta. But even there a group of flippant young loafers would put on a conspiratorial look if they saw a man in good clothes passing by them either on foot or in a car. I had borrowed a car from a relative to visit a friend in one of these suburbs, and he became very anxious when I had not returned before dusk. Acid and bombs, he said, were thrown at card almost every evening in that area. I was amazed. But I also know as a fact that my brother was blackmailed to pay five rupees on a trumped up charge when passing in a car through one such locality.The situation is differently inhuman, but not a whit more human, among the well-to-do. Kindliness for fellow human beings has been smothered in them, taken as a class, by the arrogance of worldly position, which among the Bengalis who show this snobbery is often only a third-class position.The word ‘they’ in the first sentence of the third paragraph refers to
....

MCQ-> Read the following passage and provide appropriate answers for the questionsThere is an essential and irreducible ‘duality’ in the normative conceptualization of an individual person. We can see the person in terms of his or her ‘agency’, recognizing and respecting his or her ability to form goals, commitments, values, etc., and we can also see the person in terms of his or her ‘well-being’. This dichotomy is lost in a model of exclusively self- interested motivation, in which a person’s agency must be entirely geared to his or her own well-being. But once that straitjacket of self-interested motivation is removed, it becomes possible to recognize the indisputable fact that the person’s agency can well be geared to considerations not covered - or at least not fully covered - by his or her own well-being. Agency may be seen as important (not just instrumentally for the pursuit of well-being, but also intrinsically), but that still leaves open the question as to how that agency is to be evaluated and appraised. Even though the use of one’s agency is a matter for oneself to judge, the need for careful assessment of aims, objective, allegiances, etc., and the conception of the good, may be important and exacting. To recognize the distinction between the ‘agency aspect’ and the ‘well-being aspect’ of a person does not require us to take the view that the person’s success as an agent must be independent, or completely separable from, his or her success in terms of well-being. A person may well feel happier and better off as a result of achieving what he or she wanted to achieve - perhaps for his or her family, or community, or class, or party, or some other cause. Also it is quite possible that a person’s well-being will go down as a result of frustration if there is some failure to achieve what he or she wanted to achieve as an agent, even though those achievements are not directly concerned with his or her well-being. There is really no sound basis for demanding that the agency aspect and the well-being aspect of a person should be independent of each other, and it is, I suppose, even possible that every change in one will affect the other as well. However, the point at issue is not the plausibility of their independence, but the sustainability and relevance of the distinction. The fact that two variables may be so related that one cannot change without the other, does not imply that they are the same variable, or that they will have the same values, or that the value of one can be obtained from the other on basis of some simple transformation. The importance of an agency achievement does not rest entirely on the enhancement of well-being that it may indirectly cause. The agency achievement and well-being achievement, both of which have some distinct importance, may be casually linked with each other, but this fact does not compromise the specific importance of either. In so far as utility - based welfare calculations concentrate only on the well- being of the person, ignoring the agency aspect, or actually fails to distinguish between the agency aspect and well-being aspect altogether, something of real importance is lost.According to the ideas in the passage, the following are not true expect:
....