There are 20 slots of 15 minutes each from 9:00 AM to 2:00 PM. There are ten counters in the VPO.
From the given information and condition (1), Total number of applications scheduled = 10 × 20 = 200
From condition (3), Number of US applications = 100. Number of application for rest 3 categories = 100.
From condition (2), Number of US applications for each slot = 100/20 = 5. Similarly, number of applications of rest 3 categories for each slot = 100/20 = 5.
The processing time for an application is the same within each category. But it may vary across the categories.
Depending on the number of applications in a category and time required to process an application for that category,
it is possible that an applicant for a slot may be processed later.
The information can be shown in the table below. 

Step 2:

On a particular day, Ira, Vijay and Nandini were scheduled for Schengen visa processing in that order. They had a 9:15
AM slot but entered the VPO at 9:20 AM i.e., they had delayed by 5 minutes.
So at least 3 people were scheduled for each slot for a Schengen visa.
Mahira and Osman were scheduled in the 9:30 AM slot on that day for visa processing in the Others category.
So at least 2 people were scheduled for each slot for an Others category visa. 

There are 20 slots of 15 minutes each from 9:00 AM to 2:00 PM. There are ten counters in the VPO.
From the given information and condition (1), Total number of applications scheduled = 10 × 20 = 200
From condition (3), Number of US applications = 100. Number of application for rest 3 categories = 100.
From condition (2), Number of US applications for each slot = 100/20 = 5. Similarly, number of applications of rest 3 categories for each slot = 100/20 = 5.
The processing time for an application is the same within each category. But it may vary across the categories.
Depending on the number of applications in a category and time required to process an application for that category,
it is possible that an applicant for a slot may be processed later.
The information can be shown in the table below. 

Step 2:
On a particular day, Ira, Vijay and Nandini were scheduled for Schengen visa processing in that order. They had a 9:15
AM slot but entered the VPO at 9:20 AM i.e., they had delayed by 5 minutes. 

So at least 3 people were scheduled for each slot for a Schengen visa.
Mahira and Osman were scheduled in the 9:30 AM slot on that day for visa processing in the Others category.
So at least 2 people were scheduled for each slot for an Others category visa. 

There are 20 slots of 15 minutes each from 9:00 AM to 2:00 PM. There are ten counters in the VPO.
From the given information and condition (1), Total number of applications scheduled = 10 × 20 = 200
From condition (3), Number of US applications = 100. Number of application for rest 3 categories = 100.
From condition (2), Number of US applications for each slot = 100/20 = 5. Similarly, number of applications of rest 3 categories for each slot = 100/20 = 5.
The processing time for an application is the same within each category. But it may vary across the categories.
Depending on the number of applications in a category and time required to process an application for that category,
it is possible that an applicant for a slot may be processed later.
The information can be shown in the table below. 

Step 2:
On a particular day, Ira, Vijay and Nandini were scheduled for Schengen visa processing in that order. They had a 9:15
AM slot but entered the VPO at 9:20 AM i.e., they had delayed by 5 minutes.
So at least 3 people were scheduled for each slot for a Schengen visa.
Mahira and Osman were scheduled in the 9:30 AM slot on that day for visa processing in the Others category.
So at least 2 people were scheduled for each slot for an Others category visa. 

There are 20 slots of 15 minutes each from 9:00 AM to 2:00 PM. There are ten counters in the VPO.
From the given information and condition (1), Total number of applications scheduled = 10 × 20 = 200
From condition (3), Number of US applications = 100. Number of application for rest 3 categories = 100.
From condition (2), Number of US applications for each slot = 100/20 = 5. Similarly, number of applications of rest 3 categories for each slot = 100/20 = 5.
The processing time for an application is the same within each category. But it may vary across the categories.
Depending on the number of applications in a category and time required to process an application for that category,
it is possible that an applicant for a slot may be processed later.
The information can be shown in the table below. 

On a particular day, Ira, Vijay and Nandini were scheduled for Schengen visa processing in that order. They had a 9:15
AM slot but entered the VPO at 9:20 AM i.e., they had delayed by 5 minutes.
So at least 3 people were scheduled for each slot for a Schengen visa.
Mahira and Osman were scheduled in the 9:30 AM slot on that day for visa processing in the Others category.
So at least 2 people were scheduled for each slot for an Others category visa. 

Step 1:
Mean rating of Ullas is 2.2. So his total rating = 2.2 × 5 = 11.
Since his median rating is 2.
So his middle most rating is 2.
Since his mode rating is 2. So his one more rating is 2.
Since his range of rating is 3. So his two ratings are 1 and 5 or 2 and 5 or 1 and 4.
Hence, only possible ratings of Ullas is (1, 2, 2, 2, 4).
Mean rating of Vasu is 3.8. So his total rating is 3.8 × 5 = 19. His median rating is 4. So his middle most rating is 4.
His mode rating is 4. So his one more rating is 4.
Since range of rating is 3. So only possible ratings of Vasu is (2, 4, 4, 4, 5).
Similarly, possible ratings of Waman, Xavier and Yusuf are (1, 2, 4, 5, 5), (1, 3, 4, 5, 5) and (1, 1, 3,
4, 4) respectively

Step 1:
Mean rating of Ullas is 2.2. So his total rating = 2.2 × 5 = 11.
Since his median rating is 2.
So his middle most rating is 2.
Since his mode rating is 2. So his one more rating is 2.
Since his range of rating is 3. So his two ratings are 1 and 5 or 2 and 5 or 1 and 4.
Hence, only possible ratings of Ullas is (1, 2, 2, 2, 4).
Mean rating of Vasu is 3.8. So his total rating is 3.8 × 5 = 19. His median rating is 4. So his middle most rating is 4.
His mode rating is 4. So his one more rating is 4.
Since range of rating is 3. So only possible ratings of Vasu is (2, 4, 4, 4, 5).
Similarly, possible ratings of Waman, Xavier and Yusuf are (1, 2, 4, 5, 5), (1, 3, 4, 5, 5) and (1, 1, 3,
4, 4) respectively

Step 1:
Mean rating of Ullas is 2.2. So his total rating = 2.2 × 5 = 11.
Since his median rating is 2.
So his middle most rating is 2.
Since his mode rating is 2. So his one more rating is 2.
Since his range of rating is 3. So his two ratings are 1 and 5 or 2 and 5 or 1 and 4.
Hence, only possible ratings of Ullas is (1, 2, 2, 2, 4).
Mean rating of Vasu is 3.8. So his total rating is 3.8 × 5 = 19. His median rating is 4. So his middle most rating is 4.
His mode rating is 4. So his one more rating is 4.
Since range of rating is 3. So only possible ratings of Vasu is (2, 4, 4, 4, 5).
Similarly, possible ratings of Waman, Xavier and Yusuf are (1, 2, 4, 5, 5), (1, 3, 4, 5, 5) and (1, 1, 3,
4, 4) respectively

Step 1:
Mean rating of Ullas is 2.2. So his total rating = 2.2 × 5 = 11.
Since his median rating is 2.
So his middle most rating is 2.
Since his mode rating is 2. So his one more rating is 2.
Since his range of rating is 3. So his two ratings are 1 and 5 or 2 and 5 or 1 and 4.
Hence, only possible ratings of Ullas is (1, 2, 2, 2, 4).
Mean rating of Vasu is 3.8. So his total rating is 3.8 × 5 = 19. His median rating is 4. So his middle most rating is 4.
His mode rating is 4. So his one more rating is 4.
Since range of rating is 3. So only possible ratings of Vasu is (2, 4, 4, 4, 5).
Similarly, possible ratings of Waman, Xavier and Yusuf are (1, 2, 4, 5, 5), (1, 3, 4, 5, 5) and (1, 1, 3,
4, 4) respectively

Step 1:
Mean rating of Ullas is 2.2. So his total rating = 2.2 × 5 = 11.
Since his median rating is 2.
So his middle most rating is 2.
Since his mode rating is 2. So his one more rating is 2.
Since his range of rating is 3. So his two ratings are 1 and 5 or 2 and 5 or 1 and 4.
Hence, only possible ratings of Ullas is (1, 2, 2, 2, 4).
Mean rating of Vasu is 3.8. So his total rating is 3.8 × 5 = 19. His median rating is 4. So his middle most rating is 4.
His mode rating is 4. So his one more rating is 4.
Since range of rating is 3. So only possible ratings of Vasu is (2, 4, 4, 4, 5).
Similarly, possible ratings of Waman, Xavier and Yusuf are (1, 2, 4, 5, 5), (1, 3, 4, 5, 5) and (1, 1, 3,
4, 4) respectively

The paragraph given states that while foreign peacekeepers, due to some valid reasons, tend to live in a bubble in the poor countries where they are deployed, a bottom-up peacebuilding approach working in concert with the locals would be more effective. Option C summarises the paragraph well.
Option A does not touch upon the idea of bottom-up peace building. So, it is incorrect.
The paragraph does not say locals would be better at peacekeeping; B is incorrect.
The paragraph also does not say local anger against foreign peacekeepers makes them 'the target of local anger'. Option D is also incorrect.

The main idea of the given paragraph is that driven by ambition and fear, developing countries are becoming leaders in innovation and are highly competitive both domestically and globally. Option C touches upon all key ideas of the paragraph.
Option A states that developing countries have invented new business models solely to remain competitive domestically. This is incorrect.
Option B is true but is not as comprehensive a summary as option C.
Option D states that production and distribution models are going through innovations 'worldwide'. The paragraph given only talks about developing countries innovating and transforming.

The paragraph given explains the McGurk effect“ the merging of auditory and visual information into a unified integrated percept. Where there is a mismatch of audio and video signals, the message perceived is completely different from either of the signals. Option D summarises the paragraph well.
Option A is incorrect, as it says that the 'acoustic speech signal is confusing and integration of the two is imperfect'. The integration of the signals is not imperfect and both speech and audio signals are perceived differently in case of a mismatch.
Option B is incorrect too, as there is no 'winning' signal.
What option C states is true, but it does not summarise the main idea of the paragraph.

The passage states that 'most of the animals' that can exercise self-control are social. Cuttlefish exhibit self-control and are not social. So, option A is not inferred from the experiment.
Options B, C and D are easily inferred from the information given in the passage.

The passage does not state that the modified version of the marshmallow test aimed to correlate self-control with survival advantages.
The differences mentioned in options B, C and D are discussed in the passage. While in the original test, children had to wait for 15 minutes to get the second marshmallow, the longest a cuttlefish waited was 130 seconds. Options C and D are clearly true.

The key finding of the experiment is that cuttlefish exhibit self-control. According to the passage, species that exhibit self-control are usually social. Cuttlefish are not. But if it were true that cuttlefish exhibit sociability, you could conclude that like most other social creatures, cuttlefish, too, exhibit self-control. So if option B were true, the findings of the passage would be in line with what is generally observed. So, that way, it would complement the findings.
All other options don't relate positively with the passage's findings. The passage states cuttlefish waited up to 130 sec for the shrimp to be released, so option 1 doesn't add to the findings in any way. If the cuttlefish cannot recognise shapes, then the basic premise of the experiment“ that they see the shape pasted on the drawer and decide whether to wait“ is negated. If cuttlefish are equally fond of shrimp and prawn, there is no reason for them to wait. So, all other options are ruled out.

In the experiment, cuttlefish were trained to recognise circle to mean 'immediate', triangle to mean 'delayed' and square to mean 'never'. The passage also states that cuttlefishes' favorite food is live grass shrimp, while raw prawns are so-so and Asian shore crab is nearly unacceptable. So, the cuttlefish would demonstrate self -control if they waited for live grass shrimp labelled with a triangle to be opened while other food was readily available.

Another tricky question. The passage states that 'in More's time, for much of the population, given the plenty and security on offer, such restraints would not have seemed overly unreasonable'. Option A alters a few words and changes the meaning of what is stated in the passage. The passage does not say people 'need' restraints.
Option B is true, based on the second paragraph which states that the tradition which follows More 'often portrays societies where . . . 'it would be almost impossible for man to be depraved, or wicked'.
Option C is true based on the last few lines of the passage: 'For we have only to acknowledge the existence of thousands of successful intentional communities in which a cooperative ethos predominates and where harmony without coercion is the rule to set aside such an assertion'.
From the last few lines of the second paragraph, we know option D is true : 'Unity, order, and homogeneity thus prevail at the cost of individuality and diversity. This model, as J. C. Davis demonstrates, dominated early modern utopianism'.

Note these lines that describe Utopia in the first paragraph: 'Utopia appears to rely upon relentless transparency, the repression of variety, and the curtailment of privacy. Utopia provides security: but at what price?' So, institutional surveillance in the name of security can be seen as a characteristic of a Utopian society. Options A and D are also ruled out from these lines. In the second paragraph, the passage mentions that Utopia curbs the desire for public power and promotes equality. So, option C is also incorrect.

A tricky question. All options contain words that are key ideas in the passage. So, to choose the correct option, we need to look at an important idea that is missed in some options. Options B and C can be ruled out this way, as they do not mention 'intentional communities' which is a key idea in the last paragraph. Between options A and B, option A does not mention the idea of 'homogeneity', which the passage talks about in detail in the second paragraph. Option D includes both these ideas and hence it best captures the narrative of the passage.