Bissoy.com
Doctors Medicines MCQs Q&A

In a cricket tournament, 5 teams played against each other team twice. Top two teams qualified for finals. Australia had won 2 matches greater than England. Pakistan has lost 3 matches greater than India. Srilanka had won more matches than England but less than Pakistan. Which team lost more matches?

In a cricket tournament, 5 teams played against each other team twice. Top two teams qualified for finals. Australia had won 2 matches greater than England. Pakistan has lost 3 matches greater than India. Srilanka had won more matches than England but less than Pakistan. Which team lost more matches? Correct Answer England

5 teams: Australia, England, Sri Lanka, India and Pakistan

1. Australia had won 2 matches greater than England.

Australia > England

2. Pakistan had lost 3 matches greater than India.

(This means India had won 3 matches greater than Pakistan)

India > Pakistan

3. Sri Lanka had won more matches than England but less than Pakistan.

India > Pakistan > Sri Lanka > Australia > England

Clearly England lost more number of matches.

Related Questions

Among the five international participants, Pakistan, Australia, England, India, and Bangladesh in a Cricket tournament, the score obtained by India is more than Australia and Pakistan. England‘s score is less than that of Australia but more than Pakistan. Bangladesh‘s score is more than Pakistan and England but less than that of Australia. Who scored the highest and the second-lowest among all the five participants?
There is a hint in this question and a statement is given later. Carefully read the excerpts provided and determine the statement based on that episode. The current Australian team has lost three of their last five Test series. They lost their last two Test series, one of which was against Pakistan, which is not considered to be a strong team now. Australia's two best batsman, Steve Smith and David Warner are currently suspended and their absence has weakened the Australian team. There is a lot of dissatisfaction and introspection about how their national team plays in Australia, how they show aggression on the field, how they do not show respect to the team against them, and neglecting the media at the most, and focusing only on winning only, the discussion on the future of the game is ongoing. There are. Australian cricket never reached such a low level. This is the best opportunity to knock them into their own house. In other words, if this India could not beat Australia in Australia in this series, then it would prove that the campaign around this team is only the same: the propaganda. Legislation: The current Australian team won two of the last five Tests they played. Choose the right one from the next option A - The statement is completely true. B - Statement is most true. C - There is no definitive definition based on C-statement. D- Statement is completely false.
There is a hint in this question and a statement is given later. Carefully read the excerpts provided and determine the statement based on that episode. The current Australian team has lost three of their last five Test series. They lost their last two Test series, one of which was against Pakistan, which is not considered to be a strong team now. Australia's two best batsman, Steve Smith and David Warner are currently suspended and their absence has weakened the Australian team. There is a lot of dissatisfaction and introspection about how their national team plays in Australia, how they show aggression on the field, how they do not show respect to the team against them, and neglecting the media at the most, and focusing only on winning only, the discussion on the future of the game is ongoing. There are. Australian cricket never reached such a low level. This is the best opportunity to knock them into their own house. In other words, if this India could not beat Australia in Australia in this series, then it would prove that the campaign around this team is only the same: the propaganda. Statement: India has a good chance of defeating Australia. Choose the right one from the next option A - The statement is completely true. B - statement is most true. There is no definitive definition based on C-statement. D-statement is completely false.
In a football tournament, team ‘A’ won more matches than team ‘B’, Team ‘C’ won more matches than team ‘D’. Team ‘G’ won more matches than team ‘A’ but NOT more team ‘D’. who among the given teams won the least number of matches?
In the next World cup of cricket there will be 12 teams, divided equally in two groups. Teams of each group will play a match against each other. From each group 3 top teams will qualify for the next round. In this round each team will play against each others once. Four top teams of this round will qualify for the semifinal round, where they play the best of three matches. The Minimum number of matches in the next World cup will be:
A tennis player before playing a major tournament had a win ratio of 2 : 3. Win ratio is defined as the ratio of the number of matches won to the total number of matches played by a player. The player won 4 out of 5 matches played in the Australian Open and his win ratio after it is more than 69 : 100. What could be the maximum total number of matches played by the player including the matches played in the Australian Open?
Read the passage and answer the questions that follow. Unsurprisingly, the latest conviction comes a month after the FATF, a global dirty money watchdog, urged Pakistan to complete an internationally agreed action plan to fight terror financing. In February 2018, Pakistan endorsed a UN list of terrorist organizations operating in the country and enforced a nationwide ban on them, including the LeT and the JuD, just before a meeting of the FATF. But the FATF still placed Pakistan on its “grey list” in June 2018, and demanded more actions from Islamabad to avoid being blacklisted, which could invite economic sanctions. Ever since, Pakistan, which cannot afford to be blacklisted, especially when its economy is in shambles, has moved against Saeed. The Anti-Terrorism Department’s FIRs against Saeed and his aides accuse the JuD of financing terrorism from its fund collections in the name of charity through NGOs. While the authorities’ move against Saeed is welcome, the question is whether these are genuine attempts to fight terrorism or half-hearted measures to dodge international pressure. There are doubts because Pakistan had used anti-India and anti-Afghan terrorist networks for strategic advantages. It was this dual policy of fighting terror at home while nurturing terror groups that target its rivals abroad that has been responsible for Pakistan’s predicament. If it is serious about fighting terrorism, Pakistan should crackdown on terror financing and terror infrastructure. The international community and organizations, including the FATF, should keep up the pressure until Islamabad shows tangible outcomes. According to the passage, why FATF did not remove Pakistan from the "grey list"?
Following pie charts present the total runs scored by two teams A and B respectively against each other in the five one day matches. Total Runs Scored by Two Teams in 5 Matches If the total runs scored by the two teams A and B in 5 matches are 1800 and 1700, respectively then what is the number of matches won by team A out of the 5 given matches?
Read the passage and answer the questions that follow. Unsurprisingly, the latest conviction comes a month after the FATF, a global dirty money watchdog, urged Pakistan to complete an internationally agreed action plan to fight terror financing. In February 2018, Pakistan endorsed a UN list of terrorist organizations operating in the country and enforced a nationwide ban on them, including the LeT and the JuD, just before a meeting of the FATF. But the FATF still placed Pakistan on its “grey list” in June 2018, and demanded more actions from Islamabad to avoid being blacklisted, which could invite economic sanctions. Ever since, Pakistan, which cannot afford to be blacklisted, especially when its economy is in shambles, has moved against Saeed. The Anti-Terrorism Department’s FIRs against Saeed and his aides accuse the JuD of financing terrorism from its fund collections in the name of charity through NGOs. While the authorities’ move against Saeed is welcome, the question is whether these are genuine attempts to fight terrorism or half-hearted measures to dodge international pressure. There are doubts because Pakistan had used anti-India and anti-Afghan terrorist networks for strategic advantages. It was this dual policy of fighting terror at home while nurturing terror groups that target its rivals abroad that has been responsible for Pakistan’s predicament. If it is serious about fighting terrorism, Pakistan should crackdown on terror financing and terror infrastructure. The international community and organizations, including the FATF, should keep up the pressure until Islamabad shows tangible outcomes. As per the passage, which word can replace CONVICTION grammatically and contextually?
Read the passage and answer the questions that follow. Unsurprisingly, the latest conviction comes a month after the FATF, a global dirty money watchdog, urged Pakistan to complete an internationally agreed action plan to fight terror financing. In February 2018, Pakistan endorsed a UN list of terrorist organizations operating in the country and enforced a nationwide ban on them, including the LeT and the JuD, just before a meeting of the FATF. But the FATF still placed Pakistan on its “grey list” in June 2018, and demanded more actions from Islamabad to avoid being blacklisted, which could invite economic sanctions. Ever since, Pakistan, which cannot afford to be blacklisted, especially when its economy is in shambles, has moved against Saeed. The Anti-Terrorism Department’s FIRs against Saeed and his aides accuse the JuD of financing terrorism from its fund collections in the name of charity through NGOs. While the authorities’ move against Saeed is welcome, the question is whether these are genuine attempts to fight terrorism or half-hearted measures to dodge international pressure. There are doubts because Pakistan had used anti-India and anti-Afghan terrorist networks for strategic advantages. It was this dual policy of fighting terror at home while nurturing terror groups that target its rivals abroad that has been responsible for Pakistan’s predicament. If it is serious about fighting terrorism, Pakistan should crackdown on terror financing and terror infrastructure. The international community and organizations, including the FATF, should keep up the pressure until Islamabad shows tangible outcomes. From the passage, it can be inferred that the author is: