Test Gorilla kompetensutvärdering

The first step to solving a question like this is to determine whether Jonathan and Martin can work every day based on the given conditions.

Starting with Jonathan, he can only work when either Tessa or Umar are scheduled. On Monday, only Monica is scheduled. Jonathan's condition does not correspond with this, so he cannot work that day. Therefore, both the answers “Jonathan” and “Jonathan and Martin” can be ruled out as answers because Jonathan cannot work all seven days of the week.

Moving on to Martin, he needs either Jonathan or Monica to be scheduled based on his condition. Let’s look at Monday. On Monday, Monica works. This is in line with Martin’s condition, so he can work on Monday. On Tuesday, Tessa and Jonathan are scheduled to work. Jonathan's condition is corelative, so he can also work on Tuesday. On Wednesday, only Tessa is scheduled. Neither Jonathan nor Monica is scheduled, so Martin cannot work on Wednesday. Therefore, the answer "Martin" can also be ruled out, leaving the correct answer to be "None of them."

It is recommended that you use a pen and paper to solve questions like these fast and accurately.

To determine which conclusions follow the given statements, let's analyze each statement and conclusion systematically.

Statements:

• All cats are pets.
• All pets are cute.

A = cats, B = pets, C = cute
According to the premises, all A -> B, all B -> C.

Conclusions:

1. Some things that are cute are pets.

This conclusion is represented as some C -> B. Given that all pets are cute (all B -> C), it logically follows that at least some cute things are pets. This is a valid conclusion since it simply states that among the things that are cute (C), there are pets (B), which directly follows the second statement.

That conclusion follows.

2. Some things that are cute are cats.

This conclusion is represented as some C -> A. Since all cats are pets and all pets are cute, it logically follows that some of the things that are cute (C) are cats (A). This conclusion is valid because it is a direct implication of the chain of relationships established by the statements.

That conclusion follows.

The correct answer is B. Both 1 and 2 follow.

Below are the marked differences:

Correct answer: 11

Explanation: This sequence is a sequence where the difference between each number decreases once then increases once with the difference increasing by 1 each time.

Between the first and second numbers in the sequence, the difference is a decrease of 4:

8 - 4 = 4

The difference between the second and third numbers is an increase of 5:

4 + 5 = 9

The sequence then goes on, decreasing and then adding:

9 - 6 = 3, 3 + 7 = 10, 10 - 8 = 2

So, we need to continue this pattern. Since the previous action was a subtraction, we now need to add.

The last number is 2 and the last difference is 8, so we need to add 9, resulting in 11.

2 + 9 = 11

The correct answer is: 3
Looking at the matrix through its rows, you can observe that the black color moves to a different layer of the cube with each step to the right.

The black cube was the innermost cube at the beginning of the current row, so the black color is moving away from it. It is important to note that in the following figure, the middle cube is blacked so in the following figure, the blacked cube should be the outermost cube, thus making answer 3 the correct answer.

There are two rules in this series:
Rule 1: There are three large shapes: a house, a circle and a triangle, and each appears twice in a row. We can conclude that the missing diagram should include a large triangle with its tip facing down. This eliminates three answer options.
Rule 2: There are three shapes that appear in the middle of the larger shapes: a triangle, a circle and a house. This means that the missing diagram should include a house. At this point the answer can already be determined, so there is no need to figure out the pattern of the smallest shapes.

The answer is: 

In this analogy, the shape at the left is a combination of the two shapes at the right: The right triangle on top of the square at it's left. The colliding line of the two shapes disappears. 

The test shape shows a combination of a parallelogram on top of an isosceles triangle, that the line combining them was deleted, as shown in answer C.

Note that the parallelogram in answer C is rotated, and does not stand in the same direction is it does in the combined shape, to make this a bit harder to spot.