List of top Questions asked in Symbiosis National Aptitude Test

Please read the following information and answer the questions.
There are 12 seats in total which are arranged as 6 in a row facing each other. Ten people have occupied the seats in such a way that 5 are seated in each row and there is equal distance between adjacent seats. In row 1, Sadhana, David, Lakshmi, Sonal and Anu are seated and all of them are facing south. In row 2, Lily, Suresh, Deepika, Mahesh and Arvind are sitting and all of them are facing north. One seat is vacant in each row. In
the given seating arrangement described above, each person seated in a row faces another member of the other row or a vacant seat. Each member likes only one activity or sport namely, kabaddi, Cricket, Baseball, Chess, Wrestling, Boating, walking, Running, Swimming and Skating. Mahesh sits third to the right of Deepika and likes Chess. Only 2 people sit between Suresh and the vacant seat. Suresh sits at one of the extreme
end. Deepika does not like Kabbadi and Running. Suresh does not like Wrestling and Baseball. Ann is not an immediate neighbor of Lakshmi. David likes Skating. The one who likes Baseball faces the other one who likes Running. Vacant seat of row 1 does not face Mahesh and he does not sit at any extreme ends. The one who likes baseball sits opposite to the one, who sits third right of the one, who sits opposite to Mahesh. Lakshmi is not an immediate neighbor of Sonal. Arvind, who neither likes Wrestling nor Boating does not face vacant seat and sits opposite to the person who likes Kabaddi. Deepika does not sit at extreme ends. Sonal faces Deepika. Vacant seats are not opposite to each other. Two seats are there between Lakshmi and David. David sits third right of the one who likes Walking. The one who likes swimming faces the one who likes chess. The person who likes kabaddi and running are adjacent to each other. Vacant seat of the row 1 is not an immediate neighbor of Sonal. Lakshmi is located at an extreme end.
Read the following passage and answer the questions that follow.
ASSOCIATED PRESS
San Francisco August 13 2018
Google wants to know where you go so badly that it records your movements even when you explicitly tell it not to. An Associated Press investigation found that many Google services on Android devices and iPhones store your location data even if you've used privacy settings that say they will prevent it from doing so. Computer science researchers at Princeton confirmed these findings at the AP's request. For the most part,
Google is upfront about asking permission to use your location information. An app like Google Maps will remind you to allow access to location if you use it for navigating. If you agree to let it record your location over time, Google Maps will display that history for you in a "timeline" that maps out your daily movements. Storing your minute-by—minute travels carries privacy risks and has been used by police to determine the
location of suspects - such as a warrant that police in North Carolina, served on Google last year to find devices near a murder scene. So the company will let you "pause' a setting called Location History. Google says this will prevent the company from remembering where you have been. Google’s support page on the subject states. "You can turn off Location History at any time. With Location History off, the places you go
are no longer stored”. That isn’t true. Even with Location History paused, some Google apps automatically store time — stamped location data without asking. For example, Google stores a snapshot of where you are when you merely open its Maps app. Automatic daily weather updates on Android phones pinpoint roughly where you are. And some searches that have nothing to do with location, like “chocolate chip cookies" or
"kids science kits," pinpoint your precise latitude and longitude — accurate to the square foot and save it to the Google account. The privacy issue affects some two billion users of devices that run Google's Android operating software and hundreds of millions of world wide iPhone users who rely on Google for maps or search. Storing location data in violation of a user’s preferences is wrong, said Ionathon Mayer, a Princeton
computer scientist. A researcher from Mayer’s lab confirmed the AP's findings; the AP conducted its own tests on several iPhones that found the same behaviour. “If you are going to allow users to turn off something called ‘Location History‘, then all the places where you maintain ‘Location History' should be turned off," Mayer said. "That seems like a pretty straightforward position to have”. Google says it is being
perfectly clear. "There are a number of different ways that Google may use location to improve people’s experience, including: Location History, Web and App activity and through device-level Location Services" a Google spokesperson said. "We provide clear descriptions of these tools, and robust controls, so people can turn them on and off, and delete their histories at any time." To stop Google from saving these location
markers, the company says, users can turn off another setting, one that does not specifically reference location information. Called "Web and App activity" and enabled by default, that setting stores a variety of information from Google apps and websites to your Google account. When paused, it will prevent activity on any device from being saved to your account But leaving "Web and App activity” on and turning "Location
History" off only prevents Google from adding your movements to the "timeline", its visualization of your daily travels. It does not stop Google’s collection of other location markers.
Read the following passage and answer the questions that follow. Frederic Bastiat, who was that rarest of creatures, a French free-market economist, wrote to this newspaper in 1846 to express a noble and romantic hope: ”May all the nations soon throw down the barriers which
separate them." Those words were echoed 125 years later by the call of John Lennon, who was not an economist but a rather successful global capitalist, to "imagine there's no countries”. As he said in his 1971 song. it isn't hard to do. But despite the spectacular rise in living standards that has occurred as barriers between nations have fallen, and despite the resulting escape from poverty by hundreds of millions of people in those places that have joined the world economy, it is still hard to convince publics and politicians of the merits of openness. Now, once again, a queue is forming to denounce openness—i.e, globalisation. It is putting at risk the next big advance in trade liberalisation and the next big reduction in poverty in the developing countries. The world will find out, to some extent, next month when ministers from the 148 countries in the WTO meet in Hong Kong. The last time they gathered for such a crucial meeting was in September 2003 in Cancun, and the result was a shambles. There was a bitter row between rich countries and poor ones, and the meeting broke up in acrimony. At that stage, however, there was still plenty of time to repair the damage. For in effect, the deadline for the Doha round comes in June 2007, when the trade- negotiating authority granted by Congress to President Bush expires. But, although that leaves more than a year and a half after Hong Kong, the complexity of a negotiation involving 148 countries and scores of highly technical issues means that the deal really needs to be done during 2006, with the political framework for it
set early on—which essentially means in Hong Kong. The case for selfish generosity Trade- liberalisation rounds are arcane affairs about which free-traders are often thought to cry wolf. The previous talks, known as the Uruguay round, went through lots of brinkmanship and delays before they were completed. The result was still disappointing in many ways, especially to developing countries, and yet, since the round's
completion in 1993, the world economy has grown lustily and the biggest developing countries, China, India and Brazil, have all burst on to the global trading scene. Would the world really be hurt if the EU merely refuses to expose its farmers to more competition? The likeliest outcome both from the Hong Kong meeting and the eventual Doha agreement is a compromise—as always. The European position is feeble but not risible, for it has offered an overall average cut in its farm tariffs of 39%, up from 25% only a month ago, though with rather a lot of loop holes that could severely limit the benefits. France, and other European farm protectionists, may prove more flexible than they currently imply: this is hardly the first time they have promised to man the barricades shortly before striking a deal. Yet though some sort of fudge in Hong Kong must be likely, with the Americans lowering their ambition and the Europeans raising theirs a little, such an outcome would still represent both a missed opportunity and a risk. The missed opportunity is that Doha has offered the first proper chance to involve developing countries in trade negotiations—they now make up two- thirds of the WTO members—but also thereby to use a full exchange of agricultural, industrial and service liberalisations to make a big advance in free trade that could benefit a wide range of countries. Some of that progress may still be made, even in a fudged deal: Brazil, for example, stands to benefit hugely from freer trade in agriculture, so it should be willing to promote other concessions in return. India is
reluctant to cut its own farm tariffs but has a big interest in liberalising trade in services, wanting more freedom in everything from finance to health care to entertainment But if the rich world could gird itself to be more ambitious on agriculture, the gains would be even greater: help for the poorest countries, making the rich look generous; better access to the biggest and richest developing countries for western companies;
and a rise in global income in a decade's time of $300 billion a year (says the World Bank), which would thus help everyone. The risk is that failure to agree on a new wave of openness during a period [the past two years) in which the world economy has been growing at its fastest for three decades, with more countries sharing in that grth than ever before, will set a sour political note for what may well be tougher times ahead.
A turn away from trade liberalisation just ahead of an American recession, say, or a Chinese economic slowdown, could open up a chance not just for a slowdown in progress but for a rollback Currently, for example, the Schumer bill to put a penal tariff on Chinese goods looks unlikely to pass. If American unemployment were rising and world trade talks had turned acrimonious, that might change. So might the political wind in many developing countries. If so, that would be a tragedy for the whole world. Although the case for reducing poverty by sending more aid to the poorest countries has some merit, the experience of China, South Korea, Chile and India shows that the much better and more powerful way to deal with poverty is to use the solution that worked in the past in America, western Europe and japan: open, trading economies, exploiting the full infrastructure of capitalism (including financial services) amid a rule of law provided by government In other words, globalisation. To paraphrase Samuel Johnson, anyone who is tired of that, is tired of life.