Given:
Possible groupings for 5 votes:
Cases (b) and (c) violate the limit of 1 candidate from O&Q and make it hard to balance remaining departments.
Case (a) is only valid if all 5 votes came from a single department. That’s only possible in M&S (7 total members - 2 candidates = 5 voters).
So the department-wise breakdown becomes:
F&A | M&S | O&Q | B&H | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Total members | 9 | 7 | 5 | 3 |
Candidates | 0 | 2 | 1 | 1 |
Non-candidates | 9 | 5 | 4 | 2 |
Now vote distribution by candidate:
P | Q | R | S | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Total Votes | 3 | 14 | 6 | 1 |
Self Vote | 1 (S) | 1 (R) | 1 (P) | 1 (Q) |
From Non-candidates | 2 | 13 | 5 | 0 |
Source Dept(s) | B&H | F&A + O&Q | M&S | — |
From M&S:
There are 2 candidates. Since R got 5 votes from M&S, R is not a candidate from M&S (his department voted for him).
So possible candidates from M&S are: (P, Q), (P, S), or (Q, S)
From vote data and department constraints, P and Q are the only consistent pair from M&S.
Therefore, final assignment cases:
F&A | M&S | O&Q | B&H | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Case 1 | 0 | P, Q | R | S |
Case 2 | 0 | P, Q | S | R |
Conclusion:
The correct pair of candidates from M&S is Prof. Pakrasi and Prof. Qureshi.
Correct answer: Option A: Prof. Pakrasi and Prof. Qureshi
Here's the extracted data and reasoning:
1. Total Votes for Prof. Qureshi:
- Prof. Qureshi received a total of 14 votes in the election.
2. Voting Constraints:
- Each department votes as a block: all non-candidate members vote for the same candidate.
- A candidate cannot receive votes from their own department.
3. Department Sizes:
- F&A: 9 members
- M&S: 7 members
- O&Q: 5 members
- B&H: 3 members
4. Possible Voting Scenarios:
- Prof. Qureshi must have received votes from departments other than his own.
- The maximum votes he could receive from a single department is from F&A (9 votes).
- Since he got a total of 14 votes, it's plausible that he received 9 from F&A and the remaining 5 from another department (e.g., O&Q or M&S).
Conclusion:
- The maximum number of votes Prof. Qureshi could have received from a single department is 9.
Therefore, the correct answer is: Option 4: (9)
To determine the truth of statements A and B based on the information that Prof. Samuel belongs to the B&H department, let’s analyze the constraints:
1. Departmental Composition:
- Each department has a limited number of faculty members.
- Only one candidate can be from the O&Q department.
- Prof. Samuel is confirmed to be from B&H, so no other candidate can belong to B&H.
2. Analysis of Statement A:
- Statement A: "Prof. Pakrasi belongs to M&S."
- M&S is a large department and can feasibly have one candidate.
- No restriction is violated if Prof. Pakrasi is from M&S.
⇒ Statement A is true.
3. Analysis of Statement B:
- Statement B: "Prof. Ramaswamy belongs to O&Q."
- Since only one candidate can be from O&Q and Prof. Samuel is in B&H, it is possible for Prof. Ramaswamy to be the sole O&Q candidate.
- This also maintains correct departmental representation.
⇒ Statement B is true.
4. Conclusion:
- Both statements A and B are consistent with the provided constraints.
Therefore, the correct answer is: Option 2: Both statements A and B.
To deduce which candidate might belong to the O&Q department, let’s apply the constraints:
1. Departmental Constraint:
- Only one candidate can belong to the O&Q department.
- O&Q has only 5 faculty members, making it smaller than F&A or M&S.
2. Process of Elimination:
- Prof. Pakrasi and Prof. Qureshi received a large number of votes.
- This suggests they were likely supported by large departments (such as F&A or M&S).
- Since O&Q is a small department, it is unlikely that either belongs to O&Q.
3. Remaining Candidates:
- That leaves Prof. Ramaswamy and Prof. Samuel.
- Based on available data, either of them could feasibly be from O&Q.
4. Conclusion:
- The candidate from O&Q is either Prof. Ramaswamy or Prof. Samuel.
Therefore, the correct answer is: Option 1: It was either Prof. Ramaswamy or Prof. Samuel.
To determine the truth of each statement based on the information provided:
1. Voting Patterns and Departmental Rules:
- All non-candidates in each department voted for a single candidate who was not from their own department.
- Prof. Qureshi received a substantial number of votes (14 votes), suggesting that multiple departments voted for him.
2. Analysis of Statement A:
- Statement A: "Non-candidates from M&S voted for Prof. Qureshi."
- If M&S had voted for Prof. Qureshi, then all non-candidates in M&S must have done so (as per the rule).
- But based on vote distribution and the need to allocate total votes properly, it is unlikely that M&S voted for Prof. Qureshi.
⇒ Statement A is unlikely to be true.
3. Analysis of Statement B:
- Statement B: "Non-candidates from F&A voted for Prof. Qureshi."
- F&A is the largest department (9 members), and could account for a significant portion of Qureshi's 14 votes.
- This aligns with the possibility of multiple departments supporting Qureshi.
⇒ Statement B is likely to be true.
4. Conclusion:
- Only Statement B is supported by the data.
Thus, the correct answer is: Option 4: Only statement B.