Actions: Add Comment
24 Nov 2008 03:18 UTCMon 24 Nov 2008 - 3:18 am UTC
There are 3 matrix type IQ questions here: http://www.the1net.com/IQ/IQ_questions.htm
Simply indentify the correct multi choice answer AND explain the reasoning and logic behind your choice.
You will probably need an IQ greater than 95% of the population to answer these correctly. You know who you are!
I would like a cross section of opinion, so if some of you want to post your best guesses (without explantion) as comments that would be nice (if it is within the rules). I will of course pay for a full answer from one of you. (let me know if the link works OK)
24 Nov 2008 15:13 UTCMon 24 Nov 2008 - 3:13 pm UTC
The "official" answers are Q26=3, Q29=2 and Q35=5, but the reason I posted the question is that I am not sure if I agree with those answers. So if you think you get different answers that seem more logical to you, or if you think the official answers are the only reasonable and logic choice and you can explain why that is the case, then I am I interested!
24 Nov 2008 15:56 UTCMon 24 Nov 2008 - 3:56 pm UTC
With puzzles like these, it's possible to concoct an explanation as to why ANY of the answers could be correct. So it's not good enough to identify some pattern and then apply it. What's necessary is to find the simplest plausible pattern, and that's difficult.
What is the exact wording of the question? Presumably it's something like "Which of the answers belongs in place of the question mark", but minor clues in the wording could be important (for example, if it refers to "rows" or "columns" it will make a big difference).
Taking Question 26, it's dead simple to justify answer 2 on the basis that the lower image in each column is the upper one flipped horizontally.
Alternatively, I can justify answer 3 like this: the top row, going from left-to-right, extends the box to the left then drops the hat behind it; the bottom row does the opposite: extends the box to the right then drops the hat in front of it. But that justification sounds rather contrived compared to the justification for answer 2; maybe someone can find a simpler pattern.
For question 29, if one ignores the central color then the answer must be either 1, 3 or 5 (because the pattern is always being alternately flipped horizontally and vertically). For the answer to be 2, there must be some interaction between the color and the pattern that I'm not seeing.
For question 35, sorry I have no idea.
24 Nov 2008 16:14 UTCMon 24 Nov 2008 - 4:14 pm UTC
For question 26, we can imagine a solid object comprising a cone sitting off-center on top of a rectangular prism (cuboid). Then we have six views: from the front, from the right, from the bottom, from the rear, from the left and (represented by the question mark) the view from the top. This would give answer 5.
24 Nov 2008 16:20 UTCMon 24 Nov 2008 - 4:20 pm UTC
> What is the exact wording of the question? Presumably it's something
> like "Which of the answers belongs in place of the question mark",
> but minor clues in the wording could be important (for example, if it
> refers to "rows" or "columns" it will make a big difference).
There are no clues or actual answer. It is pretty much presented as I have shown in the link. I could give the link to the actual online test but the site includes advertising and I do not want to infringe any rules. let me know if it is OK to post the real link.
I agree that 2 seems the more reasonable answer to Q26 and that was my answer too but your alternative explanation for 3 (the official answer) is plausible though more convoluted than answer 2.
For question 29 I get answer 3 on this basis. Each vertical row contains one white central square and the other two have matching colours so the missing pattern should have a white central square. Working left to right each pattern is the pattern to its left rotated 90 degrees anticlockwise. Working up to down each pattern is the pattern above it rotated 90 degrees anticlockwise. Working diagonally from top left to bottom right each pattern is the pattern to the top left of it rotated 180 degrees. Answer 3 fit the criteria for all those patterns. I don't see how the official answer (2) is justified either.
> For question 35, sorry I have no idea.
24 Nov 2008 16:30 UTCMon 24 Nov 2008 - 4:30 pm UTC
> For question 26, we can imagine a solid object comprising a cone
> sitting off-center on top of a rectangular prism (cuboid). Then we
> have six views: from the front, from the right, from the bottom,
> from the rear, from the left and (represented by the question mark)
> the view from the top. This would give answer 5.
That is a very nice alternative explanation thinking outside the box! I like it. So now we have 3 answers (2, 3 and 5) that are plausable though I don't think the official answer (3) is the most plausible. It makes you wonder if IQ tests should be reformulated so that you can give more than one answer where you think it is justified for extra points!
What happens if the person that takes the test is more intelligent than the person who sets the questions? His score might be lower than that of a less intelligent person that thinks the same way as the person that set the test. :P
24 Nov 2008 17:05 UTCMon 24 Nov 2008 - 5:05 pm UTC
It's OK to post the link. We can always edit out a link if there's a problem, or we can remove the "http://" to make it non-clickable.
For question 29 you wrote:
> Each vertical row contains one white central square and the other two
> have matching colours so the missing pattern should have a white
> central square.
That's logical, but no more or less so than the following reasoning: "Each horizontal row contains central squares of three different colours, so the missing pattern must be 5"
Your description of the rotation of the patterns in question 29 is exactly equivalent to my description in terms of reflection, by the way.
> What happens if the person that takes the test is more intelligent
> than the person who sets the questions?
Aye, there's the rub! My kids are always bringing home school tests where they have lost marks because they knew too much, instead of simply parroting back some simplified approximately-true piece of knowledge that was presented during the lesson.
For example: "How many planets are there?". My kids could explain about the controversy and recent change in Pluto's status to "planetoid", but that doesn't help them to know whether the teacher is going to mark "8" or "9" as the correct answer.
> His score might be lower than that of a less intelligent person
> that thinks the same way as the person that set the test.
I reckon that's exactly what this kind of test does: selects people who share "a certain way of thinking".
24 Nov 2008 17:24 UTCMon 24 Nov 2008 - 5:24 pm UTC
The actual test is found by clicking on the link titled "take a free IQ TEST 1" in bold red text near the bottom of this page http://www.intershop.it/intelligence_test_iq.htm
Hope its Ok. As far as I can tell there are no viruses, pop-ups or active-x controls.
I like the example about your kids. We were always told to "read around the subject" but sometimes that works to your disadvantage. It's a good thing we did not have the internet back then. I would have been completely confused!
25 Nov 2008 16:03 UTCTue 25 Nov 2008 - 4:03 pm UTC
> Each of the first two rows saisfies the following relationships:
> e = a-d and f = a-d-e
Each of the first two rows also satisfies the following::
e is a with one dot removed
f is empty
The given answer (6) satisfies those relationships.
Also, we can examine the problem for self-consistency. Given the answer (5), we can now blank out the right-hand box from the middle row and solve the puzzle for that position instead.
Now we find (in the top and bottom rows):
e = b and f = blank
which would lead us to select answer (5) for the right-hand position on the middle row, too.
Essentially, I don't think our solutions are sound because we're cherry-picking some of the boxes and completely ignoring others. I feel that a good solution would make use of more of the data.
We have black dots, we have white dots, we have some dots that touch the lines, we have some dots that touch each other. I can't help feeling that we haven't gotten to the bottom of this one yet.
26 Nov 2008 01:03 UTCWed 26 Nov 2008 - 1:03 am UTC
I would like the 'bounty' to go RogerB as I think he has contributed the most. Can I do that directly or should Roger reply in the form of an answer that I can accept?
I would like to thank everyone else here for additional interesting and insightful comments. There certainly is a clever bunch here and I would recommend uclue researchers to anyone that has a non trivial problem that requires solving!
26 Nov 2008 11:26 UTCWed 26 Nov 2008 - 11:26 am UTC
Thanks! I'm posting this to claim the answer.
I liked the "opposite" stories from pinkfreud and archae0pteryx, and I found the following related discussion. (If you want to follow the link to the original source, have your pop-up blocker enabled first.)
"Does "frog" have an opposite? The physical frog does not ...
But what about the idea of the frog? What attributes can we
attach to the idea of the frog? Green? Small, maybe?
Amphibious? Animal? Could we say that the opposite of the
frog is a "not green, big, non-amphibious non-animal? But the
frog is also alive... so our non-animal must also be dead.
The frog exists, so does our dead non-frog have to be
non-existent? There are numerous words and descriptions we
can apply to the frog, and it follows that there are numerous
opposites to those descriptions. Too many to keep track of."
"Ideas, Inverses and Lies" by Josh Eby
Also I found a question and answer site where you get your questions answered by a real-life philosopher. Just a few days ago, someone asked whether the opposite of 'Dog' should be 'not-Dog' rather than 'Cat'. The answer, essentially, was that opposites only needed to be on opposite sides of some central point of reference, often culturally determined. Therefore, 'Cat' wasn't THE opposite of 'Dog', but it was a perfectly good instance of one, being a not-Dog. But 'Whale' would have been fine too.
"Ask Philosophers - Logic - Opposites"
Actions: Add Comment