My first thought was something to do with the axes of symmetry, but I haven’t been able to spot anything convincing there.
So right now I’m leaning to what sugar and spice said – they’re adding the number of line segments across the rows.
If that’s what they were going for, though, it’s a stupid question. They haven’t provided enough info to rule out other possible solutions. For instance: suppose the pattern were to count the number of regular geometric figures (by which I mean regular polygons, but I’m including the circle as essentially an infinite-sided polygon). This amounts to counting the total number of squares, triangles, and circles.
Then we have:
2 1 0
2 0 1
2 1 ?
If we assume every row has the same sum, then ? = 0.
This gives a distinct answer to the problem, but the answer is choice 1, not choice 3.
Who cares what the possible reasoning is? This is the sort of stupid question that I hate when it is associated with “IQ” tests. To answer the question “correctly” requires that you think like the person who devised the question. As we have shown here, you can think in other ways, and get the same answer, as well as different answers that would be equally valid.
ah yes the old Vizzini response–it always works in these situations!
Man in Black: All right. Where is the poison? The battle of wits has begun. It ends when you decide and we both drink, and find out who is right… and who is dead. Vizzini: But it’s so simple. All I have to do is divine from what I know of you: are you the sort of man who would put the poison into his own goblet or his enemy’s? Now, a clever man would put the poison into his own goblet, because he would know that only a great fool would reach for what he was given. I am not a great fool, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of you. But you must have known I was not a great fool, you would have counted on it, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of me. Man in Black: You’ve made your decision then? Vizzini: Not remotely. Because iocane comes from Australia, as everyone knows, and Australia is entirely peopled with criminals, and criminals are used to having people not trust them, as you are not trusted by me, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of you. Man in Black: Truly, you have a dizzying intellect. Vizzini: Wait til I get going! Now, where was I? Man in Black: Australia. Vizzini: Yes, Australia. And you must have suspected I would have known the powder’s origin, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of me. Man in Black: You’re just stalling now. Vizzini: You’d like to think that, wouldn’t you? You’ve beaten my giant, which means you’re exceptionally strong, so you could’ve put the poison in your own goblet, trusting on your strength to save you, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of you. But, you’ve also bested my Spaniard, which means you must have studied, and in studying you must have learned that man is mortal, so you would have put the poison as far from yourself as possible, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of me. Man in Black: You’re trying to trick me into giving away something. It won’t work. Vizzini: IT HAS WORKED! YOU’VE GIVEN EVERYTHING AWAY! I KNOW WHERE THE POISON IS! Man in Black: Then make your choice. Vizzini: I will, and I choose - What in the world can that be?
Vizzini: [Vizzini gestures up and away from the table. Roberts looks. Vizzini swaps the goblets] Man in Black: What? Where? I don’t see anything. Vizzini: Well, I- I could have sworn I saw something. No matter.First, let’s drink. Me from my glass, and you from yours.
Man in Black, Vizzini: [they drink ] Man in Black: You guessed wrong. Vizzini: You only think I guessed wrong! That’s what’s so funny! I switched glasses when your back was turned! Ha ha! You fool! You fell victim to one of the classic blunders! The most famous is never get involved in a land war in Asia, but only slightly less well-known is this: never go in against a Sicilian when death is on the line! Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! Ha ha ha…
Yep. An appreciable amount of grey has been thrust at a solution yet, as none is evident, now the designer must explain himself. Priceguy, as you’re the one who can challenge back, can you contact and make known their reasoning… or lack thereof? This type of test should elicit an “A ha!” after some reasonable amount of reflection but, apparently, that’s not the case for anyone here.
I suspect they deliberately included a question with no logical answer, just to see how many people would guess anyway … and how many would guess correctly.
If there is no logical answer, how can anyone guess correctly?
Well, screw this. My brothers are coming over for dinner today; I’ll see if any of them or their cohorts have made any progress. I’m not even sure how my older brother knew what the answer was, but I’ll ask.
Yes, that I missed the question. Please feel free to inform me what you felt it said, though.
It’s from Swedish magazine Illustrerad Vetenskap. Don’t know the issue, but here’s the online version. If you want to try it, put any name in the text box and then click “Start”. The first question is a tutorial, that’s why it’s so easy.
Maybe it’s a test to see how worked up people on message boards get. In which case, it’s nowhere near as effective as the aforementioned 14 k of g in an f p d. It’ll take some work to surpass that one.
Well that’s why nobody could get it, it’s a verbal pattern. If you were to verbally describe the shapes seen in the grid, then you would have:
[ Bork! ] [ Bork! bork! bork! ] [ Bork! Bork! ]
[ Bork!] [ Bork! bork! bork! ] [ Bork! Bork! ]
[ Bork!] [ Bork! bork! bork! ] [ ? ]
The answer then is 3, the only shape that could be described “Bork! Bork!”
5 could technically also be “Bork! Bork!” but we don’t know for certain that they are perfect squares, so “Bork!” is most fitting there.
Maybe the problem has no logical answer and the question is some kind of control.
If too many people pick triangle, they know the test is no longer vaid.
I hte questions like this. I’ve seen them all over and they never amount to a clogical dedeuction from given information, but rather focus on whether or not you can guess what the stupid writer was thinking when he made it. :mad:
