Answers to emode.com IQ test ( "the original IQ test" )

I don't know what games you guys are playing, craven, but I am playing none. Doesn't anyone else wonder why "tempting" (not "throny"... let's not forget the question here) is the right answer, even though it's not strictly logical? This would certainly answer the question of what type of "intelligence" the test is actually measuring. I'm not denying that "tempting" is right. I'm asking why.

rufio,

You will be unable to support your contention that it is not logical.

Again, the reason it is "right" is because the question asked for the best match and the best match was the only sentence that completes the contrast. As it is the only sentence of the group that does this it is the best answer of the group, like the question asks for.

And yes, I know you don't think you are playing a game. But that's worse news, means this is normal.

In question 20, the explanation put forth is simply wrong. Sandy wins, hands down and Jack doesn't catch up.

Proof: Say Point X and Point Y are 20 miles apart. Sandy, traveling at 20 mph for the whole distance makes the 40 mile trip in 2 hours.

Jack travels the first 20 miles at 30 mph and it takes him 40 minutes (2/3 of an hour). Traveling the second 20 miles at 10 miles per hour takes him a full 2 hours. So the whole trip takes him 2 hours and 40 minutes. Sandy beats him by 40 minutes.

What makes you think it is logical, craven? What element of logic is involved here? A truly logical statement might be
'tempting' is the opposite of '_____'" and the answer here might be "repellant". That's logical - it's simply stated, and the connection is clear. This statement is unclear by comparison, and the connection is equally mystical. When figuring this out, do you make the connection only between the thorns and "tempting"? Or do you draw cultural metaphors into it to help that which is NOT purely logical?

"But that's worse news, means this is normal."

What, asking questions to get answers? I'm glad it is. It may be "naive," but I like learning things.

Unless Sandy keeps running after completing the race Jack does indeed catch up at the end. ;-) But yes, you are right, the explanation is unclear and non-sensical by some interpretations of it. And yes, Sandy wins hands down.



To some people it is indeed unclear and this particular test will score those people with a lower IQ. I had initially diminished the value of this judgement but you have changed my mind.



Please rephrase this in a way that makes sense. What "cultural"metaphor exists in the words tempting and thorn that are needed?

It's a really simple contrast, it's tempting but can hurt, which is not a tempting proposition, this is cross-cultural by the way. Pain happens to be one of those intristic human things.



No, asking questions is not what I am talking about. I am talking about being certain about knowing the answers when there is little to no cause for said certainty. I am talking about the irksome "enfant terrible" act where said naivete does not result in a desire to learn, despite what you say here. It has, in my experience with you on this forum, resulted in you trying to pass said naivete off as axiomatic or correct, and when said naivete is not accepted the accusations of it not being a deficiency of your intellect but rather a deficiency of everyone on the whole board begin.

Not quite a "cultural metaphor" I suppose, but it is the cliche example that we are all taught as children. I'm sure pain is intrinsic, but people not raised on that cliche might not recognize the image initially.

I'm not suggesting that I know everything. I'm suggesting that there may be other option to people who are sure that THEY know everything, and they are throwing insults at me in return.

rufio,

First of all I know it's not an intentional game you play, the references many members have made to "your game" are a bit unfair and as I have said that as well I'll clarify. It's not a deliberate game on your part, but it does come across as a game to others when you do certain things, one of them is the lack of concern for maintaining a coherent point. You will make one contention forcefully and then when it'd debunked claim it was a typo and that the information was so basic that you expected everyone to understand it was a mistake.

You've done something similar here. You alternate between telling people that they are wrong and then saying you are earnestly trying to learn.

You said:

"Give it up, guys. You can't claim that natural language is "logical". It's always cultural."

After exchanging a few posts with me you play the role of eager to learn and that's a decided contrast from the forcefully stated opinion you began with.

On the off chance that this won't degenerate into another game of evade I'll clarify my qualm with your arguments herein.

First of all you seem to misunderstand a very basic premise of logic. Isolating a piece of logic and ignoring the bigger picture means you will ignore logical arguments that trump the morsel of logic you base your argument on.

For example, let's assume that your morsel here is true, that language is not logical and "always cultural". The flaw in that is that this test relies on far more than just language. There is the process of elimination for one. You cede that there are clearly "correct" answers and the reasons you identify the answers as correct are a lot more varied than just pre-existing knowledge of a phrase.

You start with the premise that language is not logical, this seems to be based on the general understanding that it is not an "exact science". While it is, indeed, a lot more of an "art" than a science language IS logical. One must only look at the logical operators such as AND, OR...

That is language, there is logic in language and that's what I consider to be your first error, an error on which the rest of your comments are based.

Next you mix in the notion of learned subjects, saying that the test is based on culturally acquired knowledge. Now this has a safe foundation. All knowledge is partly acquired. And yes IQ tests must rely in large part on testing how much of said knowledge was aquired and the comparison to what the test determines should have been acquired.

But this works against you when you consider the big picture. If all such tests can only measure what has been acquired compared to a standardized measuring stick of what should have been acquired then the relevance of this is absent. It's a limitation inherent to such testing and does not validate the notion you seem to hold where all acquired knowledge is no indication of logical ability.

Yes, acquired data is not a perfect measure of one's capacity, but it does reflect in one;s capacity as the data acquired is directly affected by the capacity to acquire it.

But your premise breaks down in simpler ways.

You said "Tempting/thorny is not a contrast either."

Yes it is.

You said "There's missing context here, which is that though the rose may be tempting, it will hurt you if you pick it."

It's not "missing". It's right there, and the test aims to determine who will pick up on it and who will not.


You said "I could come up with an equally applicable context in which lonely would be a better word."

Please do. Please make a situation in which "Even a lonely rose has thorns" makes a better contrast. It's moot because it wasn't on the test and they gave a set of responses. Coming up with stuff that's not even on the test is a sure way to determine that someone is not even following the very simple limitations the test delineates. But I encourage you to try to find a context to support your claim because I find it very unlikely.

If thorns repel then it would not be a contrast that they would be lonely. You'd have to make a very convoluted situation to make that make sense in any way and then the sheer absurdity of the situation would be a logical factor working against it.

Sure, IF humans loved pain then thorns would be damn attractive to us and therefore a contrast with "lonely". But then again, if 1 + 1 equaled 4 the paradigms of all the mathematical questions would shift as well and at some point it should become apparent to you that you are stretching far to find the basis for disproportionately thought claims.

The question was a very simple one, and it gives you little of the wiggle room you've already indulged in.

The question was:

Even the most ___________ rose has thorns.

The available options were:

Ugly
Weathered
Lonely
Noxious
Tempting

Of those available options the most suitable word is clearly "tempting". The others do not provide a suitable contrast (that "even" dictates) unless you start to grasp at straws.

The options gave a very simple logical answer. You will find it far easier to contort around your statements (I recommend the "Oh, I didn;t mean to be wrong, that was a misunderstanding or a typo" tactic) than to distort this.

Just some thoughts

You can't average averages. Very common error in mathematics. That's why sandy finishes first and not at the same time. If averaging averages was valid math, then yes, they'd finish at the same time.

Kangaroo must be marsupial. Other animals listed can also stand on two legs, although for not as long. Mule should also work as it's a crossbread (horse and donkey mix) and the others aren't, but the PhD dude probably didn't think of that.

Grapes - I haven't seen anyone update the reason on this so forgive me if it has been. All are fruits. All except grapes grow on trees. Grapes grow on vines.

I suppose they can say the test is scientific because you can't really define what scientific is.

Welcome to A2K shooloo.

Your comment about mathematics is important, but for some reason people have been very much opposed to the idea that Sandy won. Despite some very good explanations from people who showed up on this thread.

The Kangaroo one is also a good one, I'm trying to avoid learned knowledge as much as possible in explanations so I used a more visual one. Frankly I think mule is the best answer. Nice catch!

As to grape I think that is one of the two worst questions on the test. Bannanas don't grow on trees either.

And they can sure "say" it's scientific, but this is not that good of a test. Just the only one I had patience for.

Well I scored 133 then perused the answers above. I could see immediately where and how I was wrong. I had been careless and anxious to finish the test. Is this factored in when assessing IQ?Honestly, I think most people here would score well, 100% would be common, not me though because I didn't know coconuts were classed as fruit so I would always get that wrong. I suggest you all back Sandy at his next run. Last time I did an online IQ test I scored 150, very flattering but hardly accurate. I think these tests are designed to make you feel good. Another test told me I was a wordsmith, didn't notice my run on sentences, I love them and will never give them up. A great thread this, thoroughly enjoyed reading.

Plaese Ingor th Prevyous eronyiose poast: FatzyFingurez

2) Kangaroo has a pouch is the most logical choice. Kangaroo standing up is the second most logical choice. Kangaroo is from Austrailia is the third most logical choice. Kangaroo boxes humans could be the forth most logical choice. There are many reasons to pick kangaroo!
-----------------------------
4) "Even the most tempting rose has thorns" has nothing to do with roses. It means this: "The pretty young lady at the end of the bar is going to marry you, then she will steal all of your money and keep the kids"!
----------------------------
7) All of the numbers which John likes has a remainder of 1 if divided by three. Only one of the choices has a remainder of 1 (1000). But the perfect squares makes the most logical sense. Many questions have more than one answer but usually one answer is most logical and simple. That is the answer deemed correct.
-----------------------------
20) Use 10 miles as the distance. Jack takes 1/3 of an hour to go from point x to y ( 10 miles at 30 mi/hr or 2 minutes per mile; 20 minutes is 1/3 of an hour) and then 1 hour to go from y to x (10 miles at 10 miles per hour). Total = 1 1/3 hours.
Sandy takes 1/2 hour to go from x to y (10 miles at 20 miles per hour) and another 1/2 hour to go from y to x. Total = 1 hour. If the distance is 10 miles, Sandy will wait 20 minutes for Jack to arrive. Sandy will always be waiting for Jack no matter the distance.
-----------------------------
19) Make a chart for five students. Inspection shows that the answer for both nth best and nth worst is ((n*2)-1) Ex: For both 25,067th best and 25,067 worst there would have to be 50,133 students. Make the chart if you don't believe me.

1 best
2 2nd best
3 3rd best and 3rd worst
4 2nd worst
5 worst
------------------------------

26) Gosh, who doesn't know that the square root of A squared + B squared equals the hypotenuse of a right triangle?

Ok, if you don't do this: draw a picture of the problem to scale the
best you can and label the mileage segments. Note that the distance
the way a crow flies from start to finish must be more than either leg
so it can't be less than 8 + 8 = 16 miles. I think that narrows it down
to two choices.
--------------------------------
27) Grapes makes the most logical sense. A vine instead of a tree. I suppose you could quote the chemical structure of each if you want to be WAY out in left field.
--------------------------------
30) True knowledge exists with knowing that you know nothing. Well, I suppose, but then if you had NO knowledge you would know nothing and people with No knowledge and people with TRUE knowledge could share the same bed. Everyone who took the test has true knowledge and he/she does know something. This is about the most dumb ass statement ever. Here is a statement which would make more logical sense: True knowledge exists with knowing that the more you know, the more you realize how much you don't know.
--------------------------------

A few comments


Thank you for the answer guide. A few of your explanations require amendment:

3. The answer, 49, is derived by recognizing the pattern of numbers as squares. 12 squared is 144, 11 squared is 121 and so on, so the next number after 64, which is 8 squared, is 7 x 7 = 49.

7. The answer could be 1000, because it is divisible by 4. John does not like numbers divisible by 3, so 900 does not seem to fit.

19. The answer, 99, is correct, but the explanation of 50 + 49 is incomplete. The full logic is that as 50th best, 49 students are better, and as 50th worst, 49 students are worse. Thus, 49 + 49 + Sue = 99.

20. Jack cannot catch up after Sandy passes him. His average speed is 4 min./mile, while Sandy's is 3 min./mile. As long as the total distance is fixed at twice the difference between X and Y, Jack will not catch up at the end. His slower speed in the second half means that Sandy catches up and passes him.

26. The explanation is geometry.

27. The explanation is that all the other items grow on trees, while grapes grow on vines.

29. Finger is the only metaphor that matches with hand.

33. Why is the circle the correct answer, when the triangle is an asymmetrical shape? See your explanation to 36.

Good night.

Re: A few comments
Welcome to A2K precision plus,



Lots of my explanations are curt, I was kinda pissed at wasting time on the test at the time. Feel free to expound on them.



This is a bit of a joke, and is admittedly unclear (and intentionally so).

Unless Sandy keeps running after finishing the race, yes he does. :wink:



I don't remember what the other options were, I think they were all angular and there was only one round one.

Craven, you have considered at some depth the possible right answers, but what are the implications of getting all the questions wrong?

I think that all short IQ tests will, because of their their nature, "get the questions wrong".

This test is so short and lacking that they put a ceiling on it.

Intentional brilliance or not, I loved this line.



Well, me for one. Though that didn't stop me from working it out correctly.



You know, I chose coconut. Why? Because it's freakin' hollow, that's why. It is also hairy. And hard. And doesn't taste "fruity".

So sue me if I didn't immediately think "Aha! Grapes don't grow on trees!"



I came to this one, again, in a less elegant though entirely workable manner:
The sequence of numbers in question -- 144 121 100 81 64

144-23=121, 121-21=100, 100-19=81, 81-17=64, 64-15=49.
The amount subtracted drops by 2 each time.



I don't think "withered" has received its fair share of attention as a reasonable answer. It does imply contrast. One might think that anything withered wouldn't put up much of a fight, or retain any defenses.
"Even the most withered rose has thorns."

Don't get me wrong; I chose "tempting". But if "tempting" weren't an option, and "orangutan" were there instead, I would have chosen "withered" without pause or doubt.



I think "balls" is a better choice. It's funnier. Not every euphemism is a "benignly deployed" euphemism.


Really great thread (I joined to contribute to it).

Say point Y is 30 miles away. the one person reaches it in 1 hour, the other person reaches it in 1 1/2 hours. On the way back the person traveling 10 mph will take 3 hours, which makes 4 hours total. The other person will take the same amount of time=1 1/2 hours, which equals 3 hours. Sandy finishes first. Simple math. I had trouble with the animal--I thought a mule because it can't reproduce, I thought grapes because they grow on vines, not trees. Or maybe banana---it can't be made into juice, unless you have a super-juicer.

Not only that, but a coconut is a seed. The other four are fruits that contain seeds.


It really is a godawful test, meant only to lure subscribers, and I implore people not to spend one dime on that sort of trite, inane rubbish.

I suppose if you consider culturally aquired knowledge to be "IQ" than the test is accurate, craven. But most people think it's something more than culture that makes IQ.

If human language were always logical, and never cultural, we wouldn't have to invent new languages to talk about logic.

The context required to interpret the question is missing from the test, but not from culture, since that's where it comes from.

Show me how tempting and thorny are logically contrasting.

I already came up with a context for lonely, but you seem to have selective reading. Hopefully you won't miss it again, this is the last time I'm going to post it. If we had a cultural beleif that roses that grew further away from others had less thorns, than loney would make sense in that context. Ugly could be used if we thought the thorns made the rose more beautiful, just as a bonus explanation.

This is no more or less logical than the idea that thorns repell, or that the rose is a metaphor as it is used in the test. Metaphors and meaning don't exist in logic, they have to be created by humans.

You compare people loving pain to 1 + 1 = 4 - as if a human being is by definition something that doesn't like pain. Clearly, there are lots of people who do - it is not logically impossible.

I am tired of playing YOUR game, craven. I suggest that the test may not be as logical as is claimed, and you go after me claiming that I'm evading you and being illogical and that clearly I'm wrong even before you read my post all the way, while you respond to other people with similar statements much more civilly. I'm not sure what the goal of your game is, but it's a rather sadistic one.

I've shown you how it is a logical contrast, I am not interested in convincing you and you can feel free to think whatever you want.

You very frequently demonstrate a fundamental misunderstanding of the basic premises of logic and frankly I am happy to leave you that way.

I have no desire to walk you through all of your brainfarts. Perhaps later I can be convinced to help you but for now you are on your own. If you wish to discuss it try supporting your earlier brainfarts that I challenged.

Edit (corrected typo)