Constituency | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| A | B | C | D | |
| No. of candidates contesting | 10 | 12 | 5 | 8 |
| Total No. of valid votes polled | 5,00,000 | 3,25,000 | 6,00,030 | |
| No. of votes polled by the winning candidate | 2,75,000 | 48,750 | ||
| No. of votes polled by the first runner up | 95,000 | 37,500 | ||
| No. of votes polled by the second runner up | 30,000 | |||
| % of valid votes polled by the third runner up | 10% | |||
The following additional facts are known:
1. The first runner up polled 10,000 more votes than the second runner up in constituency A.
2. None of the candidates who contested in constituency C lost their security deposit. The difference in votes polled by any pair of candidates in this constituency was at least 10,000.
3. The winning candidate in constituency D polled 5% of valid votes more than that of the first runner up. All the candidates who lost their security deposits while contesting for this constituency, put together, polled 35% of the valid votes.
How many candidates who contested in constituency B lost their security deposit? [This Question was asked as TITA]
Total Votes Cast:
Security Deposit Threshold:
Vote Distribution Among Top Candidates:
Votes for Other Candidates:
Candidates Forfeiting Security Deposit:
Vote Percentage Analysis:
Therefore, for constituency A:
Key Information:
Vote Distribution Pattern:
The following table summarizes the data:
| Constituency | Total Votes | Winner Votes | 1st Runner-Up Votes | 2nd Runner-Up Votes | 3rd Runner-Up Votes | 4th Runner-Up Votes | 5th Highest Votes | Total of Top 5 Votes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A | 500,000 | 275,000 | 95,000 | 85,000 | - | - | - | 455,000 |
| C | 600,030 | 140,006 | 130,006 | 120,006 | 110,006 | 100,006 | >100,006 | 600,030 |
| D | 100x | 15x+37,500 | - | - | - | - | - | - |
Summary of Findings:
In constituency B, the minimum votes required to secure the deposit was \( \frac{1}{6} \times 325,000 = 54,167 \). Since the winner received fewer than 54,167 votes, all other candidates also failed to meet this threshold and lost their security deposits. Consequently, 11 candidates lost their security deposits in constituency B.
Anu, Bijay, Chetan, Deepak, Eshan, and Faruq are six friends. Each of them uses a mobile number from exactly one of the two mobile operators- Xitel and Yocel. During the last month, the six friends made several calls to each other. Each call was made by one of these six friends to another. The table below summarizes the number of minutes of calls that each of the six made to (outgoing minutes to) and received from (incoming minutes from) these friends, grouped by the operators. Some of the entries are missing.
Operator Xitel Operator Yocel
It is known that the duration of calls from Faruq to Eshan was 200 minutes. Also, there were no calls from:
• Bijay to Eshan,
• Chetan to Anu and Chetan to Deepak,
• Deepak to Bijay and Deepak to Faruq,
• Eshan to Chetan and Eshan to Deepak.
| Firm | First year of existence | Last year of existence | Total amount raised (Rs. crores) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Alfloo | 2009 | 2016 | 21 |
| Bzygoo | 2012 | 2015 | |
| Czechy | 2013 | 9 | |
| Drjbna | 2011 | 2015 | 10 |
| Elavalaki | 2010 | 13 |
| Table 1: 2-day averages for Days through 5 | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Day 2 | Day 3 | Day 4 | Day 5 |
| 15 | 15.5 | 16 | 17 |
| Table 2 : Ranks of participants on each day | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Day 1 | Day 2 | Day 3 | Day 4 | Day 5 | |
| Akhil | 1 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 3 |
| Bimal | 2 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 1 |
| Chatur | 3 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 |
| Table 1: 2-day averages for Days through 5 | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Day 2 | Day 3 | Day 4 | Day 5 |
| 15 | 15.5 | 16 | 17 |
| Table 2 : Ranks of participants on each day | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Day 1 | Day 2 | Day 3 | Day 4 | Day 5 | |
| Akhil | 1 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 3 |
| Bimal | 2 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 1 |
| Chatur | 3 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 |