Hello,
today I did a quick IQ test and I had a question:
In one image, there was a wall with a hole with a pattern like this:
*= = - =
= = - - = = =
*= = - - = =
= = - - = =
*= - - - = =
...
And now the question was, how many bricks are necessary to close the wall...
My first (and right for the test) answer was 10.
But the more intellegent answer from my point of view is just 5.
Because there is no rule which tells you, that all the bricks must have the same width right? And true intellegence for me is to break those "rules" (ore things where other people see rules) and find new, more efficient ways than other peoples do. Ok, in daly buisness, the right answer is 10 of course; I can understand... But if somebody say five is a valid answer, it's "more" intellegent to me because he used the "easiest" and most efficent way to answer the question: He just counted the missing rows with different "offset" and ignored the width because there was no statement regading the width of the missing blocks.
Ok the "minimum" answer could be one as well because if the brick has the right shape, it will fit the hole in one piece ;-)
But then maybe it's not a brick anymore...
Or am I wrong?
today I did a quick IQ test and I had a question:
In one image, there was a wall with a hole with a pattern like this:
*= = - =
= = - - = = =
*= = - - = =
= = - - = =
*= - - - = =
...
And now the question was, how many bricks are necessary to close the wall...
My first (and right for the test) answer was 10.
But the more intellegent answer from my point of view is just 5.
Because there is no rule which tells you, that all the bricks must have the same width right? And true intellegence for me is to break those "rules" (ore things where other people see rules) and find new, more efficient ways than other peoples do. Ok, in daly buisness, the right answer is 10 of course; I can understand... But if somebody say five is a valid answer, it's "more" intellegent to me because he used the "easiest" and most efficent way to answer the question: He just counted the missing rows with different "offset" and ignored the width because there was no statement regading the width of the missing blocks.
Ok the "minimum" answer could be one as well because if the brick has the right shape, it will fit the hole in one piece ;-)
But then maybe it's not a brick anymore...
Or am I wrong?
Last edited:
