List of top Data Interpretation & Logical Reasoning (DILR) Questions

Ravi works in an online food-delivery company. After each delivery, customers rate Ravi on each of four parameters - Behaviour, Packaging, Hygiene, and Timeliness, on a scale from 1 to 9. If the total of the four rating points is 25 or more, then Ravi gets a bonus of ₹20 for that delivery. Additionally, a customer may or may not give Ravi a tip. If the customer gives a tip, it is either ₹30 or ₹50. One day, Ravi made four deliveries - one to each of Atal, Bihari, Chirag, and Deepak, and received a total of ₹120 in bonus and tips. He did not get both a bonus and a tip from the same customer.
The following additional facts are also known.
1. In Timeliness, Ravi received a total of 21 points, and three of the customers gave him the same rating points in this parameter. Atal gave higher rating points than Bihari and Chirag in this parameter.
2. Ravi received distinct rating points in Packaging from the four customers adding up to 29 points. Similarly, Ravi received distinct rating points in Hygiene from the four customers adding up to 26 points.
3. Chirag gave the same rating points for Packaging and Hygiene.
4. Among the four customers, Bihari gave the highest rating points in Packaging, and Chirag gave the highest rating points in Hygiene.
5. Everyone rated Ravi between 5 and 7 in Behaviour. Unique maximum and minimum ratings in this parameter were given by Atal and Deepak respectively.
6. If the customers are ranked based on ratings given by them in individual parameters, then Atal’s rank based on Packaging is the same as that based on Hygiene. This is also true for Deepak.
Three reviewers Amal, Bimal, and Komal are tasked with selecting questions from a pool of 13 questions (Q01 to Q13). Questions can be created by external “subject matter experts” (SMEs) or by one of the three reviewers. Each of the reviewers either approves or disapproves a question that is shown to them. Their decisions lead to eventual acceptance or rejection of the question in the manner described below.
If a question is created by an SME, it is reviewed first by Amal, and then by Bimal. If both of them approve the question, then the question is accepted and is not reviewed by Komal. If both disapprove the question, it is rejected and is not reviewed by Komal. If one of them approves the question and the other disapproves it, then the question is reviewed by Komal. Then the question is accepted only if she approves it.
A question created by one of the reviewers is decided upon by the other two. If a question is created by Amal, then it is first reviewed by Bimal. If Bimal approves the question, then itis accepted. Otherwise, it is reviewed by Komal. The question is then accepted only if Komal approves it. A similar process is followed for questions created by Bimal, whose questions are first reviewed by Komal, and then by Amal only if Komal disapproves it. Questions created by Komal are first reviewed by Amal, and then, if required, by Bimal.
The following facts are known about the review process after its completion.
1. Q02, Q06, Q09, Q11, and Q12 were rejected and the other questions were accepted.
2. Amal reviewed only Q02, Q03, Q04, Q06, Q08, Q10, Q11, and Q13.
3. Bimal reviewed only Q02, Q04, Q06 through Q09, Q12, and Q13.
4. Komal reviewed only Q01 through Q05, Q07, Q08, Q09, Q11, and Q12.
10 players – P1, P2, … , P10 - competed in an international javelin throw event. The number(after P) of a player reflects his rank at the beginning of the event, with rank 1 going to the topmost player. There were two phases in the event with the first phase consisting of rounds 1,2, and 3, and the second phase consisting of rounds 4, 5, and 6. A throw is measured in terms of the distance it covers (in meters, up to one decimal point accuracy), only if the throw is a ‘valid’ one. For an invalid throw, the distance is taken as zero. A player’s score at the end of around is the maximum distance of all his throws up to that round. Players are re-ranked after every round based on their current scores. In case of a tie in scores, the player with a prevailing higher rank retains the higher rank. This ranking determines the order in which the players go for their throws in the next round.
In each of the rounds in the first phase, the players throw in increasing order of their latest rank, i.e. the player ranked 1 at that point throws first, followed by the player ranked 2 at that point and so on. The top six players at the end of the first phase qualify for the second phase. In each of the rounds in the second phase, the players throw in decreasing order of their latest rank i.e. the player ranked 6 at that point throws first, followed by the player ranked 5 at that point and so on. The players ranked 1, 2, and 3 at the end of the sixth round receive gold, silver, and bronze medals respectively.
All the valid throws of the event were of distinct distances (as per stated measurement accuracy). The tables below show distances (in meters) covered by all valid throws in the first and the third round in the event. 
Distances covered by all the valid throws in the first round 
PlayerDistance (in m)
P182.9
P381.5
P586.4
P682.5
P787.2
P984.1
Distances covered by all the valid throws in the third round
PlayerDistance (in m)
P188.6
P379.0
P981.4
The following facts are also known.
I. Among the throws in the second round, only the last two were valid. Both the throws enabled these players to qualify for the second phase, with one of them qualifying with the least score. None of these players won any medal.
II. If a player throws first in a round AND he was also the last (among the players in the current round) to throw in the previous round, then the player is said to get a double. Two players got a double.
III. In each round of the second phase, exactly one player improved his score. Each of these improvements was by the same amount.
IV. The gold and bronze medalists improved their scores in the fifth and the sixth rounds respectively. One medal winner improved his score in the fourth round.
V. The difference between the final scores of the gold medalist and the silver medalist, as well as the difference between the final scores of the silver medalist and the bronze medalist was1.0 m.
Ganga, Kaveri, and Narmada are three women who buy four raw materials (Mango, Apple, Banana and Milk) and sell five finished products (Mango smoothie, Apple smoothie, Banana smoothie, Mixed fruit smoothie and Fruit salad). Table-1 gives information about the raw materials required to produce the five finished products. One unit of a finished product requires one unit of each of the raw materials mentioned in the second column of the table.
Finished productRaw materials required
mango smoothieMango, Milk
Apple smoothieApple, Milk
Banana smoothieBanana, Milk
Mixed fruit smoothieMango, Apple, Banana, Milk
Fruit saladMango, Apple, Banana

One unit of milk, mango, apple, and banana cost ₹5, ₹3, ₹2, and ₹1 respectively. Each unit of a finished product is sold for a profit equal to two times the number of raw materials used to make that product. For example, apple smoothie is made with two raw materials (apple and milk) and will be sold for a profit of ₹4 per unit. Leftover raw materials are sold during the last business hour of the day for a loss of ₹1 per unit.
The amount, in rupees, received from sales (revenue) for each woman in each of the four business hours of the day is given in Table-2.

Business HourGangaKaveriNarmada
Hour 1231931
Hour 2212221
Hour 3293023
Hour 4 (last hour)302722

The following additional facts are known.
1. No one except possibly Ganga sold any Mango smoothie.
2. Each woman sold either zero or one unit of any single finished product in any hour.
3. Each woman had exactly one unit each of two different raw materials as leftovers.
4. No one had any banana leftover..

A journal plans to publish 18 research papers, written by eight authors (A, B, C, D, E, F, G, and H) in four issues of the journal scheduled in January, April, July and October. Each of the research papers was written by exactly one of the eight authors. Five papers were scheduled in each of the first two issues, while four were scheduled in each of the last two issues. Every author wrote at least one paper and at most three papers. The total number of papers written by A, D, G and H was double the total number of papers written by the other four authors. Four of the authors were from India and two each were from Japan and China. Each author belonged to exactly one of the three areas — Manufacturing, Automation and Logistics. Four of the authors were from the Logistics area and two were from the Automation area. As per the journal policy, none of the authors could have more than one paper in any issue of the journal.
The following facts are also known.
1. F, an Indian author from the Logistics area, wrote only one paper. It was scheduled in the October issue.
2. A was from the Automation area and did not have a paper scheduled in the October issue.
3. None of the Indian authors were from the Manufacturing area and none of the Japanese or Chinese authors were from the Automation area.
4. A and H were from different countries, but had their papers scheduled in exactly the same issues.
5. C and E, both Chinese authors from different areas, had the same number of papers scheduled. Further, E had papers scheduled in consecutive issues of the journal but C did not.
6. B, from the Logistics area, had a paper scheduled in the April issue of the journal.
7. B and G belonged to the same country. None of their papers were scheduled in the same issue of the journal.
8. D, a Japanese author from the Manufacturing area, did not have a paper scheduled in the July issue.
9. C and H belonged to different areas.
In a certain board examination, students were to appear for examination in five subjects: English, Hindi, Mathematics, Science and Social Science. Due to a certain emergency situation, a few of the examinations could not be conducted for some students. Hence, some students missed one examination and some others missed two examinations. Nobody missed more than two examinations.
The board adopted the following policy for awarding marks to students. If a student appeared in all five examinations, then the marks awarded in each of the examinations were on the basis of the scores obtained by them in those examinations. 
If a student missed only one examination, then the marks awarded in that examination was the average of the best three among the four scores in the examinations they appeared for.
If a student missed two examinations, then the marks awarded in each of these examinations was the average of the best two among the three scores in the examinations they appeared for.
The marks obtained by six students in the examination are given in the table below. Each of them missed either one or two examinations.
 EnglishHindiMathematicsScienceSocial Science
Alva8075707560
Bithi9080558585
Carl75809010090
Deep70901009080
Esha8085956055
Foni8372788883

The following facts are also known.
I. Four of these students appeared in each of the English, Hindi, Science, and Social Science examinations. II. The student who missed the Mathematics examination did not miss any other examination.
III. One of the students who missed the Hindi examination did not miss any other examination. The other student who missed the Hindi examination also missed the Science examination.
For how many students can we be definite about which examinations they missed? [This Question was asked as TITA]