Pricha

oh didnt know abt that idiom !! In case that is an idiom then it is obvious winner. Thanks Bob :)

A looks good. C,D,E are out on the basis of 'have', an anticipated rise in interest rates 'has' not have. Between A & B , I stirked A out on the basis of 'position' is always taken abt/regarding an issue & not 'on' Hope this helps !!

C for me too

C it is !! :)

A , B & C here came very close. The process of elimination taken : B in the -ve & implies the fact stated in the stem hence out. Betwn A & C there is a difference of the word only but then i finally went for C coz i feel that we are not sure of the ways via which the ppl cud feel secure , all we know is that knowing that their actions are legal can give them some amount of security. OA?

First of all rebel, sorry about replying so late. B says that between 1977 & 1998, the b4 tax income of 1% richest A increased by 75 million when adjusted for inflation. Now we want to explain a situation that though the percentage of income paid has decreased even then their share in all the rev collected is higher. The situation where this cud occur is that either the rich have become richer & hence contributing a lot or the amt contributed by the rest of the people has decreased. Here lets go with the first : the amt earned by the rich has increased hence their share in the total rev collectd has gone higher but then how is it that the percentage of their income being contributed has decreased?? So the answer to that q is that 40 % of prev income Hope this helps Thanks

Agree with trymore 61 is the only no that fits the bill.

D for me (1) Says that n is odd hence the sum has to be +ve Eg n = 3 a1 = 1 , a2 = -1 , a3 = 3 hence sum of these terms = 3 (2) says that an is +ve , thus n = odd

Is there something wrong with the question ? How can the remainder be 7 when divided by 7 , it has any no less than 7 between 0 - 6.

Indeed Gr8 explanation 800Bob !! Nice question Centrino !! D it is

Animator & others,Sorry for replying so late i understand that the 3rd Q has the rite answer to be E. Thanks

It was between A & B for me finally went for A B : from negotiations doesnt sound too rite. C : increasing wages is definitely out. D : negotiated increases is out too. E : convoluted statement. OA?

What the question means to say is the amount the 1 % richest americans used to pay to the federal taxes has reduced but the proportion of this amt in the total amt collected by the federal taxes is now 16.2 as oppsoed to the normal 12.7 when they used to pay higher taxes.it is only a normal expectation that if u are now paying less to a body than ur proportion in the total amt collected by that body will decrease, So explain this discrepancy is what they are asking wit the help of 1/5 stmnts.Hope this makes sense ! Now for the answer A : doesnt give any support what so ever, becoz IRS has added staff now , they should have been able to collect more revenue if anything. B : says that richest were earning more than they were in the past so now the scenario is more money -> more taxes but then here is the twist , since there was an inflation therefore the taxable income has to reduce thus justifying for the reduce in the amt paid, butwhen the richest 1% was hit so much by the inflation to reuce from 40 -> 25 then the rest of ppl would have defi been hit harder thus explaining the reason why the rich still continued to contribute the highest towards the whole sum amt. C : If someone has converted his non taxable assets -> taxable then his taxes should have been higher. D : If tax loopholes were eliminated then the amt collected should have been higher whereas it is reducing but if the reduction is attributed to the lowering of the taxes then why is it that the percentage in the amt collected has increased ? E : if there was an increase in the amt of taxes paid then the q is contradicted Between B & D i find B to be stronger !

E I did not rule out manifestation rite away but then the words 'manifestation' & 'show' exist in the same sentence , which doesnt make any sense as both of them mean the same. So B & D are out.In A & C the construction of the sentence is odd.

A for me !! OA???????????

D without batting the eyelid !! the Q says that others who invested money to buy Real estate lost money due to the decline but since the college got it as a gift it has experienced any loss, now to contradict this we have to say that the college lost some money , which is what excatly D says Hope this helps !! syd-c, pls dont give away the OA rite in the beginning , use the spoiler tag to hide the answer , this way you will get a better understanding of the question otherwise the purpose of posting the question is defeated

C for me Was left with B & C C is only option that provides proof of the fact that he was peddling in '39 too while B only says that he had been arrested for peddling in the past.

D for me coz the object of comparison is clear in A. OA?

D it is now that the qusetion is clear

How is the eqn satisfied here? 50 - 2 = 48

B for me It was very close between A & B but my reasons to rule A was : 'it' in the clause makes a reference to the subject being referred about by the clause which is unnecessary cause the subject is bang next to the modifing clause "Seldom more that 40 feet wide and 12 feet deep, but it ran 363 miles across the rugged wilderness of upstate New York,Erie Canal

A it is

A for me C,D,E are out because of the prefer .. as compared to Betwn A and B , "...that many travelers would..." in B is incorrect, it shud have been ".....those many travellers..." OA?

A for me

(1) D as explained (2) E first clue gives us a wide range of values satisfying the eqn c,w = (62,-3),(50,3) hence w cud be +ve or -ve , cant say hence insuff second clue alone also tells us nothing significant When used together too they are not able to tell abt the sign of w hence E (3) D first clue tells that x(0.15) + y(0.29) = 4.40 where x & y are the no. of stamps brought of 0.15 & 0.29 resp.The only no. satisying this eqn are x = y =10 second clue alone tells us that x = y hence 10 Hope this helps !