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

I think the system only recognises exactly one correct answer for each question and awards points only to correct answers. Wrong/other answers have no deduction or addition of points. That is why the test is not so good.

I agree, but that's just one (among many) reason.

I know some people have mentioned the fill-in-the-blank questions (#s 4, 22, 25, 28, 29, 30) giving their explanations for the answers. Did anybody else realize that they're all well-known quotes? There's no logic to them.

4=unknown
22=Oscar Wilde
25=Oscar Wilde
28=David Starr Jordan
29=unknown
30=Socrates

Well known quotes and logic are not mutually exlusive.

For example:

Beating around the ______.

The above is a question that is almost impossible to answer correctly with deduction alone.

An eye for an eye and a tooth for a ______.

The above is a well known saying that can easily be answered through logical deduction alone and without knowing the saying.

Welcome to A2K.

the kangaroo answer
the roo has no hoofs and travels on three

upes,spelt it rong
errr hooves

Beating around the BUSH (this isn't a quote, it's an idiom...and a song by AC/DC!)

An eye for an eye, a tooth for a TOOTH (Matthew 5:38)

I collect quotes.

Yes, but what you call them has no bearing on whether logic can be used to deduct the answer.

I was merely stating the fact that these questions were well-known quotes. I'm not saying that EVERYONE should know these, just that there is but ONE answer. If you know the quote, you know the answer. If not, you figure it out. It can work both ways. For me, I'm familiar with the quotes so I don't need logic to answer them. These types of quotes are well-known for the way they're worded. They are nuggets of wisdom. Yes, you can find the answer by using logic. But some people were saying that another answer made sense to them. Great...but that's not the answer. So there's no arguing to it. By using logic, more than one answer could fill in the blanks...which is what these people were saying. So, using logic just narrows it down for some, but doesn't always produce the correct answer.

I see, well, you've changed positions from the claim you made that there was "no logic to them". And it was that statement that I was discussing.

What was said wasn't EXACTLY what was meant. I should have elaborated. There is no logic to the quote, just logic to finding the possible answer.

Wait..that didn't come out right either...

You don't necessarily need logic to figure the answer out. Common sense works, too. These quotes are almost cliches.

Answers to emode.com IQ test ( "the original IQ test&qu
One simple way, perhaps, in question #20, to see that Sandy will beat John (am I remembering the situation correctly?):

Sandy averages 20 mph in going from X to Y and back.
John averages 10 mph just in going from Y back to X.

Both of these operations take the same amount of time (Sandy covers twice the distance, but at twice the average speed).

So Sandy can run the entire race in the time it takes John just to get back to the starting point. But we haven't accounted for the time John spent on the outbound portion of the race, so he must necessarily have taken more time to run the entire race.

(Incidentally, John can at least manage a tie in the trivial case where X and Y are the same point. But then of course the average speed numbers used in the problem become meaningless.)

Re: Answers to emode.com IQ test ( "the original IQ tes
Thanks for all of the answers. I'm not sure about the logic that was used to arrive at some of them.

Q 2. Kangaroo is different from the others because it's not a mammal, I'd have said, not because it stands upright.

Q 3. 49 IS the next number, because it is 7 squared (the numbers are 12 squared, 11 squared, 10 squared, 9, 8...).
.
.
.

"All roads lead to Rome".

In some of the explanations I gave, I explained the logic I used which is sometimes different from what the intended logic seems to be.

This is especially true of the mathematical ones. My epxlanations were based on my logic, which was more superficial (noticing simpler patterns).

With the odd one out groups there's always a lot of ways to do it. And a lot of reasons to come up with other answers as well. For me the standing is more significant a difference but your milage may vary.

Those types of questions aren't very good in tests.

Welcome to A2K.

question #16
#16: New Webster's dictionary defines "inept" as: out of place, not apt; INCOMPETENT ;silly, foolish....no sign of "unfit"
Websters defines "competent" as: having the necessary qualities or skills; showing adequate skill (hence SKILLFUL)

actually steventilly,marsupials are in fact mammals. Remember , it goes kingdom,phylum,class,order,family,genus,species.

Nice forum, nice thread
I'm a brandnew member and by the looks of it, other threads seem to almost equally rock

But I was lured here wondering what I got wrong(I DID make some dumb mistakes)

Nice topic, clever people, glad to see there are some out there smarter than me. I was beginning to wonder

This is a good example of how internet is an intellectual playground and you all seem to be having fun. Now, don't break toys and to add something to your discussion:

At 15, I discovered I was smarter than my parents and sister combined, so don't talk to me about intellect being constricted to genes. Altough, they have more life experiance and have adepted to life more than I ever will, there's nothing to envy. A lot of average(hence the term) ppl have adepted to life, believing lies, never questioning what they perceive to be authority and being shortsighted.

Environment is important to DEVELOP your abilities, which you're born with. Some don't develop, some develop from little to -very close to-nothing.

In my immediate surroundings, I have no real stimuli. But I DO live in Belgium(English is not one of my 3national languages, so forgive my inadequate linguistic abilities at times. Please, by all means correct me. Even if it has to be in a mail, so that we don't get of topic. Like now... ;-) which brings me in an advantaged situation(<->Africa, they're not all dumb and some simply get shot at 7 or die of hunger instead of climbing in the food chain. Preferably by mass murder and genocide). Of course, that(stimuli)'s not completly true, I have internet and books. School is not a stimulant whatsoever. Motivation(something which I lack) remains a very important factor. But that brings us closer to the educational system rather than the much discussed IQ. Which by 99% of the ppl out there is considered to be constant. Even by teachers(and some professors).

In short, I'm a lazy yet by standards of the sheep intelligent man, who like the way you discuss things. I think you both understand that you've reached a stand off. You're both equally wrong and right.
Don't be offended by wrong, the fact is, you don't have ALL the answers. And right in the way that you do have (just about) all the practical and usefull answers, in this ending point. You both simply must agree that:

Environment plays an important role in the inherent and ever present ablilities of a being

Some or simply more hidden than others and in some cases (just about) impossible to reach. But without ANY development, there is no way of using any of these skills. We ALL must learn to walk and in the words of a blind man getting his sight back(fine, it was a movie, but it gets the point across :-) "Is this seeing?". Without any mathmatical understanding you can't solve some of the tests' (the visual ones excluded for the sake of not having to trip over details) questions.

But as was said before, the examinated because he's able to take the test and understand english probably has met the minimum requirements(having had the cultural and environment upbringing required to understand everything).

But to give you a quick satisfying answer(which actually removes the questioning): The questions are ambiguous(the 3 or so mentioned: grape, mule, ...) and does not exclusively depend on your mental capacity.

I'm just using myself here as an example here for your discussion. I couldn't help but notice how abstract it was and how this wouldn't really help you any further.

If IQ existed in it's theoretical form, it would be a strictly genetical component of a person

But this theory, when put into practice, brings us, on both sides of the equation, to a flexible and realistic concept which includes important variables. Which have been widely discussed.

Sorry for all the irrelavant crap, but I needed to intruduce myself (the guy with the irrelavant crap :-)

!?!


What? 80??? Are you using drugs? This is really a dummy test... and this is a dummy question. So what exactly are you trying to tell about it?



Does it? Are you sure?



Please... 400, 100, 2500 and also 900 all have square roots... That's what this stupid question was expecting you to realize...



JUST DO THE MATH! If you can't see it easily, just calculate the time that each one takes... 2x/15 to Jack and x/10 to Sandy... What's the bigger? Very hard indeed!



I like some of these questions from IQ tests... Some of them can really make you think a little bit, and I really like to find patterns and things like that...
But the truth is that a thing like intelligence certainly can not be measured by a test... At least not in a "trustable" way.
Maybe it would be able only to separate jerks from normal people... But that's all.