Explanation

• The person moves 15 km north, then 10 km west, then 15 km south.
• The north and south movements cancel out, leaving 10 km west.

Last verified on 01-09-2026

Explanation

Put A at center:

1. B is in the east of A -> B is to the East

2. B is in the north of C -> C is to the South of B, so C is South-East of A

3. C is in the west of D -> D is to the East of C

So D is further East and still South of A.

D is in the South-East direction of A.

Last verified on 20-10-2026

Explanation

• Since all laptops are computers and no computer is a mobile phone, no laptop can be a mobile phone.
• This conclusion follows directly from the given statements.

Last verified on 01-08-2026

Explanation

Rules to check:

1. P before Q

2. R immediately before S (RS as a block)

3. Q ≠ Day 4

P, Q, R, S

P before Q? Yes (Day1 before Day2)

R immediately before S? Yes (Day3 and Day4)

Q not on Day4? Yes, Q is on Day2

Last verified on 17-10-2026

Explanation

Let's check with Venn diagrams:

Statements:

1. All investigators are trained officers. → Investigators ⊂ Trained Officers

2. Some trained officers are lawyers. → Trained Officers ∩ Lawyers ≠ ∅

3. No lawyer is an accountant. → Lawyers ∩ Accountants = ∅

Conclusions:

I. Some investigators are lawyers.

We know investigators are trained officers, and some trained officers are lawyers. But we don't know if those "some" overlap with investigators.  

→ Does not follow

II. No investigator is an accountant.  

We know no lawyer is an accountant. But we don't know if investigators are lawyers. Investigators could still be accountants since we have no direct link between investigators and accountants.  

→ Does not follow

III. Some trained officers are not accountants.

Some trained officers are lawyers. And no lawyer is an accountant.  

So those trained officers who are lawyers cannot be accountants.  

→ Follows

Answer: Only III follows

Last verified on 12-07-2026