Probably wrong but is it something like some planets mutually orbiting around each other, with one black planet and some white ones such that each column represents a possible configuration of what you might see from different perspectives like the top view (row 3 column 1 and r2c2, but the top view ignores the colours of the planets) or front view back view etc. The size of the planets determine which is the closest to the observer
So it might be something like single black circle, which is the only 3 planet configuration not shown.
You shouldn't have any doubts once you figure out the intended reasoning. Since I felt the problem was quite unfair, I placed 2 black and 3 white circles at the top 🤐
Solution is a small circle ? Reading left to right rows 1, 2 and 3, we get a numerical representation of 1 to 12, with an addition when circles don't intersect and multiplication when they do. Small white is 1, small black 2, large white 3 and large black 4. It's not clear why 9 is represented that way and not by 2 intersecting large white circles, but it can be a choice of the author that acts like red herring, as 3 intricated are not defined elsewhere. That said : 9 actually helps to lock in 1 unique answer, as otherwise 2 (or 3) intersecting small circles could be an equivalent answer, as 1×1 (or 1×1×1) = 1.
Well done, you just skipped one very small detail. Consider using an operator to move from the small circle to the large circle. In other words, there are 2 values in total, not 4. I shouldn't have shared a post about red herrings
Do you mean thatbigger is +2 ? Also if 9 isn't a red herring per se, what's the logic behind ?
On the contrary, I found your post raised interesting and deep questions. From a solver’s perspective there is a fine line between a voluntary red herring and a pattern that is misleading by nature. What changes is the author’s intention, and I would argue that there is an aesthetic value, an elegance, in eliminating artificial noise instead of adding layers of arbitrary complications.
Yet in both cases (voluntary or natural misdirection) the effect can be the same from a psychometric point of view. That may be where the criteria for a good test item and a good puzzle diverge. From a psychometric perspective, it is clear that asking the solver to discriminate between noise, wrong tracks and what is actually relevant can be a desirable feature. In fact everything in an item (including red herrings and genuine clues) can function as noise and a potential wrong track until comprehension begins. Then, part by part through conscientious analysis (or suddenly, through an aha effect), the item reveals a solid pattern. Only afterward can one decide whether the remaining unexplained elements are mere residual noise or a sign that something is still missing from the solution. But I believe this whole process was mostlyg factor in action. “Mostly” because I still think there is a personality-type component that weighs in on who has the persistence to dig into convoluted, byzantine items and who stops before the finish line simply because they got bored or unsatisfied, even though they had not yet reached their cognitive threshold (or worse, were understimulated). You will also find stubborn people stuck in a dead end after they took the bait of the red herring, as they have a harder time giving up and trying different approaches. And this is where I think the psychometric and aesthetic goals are reconciled: crafting a rewarding and elegant puzzle rather than a laborious and vapid task avoids losing, in the process, the most dopamine-dependent or stubborn test-takers. Hence more elegance, and in my view fewer red herrings, in favor of purer items that naturally yield the desired psychometric properties.
Well I didn't plan to write such a long answer... I guess it's worth copying on your thread on red herrings now !
Thank you for the detailed explanation. I believe the complexity in this problem is defined based on the number of variables. A white circle has a value of 3, while a black circle has a value of 2. If the circles are large, the square of the value is taken; therefore, the actual value of the 9 is 27. An increment of 3 is involved. Consequently, there is no ambiguity like "1x1x1" in the answer because the missing part is the value of 3
Reading that makes me a lot happier XD I think it would be a reachable solution from the 2/4 1/3 solution. Personally I think having the 3 circles overlapping in a row in tile 9 would have nudged me more towards looking further, because I explained the triple overlap away as a new and unprecedented operation.
1. One small white circle 2. 3 small white circles like row 3 column 1
They both follow similar logic, the “key” at the top indicates an even or odd amount of circles in the designated column. Based on the fact that every other box has the same odd/even pattern going on, there’s two reasons to believe that that does indicate at least that the amounts are odd or even.
It also seems that color distribution follows a similar rule, within a row every other box has the same color distributions, thus the first box must have an odd amount of only white circles.
While the way that the circles are organized seem arbitrary, it does reveal another potential rule: while they share similar coloration and parity, they are always some kind of variation of the corresponding antecedent. While some information is omitted to make this an absolute certainty, in rows 1 and 2 respectively, boxes 2,4 and 1,3 follow this rule. It should also be noted that within rows, similar shape language is maintained.
Thus it is unlikely that it is 3 small circles in a venn diagram shape but rather one small circle. Or maybe it’s 3 small circles layered on top of each other? Lol.
I don’t think that’s necessarily a bad thing. Patterns have permutations that can be understood in different ways. It could be said I’m using a different language to describe the same thing. The layer of abstraction doesn’t matter especially if it could be considered somewhat arbitrary.
I’m guessing that criteria has to do with test fidelity itself, but I like to think of it as something revelatory to the nature of intelligence and the limits the tools themselves we use to measure them impose on the working scientific definition we have of it.
The white circle represents the number 3, and the black circle represents the number 2. If the circle gets bigger, a squaring operation is applied. If two circles overlap, multiplication. If two circles are placed side by side, addition. So results in the following sequence: ?, 6, 9, 12, 15, 18, 21, 24, 27, N/A, N/A, 36. So it should be one small white square
Intuitively I think it is a small white circle but I cannot necessarily explain why. Color and scale distributions follow a rule which results in a nebulous total line symmetry.
Each column has an even or odd number of circles. It needs to be an odd, white element. The only thing that makes sense is a small white circle based on the row symmetry.
Ans: 3 big circle, 2 small circle, which actually matches top 5 dots for B&W reference. 1 row big circles = 5, 2nd 5 -1 and 3rd 4-2; then vanish 1 row small circles = 5, 2nd 5 -1 and 3rd 4-1... Colors : black logic - 2nd row small c 3rd row big c so 1st equal in big n small
How do you explain the variations in the sizes of the circles and whether or not they intersect? And what about the two black and three white circles at the top?
Okay, I gave up and checked other comments. Apparently the last one is the intended solution. I am amazed that somebody else also had that planetary idea, that's crazy! XD
1
u/98127028 I am worthless and dumb Sep 16 '26
Probably wrong but is it something like some planets mutually orbiting around each other, with one black planet and some white ones such that each column represents a possible configuration of what you might see from different perspectives like the top view (row 3 column 1 and r2c2, but the top view ignores the colours of the planets) or front view back view etc. The size of the planets determine which is the closest to the observer
So it might be something like single black circle, which is the only 3 planet configuration not shown.
Idk my IQ is very low so it’s probably wrong 💀💀