2025 CSAT — Q9
Team X scored a total of runs in overs. Team Y tied the score in less overs. Had team Y’s average run rate (runs per over) been higher, the scores would have been tied in overs. How many runs were scored by team X?
Worked rationale
Team Y scores the same runs in fewer overs than , i.e. in overs, so Y’s run rate is runs/over.
Now raise Y’s rate by : the new rate is runs/over. In overs at this rate Y scores
So the third condition says ” runs in overs” — which is automatically true for every . It is an identity, not an equation: it imposes no constraint on , so is not pinned down by the data.
Answer: (d) Cannot be determined.
Why the other options miss
- A forced a number out of nothing: invents a relation (e.g. equates two rates as if they gave an equation) and back-solves a “nice” number, not noticing the condition is vacuous.
- B manufactured a value: multiplies/divides the over-counts () into a spurious product to produce a number.
- C an arithmetic slip on a false setup: combines or -type figures into a plausible total, again treating an identity as solvable.
Specialist insight
This is a trap of structure, not arithmetic. The examiner gives three relations that look like a solvable system, but the third one () algebraically reduces to — it carries zero information. The gold habit on “find the value” items is to track degrees of freedom: here every condition is consistent for any , so the correct exam answer is the option the over-eager solver never picks — “cannot be determined.” The three numeric distractors exist precisely to reward anyone who forces a number out of an underdetermined system. Spotting the vacuous condition is the whole question.
The " higher rate in overs" condition reduces to the identity — it pins nothing, so is undetermined (not ).