Six persons, S, T, U, V, W, and X, sit in a straight row facing north. Who…
2025
Six persons, S, T, U, V, W, and X, sit in a straight row facing north. Who sits immediately to the left of V?
Statement I: S sits second to the right of W. U sits immediately to the right of S. V sits somewhere to the left of W. Exactly three persons sit between X and U.
Statement II: One person sits between T and S. X sits immediately to the right of T. V sits second to the right of T. W is not an immediate neighbour of S.
- A.
Data given in statement I alone is sufficient to answer
- B.
Data given in both statements I and II together are sufficient to answer
- C.
Data given in statement II alone is sufficient to answer
- D.
Data given in either statement I or statement II alone is sufficient to answer
- E.
Data given in both statements I and II together are not sufficient to answer
Attempted by 1 students.
Show answer & explanation
Correct answer: D
Concept: A Data Sufficiency question is resolved by testing each statement on its own first. A statement is sufficient only if applying just its own clues eliminates every rival seating and leaves exactly one arrangement — enough to answer the question with certainty. Only if neither statement alone achieves this do the two get combined.
Statement I alone: Number the seats 1 (leftmost) to 6 (rightmost); “second to the right of” and “immediately to the right of” both mean a higher seat number.
From “S sits second to the right of W” and “U sits immediately to the right of S”: seat(S) = seat(W) + 2 and seat(U) = seat(S) + 1 = seat(W) + 3. Since seat(U) cannot exceed 6, W can only be 1, 2, or 3.
W = 1 fails: “V sits to the left of W” would need a seat before seat 1, which does not exist.
W = 2 fails: it forces S = 4, U = 5, and the only seat left of W (seat 1) goes to V. “Exactly three persons between X and U” then needs X at seat 1 or seat 9 — seat 1 is already V's and seat 9 does not exist, so X has nowhere to sit.
W = 3 works: S = 5, U = 6. “Exactly three persons between X and U (seat 6)” needs X at seat 2. That leaves only seat 1 for V, which satisfies “V left of W (seat 3)”, and seat 4 goes to T by elimination.
This gives one, and only one, seating: seat 1 = V, seat 2 = X, seat 3 = W, seat 4 = T, seat 5 = S, seat 6 = U.
V occupies the leftmost seat, so no one sits to V's left — a definite, if unusual, answer. Statement I alone is therefore sufficient.
Statement II alone: Apply its four clues the same way.
From “X sits immediately to the right of T” and “V sits second to the right of T”: seat(X) = seat(T) + 1 and seat(V) = seat(T) + 2.
“One person sits between T and S” means seat(S) = seat(T) + 2 or seat(T) − 2; seat(T) + 2 already belongs to V, so seat(S) = seat(T) − 2, which needs seat(T) ≥ 3.
seat(T) = 4 fails: seat(S) = 2, whose only neighbouring seats are 1 and 3; “W is not an immediate neighbour of S” rules out both of the remaining free seats for W.
seat(T) = 3 works: seat(S) = 1, seat(X) = 4, seat(V) = 5. Of the two seats left (2 and 6), seat 2 is the only neighbour of S, so W (barred from neighbouring S) must take seat 6, leaving seat 2 for U.
This gives one, and only one, seating: seat 1 = S, seat 2 = U, seat 3 = T, seat 4 = X, seat 5 = V, seat 6 = W.
Here X sits immediately to the left of V — again one definite answer. Statement II alone is therefore also sufficient, even though it produces a different seating (and a different specific answer) from Statement I.
Cross-check: Each statement, followed through on its own clues, eliminates every rival case down to exactly one seating — so each independently answers the question without needing the other. The two seatings genuinely differ, which is exactly why the answer is that either statement alone suffices, rather than that both are needed together.
Answer: Since each statement alone pins down its own unique, determinate seating, data given in either statement I or statement II alone is sufficient to answer the question.