Good in English = Y, Z; hence W /∈ English.
Also given: Good in Science = W, X, Y, Z (i.e., all four).
Check each option:
(a) Requires W to be good in English, but W is not in the English set ⇒ (a) is false.
(b) Matches the Science set exactly: W, X, Y, Z ⇒ (b) is true.
(c) Science holds for W , but we have no confirmed data that W is good in Social Studies and
Hindi ⇒ not definitely true.
(d) A three-subject not-good claim about Y (Mathematics, Hindi, Social Studies) is unsupported by the facts ⇒ not definitely true.
Therefore, only (b) is definitely true.
The 12 musical notes are given as \( C, C^\#, D, D^\#, E, F, F^\#, G, G^\#, A, A^\#, B \). Frequency of each note is \( \sqrt[12]{2} \) times the frequency of the previous note. If the frequency of the note C is 130.8 Hz, then the ratio of frequencies of notes F# and C is:
Eight students (P, Q, R, S, T, U, V, and W) are playing musical chairs. The figure indicates their order of position at the start of the game. They play the game by moving forward in a circle in the clockwise direction.
After the 1st round, the 4th student behind P leaves the game.
After the 2nd round, the 5th student behind Q leaves the game.
After the 3rd round, the 3rd student behind V leaves the game.
After the 4th round, the 4th student behind U leaves the game.
Who all are left in the game after the 4th round?

Shown on the left is a set of equations. Which option belongs to the same set? 
Shown below is an arrangement of closely stacked spheres. Assume each one to be in contact with its immediate neighbour. What is the total number of points where the spheres touch each other?
From a very early age, I knew that when I grew up, I should be a writer. I had the lonely child's habit of making up stories and holding conversations with imaginary persons, and I think from the very start my literary ambitions were mixed up with the feeling of being isolated and undervalued. I knew that I had a facility with words and a power of facing unpleasant facts, and I felt that this created a sort of private world in which I could get my own back for my failure in everyday life. I wanted to write enormous naturalistic novels with unhappy endings, full of detailed descriptions and arresting similes, and also full of purple passages in which words were used partly for the sake of their sound. I give all this background information because I do not think one can assess a writer's motives without knowing something of his early development.
His subject-matter will be determined by the age he lives in — at least this is true in tumultuous, revolutionary ages like our own — but before he ever begins to write he will have acquired an emotional attitude from which he will never completely escape. It is his job to discipline his temperament, but if he escapes from his early influences altogether, he will have killed his impulse to write. I think there are four great motives for writing, at any rate for writing prose. They are: (i) Sheer egoism: Desire to seem clever, to be talked about, to be remembered after death, to get your own back on grown-ups who snubbed you in childhood; (ii) Aesthetic enthusiasm: Desire to share an experience which one feels is valuable and ought not to be missed (iii) Historical impulse: Desire to see things as they are, to find out true facts and store them up for the use of posterity (iv) Political purpose: Desire to push the world in a certain direction, to alter other people's idea of the kind of society that they should strive after.
[Extracted with edits from George Orwell's "Why I Write"]