SSC CGL 2024 Tier-I · 17 September 2024, Shift 2 · General Intelligence and Reasoning · Question 14 of 100

Text as printed on a candidate's response sheet for this shift; answer per SSC's tentative key as marked on that sheet. Solution last reviewed 6 September 2026.

Where this paper and its answers come from

SSC does not publish CGL question papers or a public answer key. The questions and options here are reproduced as printed on a candidate's own response sheet for this shift — the Commission's text, unchanged. Each answer is SSC's tentative key as marked on that sheet; SSC allowed challenges to it and never publishes a final key. The solutions are written by UnlockIAS.

34 is related to 191 by certain logic. Following the same logic, 56 is related to 301. To which of the following is 63 related, following the same logic? (NOTE : Operations should be performed on the whole numbers, without breaking down the numbers into its constituent digits. E.g. 13 – Operations on 13 such as adding /deleting /multiplying etc., to 13 can be performed. Breaking down 13 into 1 and 3 and then performing mathematical operations on 1 and 3 is not allowed.)

(a)340
(b)386
(c)336
(d)319

Answer

Why

Correct — C. Two given pairs are enough to pin a linear rule down, so fix it before you touch 63.

Rule: multiply by 5, then add 21.

34 × 5 = 170 → 170 + 21 = 191 ✓
56 × 5 = 280 → 280 + 21 = 301 ✓

63 × 5 = 315 → 315 + 21 = 336 → option (c).

Why the others are wrong

(a)
340 — 340 is 63 × 5 + 25. It keeps the multiplier but changes the constant for the third pair alone, and a constant that moves between pairs is not a rule.
(b)
386 — 386 is 63 × 5 + 71. Neither 34 → 191 nor 56 → 301 produces a constant anywhere near 71, so nothing in the stem supports it.
(d)
319 — 319 is 63 × 5 + 4. It comes from doing the multiplication correctly and then adding a small remembered number instead of re-deriving +21 from the pairs.

Concept

This is a number analogy on whole numbers. You are shown two worked pairs and asked for the third. Start by testing a linear map, n → an + b.

The reliable way in is differencing, not trial and error. Subtract the two given outputs, subtract the two given inputs, and the ratio is the multiplier.

Here 301 − 191 = 110 and 56 − 34 = 22, so a = 110 ÷ 22 = 5. Then b = 191 − (5 × 34) = 21. One subtraction and one division replace guessing at squares, cubes and reversals.

The NOTE in capitals is part of the question, not decoration. It bars you from treating 34 as the digits 3 and 4, which is a legitimate rule family in other SSC items but is ruled out here.

Key facts

34 × 5 + 21 = 191 and 56 × 5 + 21 = 301, so the map is n → 5n + 21.
For any rule an + b, two pairs fix it: the multiplier is (301 − 191) ÷ (56 − 34) = 5.
Applying the same map to 63 gives 5 × 63 + 21 = 336.

Study next

Fixing a rule n → an + b from two given pairs by differencingWhole-number analogies built on n² ± k and n³ ± k instead of a multiplierReading the digit-splitting NOTE and knowing which rule families it removes

Common traps

Splitting 34 into 3 and 4. The NOTE bans it outright.
Fitting a rule to the first pair only and never testing it against 56 → 301.
Doing 63 × 5 = 315 and then picking the option nearest 315. The constant still has to be added.

SSC prints this stem with the same digit-splitting NOTE and asks only for the third term, so the whole question is the rule.

Also asked 9 Sep 2024, 09:00, Reasoning Q.2 (31 → 152, 47 → 168, where the rule is simply +121) and 9 Sep 2024, 09:00, Reasoning Q.24 (19 → 209, 27 → 297, where it is ×11). Reasoning Q.17 in this sitting runs the same shape with n → 4n + 11.

Related PYQs

No directly related past PYQ was found.