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.
You should probably have made that clear at the very beginning of the post; when I read it I first assumed you had simply neglected to tell us the instructions.
This test, as I understand it, is the U.S. military “entrance exam”
In that case, I suspect it’s probably supposed to be a test of physical intuition—or more to the point, of whether you’re the kind of person who spends enough brain cycles on intuitive physical modeling in order to suspect that’s what’s being tested.
In which case, A probably does make the most sense, since it seems to represent the most “equilibrium-like” (lowest potential energy) situation, assuming what is being represented is a box with an object tied to it via a string, viewed from the side (not above or below).
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.
I don’t know! Lord knows, I didn’t design the test, and the burden certainly isn’t on me to explain it. All I did was explain my best guess about what the question was. You don’t have to agree. But I could ask an a similar sequence of questions in response to whatever interpretation you might propose—as indeed, either of us could do in response to whatever the “correct” interpretation is (if it’s something different).
I don’t think “it’s probably supposed to be a test of physical intuition” is all that plausible
Why not? It’s a military exam, for goodness’ sake. Intuition about how mechanical objects act under the influence of gravity seems to me like a perfectly natural thing for the military to be interested in testing.
So I just googled, and it looks like I’m right. It seems to fall into the “assembling objects” category.
Your link doesn’t specifically support that. Maybe you meant to link somewhere where that particular question was specifically classified as falling into that category? If not—if you were just making an assumption to this effect—then I could equally well put it under “mechanical comprehension”.
But even if it’s actually in the “assembling objects” category, how does that refute my interpretation? “What happens when you put these two things together?” sounds like a perfectly good “assembling objects” question to me.
(And surely “assembling objects” requires some “mechanical comprehension” in any case?)
The question is awful. In no way should my revelation of the particular interpretation that happened to suggest itself to me be construed as an endorsement of the reasonableness of this question or any other part of the test.
But I could ask an a similar sequence of questions in response to whatever interpretation you might propose.
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.
I don’t think “it’s probably supposed to be a test of physical intuition” is all that plausible
Why not?
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.”
Your link doesn’t specifically support that.
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 Unnamedlinked 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!
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
Yes, that’s exactly what I was doing, openly and unashamedly. Recall that I had no idea what the question was until informed that it was a military exam. That information made A a more plausible answer than it would otherwise have been, for the reasons I explained.
I was proposing my best guess at the answer to the question “why is A the correct answer?” As such, my comments were not intended to strongly dispute the idea that there might be a better answer. (P(X|Y) vs P(Y|X) and all that, you know.)
You should probably have made that clear at the very beginning of the post; when I read it I first assumed you had simply neglected to tell us the instructions.
Gotcha. I’ll edit.
In which case, A probably does make the most sense, since it seems to represent the most “equilibrium-like” situation, assuming what is being represented is a box with an object tied to it via a string, viewed from the side (not above or below).
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.
Surely B would be more reasonable, in that case? On A, it’d sort of be hanging off to the side.
In B, the pointed object is higher (i.e. farther from the ground), so the potential energy due to gravity (U = mgh) is greater.
ETA: In intuitive terms, the question seems to be: “Imagine you tie this pointed object to this box, and then release. What happens? I.e. to what state does this system you just created most ‘naturally go’?”
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.
You should probably have made that clear at the very beginning of the post; when I read it I first assumed you had simply neglected to tell us the instructions.
In that case, I suspect it’s probably supposed to be a test of physical intuition—or more to the point, of whether you’re the kind of person who spends enough brain cycles on intuitive physical modeling in order to suspect that’s what’s being tested.
In which case, A probably does make the most sense, since it seems to represent the most “equilibrium-like” (lowest potential energy) situation, assuming what is being represented is a box with an object tied to it via a string, viewed from the side (not above or below).
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.
I don’t know! Lord knows, I didn’t design the test, and the burden certainly isn’t on me to explain it. All I did was explain my best guess about what the question was. You don’t have to agree. But I could ask an a similar sequence of questions in response to whatever interpretation you might propose—as indeed, either of us could do in response to whatever the “correct” interpretation is (if it’s something different).
Why not? It’s a military exam, for goodness’ sake. Intuition about how mechanical objects act under the influence of gravity seems to me like a perfectly natural thing for the military to be interested in testing.
Your link doesn’t specifically support that. Maybe you meant to link somewhere where that particular question was specifically classified as falling into that category? If not—if you were just making an assumption to this effect—then I could equally well put it under “mechanical comprehension”.
But even if it’s actually in the “assembling objects” category, how does that refute my interpretation? “What happens when you put these two things together?” sounds like a perfectly good “assembling objects” question to me.
(And surely “assembling objects” requires some “mechanical comprehension” in any case?)
The question is awful. In no way should my revelation of the particular interpretation that happened to suggest itself to me be construed as an endorsement of the reasonableness of this question or any other part of the test.
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!
Yes, that’s exactly what I was doing, openly and unashamedly. Recall that I had no idea what the question was until informed that it was a military exam. That information made A a more plausible answer than it would otherwise have been, for the reasons I explained.
I was proposing my best guess at the answer to the question “why is A the correct answer?” As such, my comments were not intended to strongly dispute the idea that there might be a better answer. (P(X|Y) vs P(Y|X) and all that, you know.)
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.
In B, the pointed object is higher (i.e. farther from the ground), so the potential energy due to gravity (U = mgh) is greater.
ETA: In intuitive terms, the question seems to be: “Imagine you tie this pointed object to this box, and then release. What happens? I.e. to what state does this system you just created most ‘naturally go’?”