# How do you figure the answer to the following quiz?

Asked by

flo (

10341)
2 months ago

Apparently the answer is 198 but how do you get to it?

4, 5, 7 and below it 11, 19, 35 and below that, 67, 131, and ?

Observing members:
0
Composing members:
0
## 23 Answers

Where’d you get the answer 198? I found a pattern that led me to 259 as the solution.

Oh no. I’m wrong, it just gives the answer you gave, not the correct answer, I forgot that you have to pay to get the answer.

So, whatever the answer is how did you get to it?

The fact that the numbers are arranged in a square doesn’t matter.

4 to 5 is a difference of 1. 5 to 7 is a difference of 2. 7 to 11 is a difference of 4. The difference keeps doubling. This pattern continues. Finally, 67 to 131 is a difference of 64, so you must add double of 64, which is 128, to 131 to get the final number, which gets you 259.

Ok. Thanks.

Now to the answers, at the bottom, I wasn’t wrong because it’s a trial quiz no need to pay for it. (Correcting myself)

I don’t know but 67 and 131 equals 198

First and foremost, you are allergic to IQ tests stay away from them if you wish to avoid disappointment.

Working backwards (I like to turn my back on work) :

259, 131, 67, 35, 19, 11, 7, 5 4, 3.5, 3.25, 3.125, 3.0625, et cetera

http://www.free-iqtest.net/

Hurry up and read this before it’s deleted.

@Pandora Yeah, but that’s not the pattern.

@flo Why are you taking these quizzes?

As @Mariah stated above, it’s a series of the powers of 2 with 3 added.

If you subtract 3 from each number in the pattern it looks like this:

1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, 128.

The next number in the pattern is 256.

Add 3 to each result and the pattern becomes:

4, 5, 7, 11,19, 35, 67, 131, **259**

The answer is 259!

So the pattern I see (which matches the type of the patterns in all the other number problems in the quiz) is:

X, X+Y, (X+Y)+2xY

That is, in each row, take the amount the value increases from the left to the center, and the value on the right with be the value in the middle plus twice the value in the center.

If you look at the other problems with numbers in the quiz, they are pretty much all variations of this, and it’s more obvious in some of the later problems. It’s like you have three equations in rows, where the left is the starting value, the middle shows the difference, and the right is three times as far from the left, or twice as far from the middle as the middle is from the left.

Of course, I think it is more of a sign of the ability to guess what the author thinks the pattern is and go along with it, and the willingness to do so and to be judged by it, which strikes me as more a test of compliance and subservience than what I would call intelligence.

(The 21st question of that quiz is the most accurate indicator of intelligence (versus subservience). The correct answer for intelligence is “LOL you think I’m going to pay you $19.99 for your silly evaluation of that?” The correct answer for subservience is “Oh yes here have my credit card info, I am anxious to see how you rate my intelligence based on how well my answers met your expectations!”)

So, it’s not unanimous?

By the way is it the same vertically? 4, 11, 67 and 5, 19, 131 and 7, 35, ?

@Zaku You’re so right about your last paragraph. $19.99!

By the way why do they not have it in just one row?

The square matrix is a red herring, designed to lead you to believe it means something and throw you off.

@Zaku *X, X+Y, (X+Y)+2xY*

Not exactly accurate. Any number (except 0) to the power of 0 is 1 (n^0=1)

Any number to the power of 1 is that number (n^1=n).(Here’s a more detailed explanation.)

So the expression for the first number in the series would be:

(2^0)+3.

The expression for the subsequent numbers in the series would be:

(2^(n+1)) + 3, where n equals the previous exponent.

So:

So the first number in the series would be (2^0)+3.

**=(2^0)+3=1+3=4**

The next would be (2^(0+1))+3.

**=(2^1)+3=2+3=5**

The next would be (2^(1+1))+3.

**=(2^2)+3=4+3=7**

Then the next would be (2^(2+1))+3.

**=(2^3)+3=8+3=11**

…and so on.

Any questions?

@Strauss *“As @Mariah stated above, it’s a series of the powers of 2 with 3 added”*.

I don’t see anything about *“powers of 2 with 3 added*“_ in @Mariah ‘s answer. And hers and @Zaku ‘s answer fit perfectly it looks to me. Where would you get the2 or 0 or 3 from when you start with 4 and 5?

@flo in @Mariah‘s @answer, I noticed a pattern in the differences between the numbers. As she said, the difference between 4 and 5 is 1, the difference between 5 and 7 is 2, the difference between 7 and 11 is 4, and so on. I noticed a pattern of the differences (1, 2, 4, 8, 16…, etc.). If you look at that series it is the exact series of the powers of 2. [2^{0=1 2 to the power of 0=1, 2}1=2, 2^{2=4, 2}3=8…, etc., which givesyou the pattern 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, 128, 256 If you add three to each of those numbers, you end up with the original pattern.

So, 1+3=**4**, 2+3=**5**, 4+3=**7** 8+3=**11**, 16+3=**19**, and so on, 35, 67, 131,,,there are nine in the pattern, the ninth is the question mark. It is two to the ninth, add three, which would look like (2^9)+3=256+3=**259**,

@Strauss Not the point. The point: **“As @Mariah stated above, it’s a series of the powers of 2 with 3 added”** Where? Nowhere. Why did you write that she did? Answer that question.

And it’s good that she didn’t, because it’s a useful, to way way more people, kind of answer. If it were your (not lierally *your*) 7 yr. old for example, who hasn’t rerached that level yet, it would be useless.

Well, @flo, I’m sorry my answer to your *mathematics* problem was too…I don’t know, mathematical ~!

@Strauss Cool solution! BTW I wasn’t replying to your answer, which I didn’t read before posting my answer. You seem to have derived a more general/sophisticated formula which matches the puzzle and is perhaps more interesting, which is cool, but I don’t think there’s enough information to say your cooler rule is any more accurate than mine. Many of the other 20 problems seem to organize their thinking by rows and columns of three, without requiring thinking of a more general rule to get a consistent answer. Of course, it’s possible the authors have notions of intelligence that award even more points to seeing more sophisticated patterns, but since they seem to mainly be trying to scam the gullible out of $19.99, I suspect not. ;-)

@Zaku *but since they seem to mainly be trying to scam the gullible out of $19.99, I suspect not.*

Good point. GA!

Response moderated

## Answer this question

This question is in the General Section. Responses must be helpful and on-topic.