= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
komponisto comments on A puzzle on the ASVAB - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (13)
Why did I get a -1 for this? I didn't make the puzzle. I'm just as confused by the lack of instructions.
This test, as I understand it, is the U.S. military "entrance exam". This may be from a practice version, unless they let you take it online. I'm guessing you're supposed to pick the answer that shows a line going from point A to point B.
Why assume that the rectangle is stationary and the star moves? Why ignore how things are attached? Why not think of them falling out of an airplane and choose D as clearly superior?
I don't think "it's probably supposed to be a test of physical intuition" is all that plausible. So I just googled, and it looks like I'm right. It seems to fall into the "assembling objects" category.
Googling "assembling objects" turned up another sample problem of the same format which includes these instructions:
In other words, there are 3 objects (a star, line, and rectangle), and you are supposed to put them together at the places with the same label.
Agreed. But I asked those questions not because I think your reasoning was inherently wrong, but because I felt like you were making a post-hoc story to justify specifically the answer A. While some sort of problem-solving logic that happens to generate A provides fairly easy answers for those kinds of questions, generating A post-hoc does not help answer them.
It would be a pretty bad test of physical intuition of the sort you describe, but a pretty good test of spatial reasoning, and I assume that the army people are competent at designing tests. If it was a test of physical intuition, why change how the objects were attached to each other in each answer? And so on and so forth.
Note: If you asked me "why would they change the relative positions in each answer if it was a test of assembling objects?" I would say "Because changing things around increases the need for spatial reasoning."
I thought the evidence was strong enough to say that pretty confidently, but you're right it's not overwhelming.
Additional note: if you look at the page Unnamed linked to, you'll see that the picture is all one piece, and the instructions are down below in text. If the question we got this picture from was similar, that may explain the disappearing instructions!
Gotcha. I'll edit.
Really? I don't see that at all. Surely B would be more reasonable, in that case? On A, it'd sort of be hanging off to the side.
C is the only answer where the line segment is touching the same spots indicated on the both objects. Point A is on the point of the star, point B is near the little box on the rectangle thing.
The rectangle thing is flipped vertically though (as if in 3D), rather than being rotated in the plane of the 2D drawing.