3
$\begingroup$

Whats the logic behind these patterns? I consider myself to be decent at solving puzzles, yet I have no clue what is going on in these puzzles.

enter image description here

enter image description here

enter image description here

EDIT: Sorry for not putting the source in! Questions are from https://www.trytalentq.com's logical reasoning practice assessment. (available to all for free)

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I got the answers please allow $\endgroup$ – Deepthinker101 Nov 25 '19 at 19:13
  • $\begingroup$ No, please don't repost the question. Don't worry, we'll get it reopened soon enough (cc @Deusovi) $\endgroup$ – Rand al'Thor Nov 25 '19 at 20:02
4
$\begingroup$

The first one is ➡️⬅️➡️ because each column is made from one cell of just vertical, one of just horizontal and one of just diagonal, and in the horizontal cells the arrows alternate (opposite) direction. The is second one is ↘️↖️ because similar reason as the first except the missing cell is made of diagonals this time and the other cells are either 2 vertical or 1 vertical and 1 horizontal. The third one is << because the sum of < in column 1 is 7 and > is 3 the in column 2 it is 6 and 4 and column 3 is 5 and 5. Also the pattern per column is 2x4 arrows and 1x2 arrows.

|improve this answer|||||
$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ nice one, thanks! Never thought about it the way you did. But I'm not sure I follow your reasoning for the last one, could you elaborate? I know its going to be two arrows but what makes you think it will be 5 and 5? What if the columns are alternating between 7 and 3, and 6 and 4? $\endgroup$ – OvermanZarathustra Nov 26 '19 at 3:26
  • $\begingroup$ Well there will be not enough information to affirm such a logical pattern. -1,+1... could be anything afterwards to justify it, -1,-1... can be only -1 that would justify it to make it logical. $\endgroup$ – Deepthinker101 Nov 26 '19 at 19:36
  • $\begingroup$ Think about it like this in order for your proposed solution to the question it will have to show (+1,-1)(+1,-1) and so will require four columns. $\endgroup$ – Deepthinker101 Nov 26 '19 at 19:42
  • $\begingroup$ Basically you cannot logically justify a fourth term and from the fourth a fifth etc from your logic. There is not enough evidence to support it. Cf inductive reasoning. $\endgroup$ – Deepthinker101 Nov 26 '19 at 19:52

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.