Scheme A offers R% p.a. compound interest, compounded annually. Find the value…
2020
Scheme A offers R% p.a. compound interest, compounded annually. Find the value of R.
Statement I – The interest received on Rs. (2/5)P at simple interest for 11 years at the rate of (R/4)% p.a. is half of the interest when Rs. P is invested in Scheme A for 2 years.
Statement II – Rs. X is invested in Scheme A for two years and it amounts to Rs. 3600. If Rs. (16/25)X is invested at the rate of (R – 10)% on compound interest annually for two years, then it amounts to Rs. 1936.
Statement III – When Rs. Q is invested in Scheme A for two years and for three years, the difference between the interests is Rs. 1152.
- A.
Statement (I) alone is sufficient to answer the question
- B.
Statement (II) alone is sufficient to answer the question
- C.
All the three statements taken together are necessary to answer the question
- D.
Either statement (I) alone or statements (II) and (III) together are sufficient to answer the question
- E.
Either statement (I) alone or statement (II) alone is sufficient to answer the question
Show answer & explanation
Correct answer: E
Concept
This is a data-sufficiency question: the task is not to compute a single number but to judge, for each statement independently, whether the data it carries is enough to pin down R uniquely. The two governing tools are the simple-interest formula SI = P·T·r/100 and the compound-interest amount A = P(1 + r/100)n. Because Scheme A is described as offering an R% rate of interest, R is a genuine positive interest rate, so R = 0 (a no-interest scheme) is not an admissible value. A statement is sufficient only when the unknown principal cancels out, leaving one admissible value of R; if a statement still contains an extra unknown alongside R, it cannot fix R by itself.
Applying it to each statement
Statement I.
SI on Rs. (2/5)P for 11 years at (R/4)% = (2/5)P · 11 · (R/4)/100 = 11PR/1000.
CI on Rs. P in Scheme A for 2 years = P[(1 + R/100)2 − 1] = P(200R + R²)/10000.
Given SI is half of that CI: 11PR/1000 = ½ · P(200R + R²)/10000.
P cancels. Multiply through by 20000: 220R = 200R + R², so R² − 20R = 0, giving R(R − 20) = 0.
The roots are R = 0 and R = 20; R = 0 is rejected because a 0% scheme carries no interest and contradicts the stem, leaving the single admissible value R = 20. The principal vanished and only one valid R survives — so this statement is sufficient on its own.
Statement II.
X(1 + R/100)2 = 3600 (Scheme A, 2 years).
(16/25)X(1 + (R − 10)/100)2 = 1936.
Divide the second amount by the first to cancel X: (16/25)·[(1 + (R − 10)/100)/(1 + R/100)]² = 1936/3600.
So [(1 + (R − 10)/100)/(1 + R/100)]² = 1936/2304 = (44/48)² = (11/12)².
Take the positive root: (1 + (R − 10)/100)/(1 + R/100) = 11/12. Let a = 1 + R/100; then (a − 0.1)/a = 11/12, so 12a − 1.2 = 11a, giving a = 1.2 and R = 20 — a single value, with no spurious root. So this statement is also sufficient on its own.
Statement III.
Interest difference = Q(1 + R/100)3 − Q(1 + R/100)2 = Q(1 + R/100)²·(R/100) = 1152.
This is a single equation in two unknowns, Q and R. The principal Q does not cancel, so R cannot be determined — this statement is not sufficient by itself.
Cross-check and conclusion
Statement I → R = 20 alone (R = 0 inadmissible); Statement II → R = 20 alone with no extra root; Statement III → cannot fix R alone.
Plugging R = 20 back: in I, 11·20/1000 = 0.22 and ½·(200·20 + 400)/10000 = ½·0.44 = 0.22 ✓; in II, with a = 1.2 the ratio is (1.1/1.2) = 11/12 ✓.
Therefore either the first statement alone or the second statement alone is sufficient, and the third adds nothing on its own.