aa008 wrote:

The number of wins of Nadal in 2002 is how much percentage, more than that of 2004? Given that he won more number of matches in 2002 than in 2004?

1). The number of wins in 2002 and that in 2003 are in the ration 3:7 and in 2004 he won 5 matches.

2). The number of wins in 2003 and in 2004 are in the ratio 21:5 and he won 9 matches in 2002.

OA: BWe have to find \(\frac{W_{2002}-W_{2004}}{W_{2004}}*100\)

Given: \(W_{2002} > W_{2004}\)

1). The number of wins in \(2002\) and that in \(2003\) are in the ration \(3:7\) and in \(2004\) he won \(5\) matches.

As \(W_{2002} > W_{2004}\); and as per statement \(1\), \(W_{2002}\) is a multiple of \(3\).

\(W_{2002}\) can be \(6,9,12,15,...................\) and so on.

So We cannot find a unique value of \(\frac{W_{2002}-W_{2004}}{W_{2004}}*100\)

Statement \(1\) alone is insufficient.

2). The number of wins in \(2003\) and in \(2004\) are in the ratio \(21:5\) and he won \(9\) matches in \(2002\).

As \(W_{2002} > W_{2004}\); and as per statement 2, \(W_{2004}\) is a multiple of \(5\).

\(W_{2004}\) can only be \(5\) , as \(W_{2004} =10,15,20,.........\) voilates the information given in question stem.

\(\frac{W_{2002}-W_{2004}}{W_{2004}}*100=\frac{9-5}{5}*100=80\)%

Statement \(2\) alone is sufficient.

_________________

Good, good Let the kudos flow through you