Challenging Psychometric Test Question (3 Viewers)

[Shadowdude]

i'm not even sure how this is a "Challenging Psychometric Test Question"


this takes all of like eight seconds to solve

 

[OzKo]

My understanding was that the whole point of these questions is to see how an applicant is able to make a judgement without complete information (i.e. not knowing if there's more categories than FT and PT).

Ergo, these questions aren't supposed to give you a complete picture considering IRL work you sparingly get the chance to have the complete picture. In other words, is the applicant able to identify the most plausible solution even though it might not end up being true once you know the complete picture.

But yes, it's C.

 

[Schmeag]

Re: Confessions

The question is technically incorrect then - if you cant assume facts outside the question, then you cant answer that question.

I agree with enoilgam/AD.

The assumption is that part-time and full-time are mutually exclusive. This is an assumption not clarified in the factual statement. It is clearly stated that information should only be drawn from the actual statement, so Carrotstick's assumption about a lack of adequate answers (provided after the statement) is not an assumption that follows the rules set by the only thing we know to be true:

Part-time employees do not work in the New York office.
Based on the information above, which of these statements MUST be true?

OzKo's assumption that the most plausible answer based on "IRL" should be chosen is also not justified, given:

*DO NOT ANSWER THESE QUESTIONS BASED ON REAL LIFE KNOWLEDGE OR "COMMON SENSE".

Enoilgam's revised question can be solved by logic, but nerdasdasd's cannot be.

This is an IT internship question. If i'm right they couldn't care less if you know about the different jobs, they want to know if you can think analytically

Let full time workers be A
Let part time workers be B
Let offices be C

Question: A and C NOT B

The only 3 things that exist within the realm of the question are A, B and C

A bit of logic solves the question itself.

Edit: by this logic its either a or e. But i didn't pay attention in computation theory

Even with the above assumptions, I'm afraid I do not understand Katsumi's logic: if "A and C", this could mean all FTs work in NY and NY only has FTs. The "NOT B " part is the assumption that FT and PT are mutually exclusive, which I have covered above. Overall, I think I understand this statement.

However, the initial statement according to the actual statement should be B and NOT C, therefore I think Katsumi's whole initial premise is incorrect.

Part-time employees do not work in the New York office.

 

[OzKo]

Re: Confessions

OzKo's assumption that the most plausible answer based on "IRL" should be chosen is also not justified, given:

This is not what I said.

What I said was that these questions are simulating a situation IRL where an employee won't have a complete picture when they make a decision. They have to make a decision based on the information that they do know. I'm talking about psychometric testing in general, and not this particular question.

Basically I'm addressing why questions used for psychometric testing are designed to confuse applicants (at least initially).

I didn't say that you need to use what happens IRL to solve this question.

 

[Schmeag]

Re: Confessions

This is not what I said.

What I said was that these questions are simulating a situation IRL where an employee won't have a complete picture when they make a decision. They have to make a decision based on the information that they do know. I'm talking about psychometric testing in general, and not this particular question.

Basically I'm addressing why questions used for psychometric testing are designed to confuse applicants (at least initially).

I didn't say that you need to use what happens IRL to solve this question.

How did you arrive at your answer? I assumed you had used the above reasoning. As I assumed incorrectly, I am curious as to the method you used.

 

[Flop21]

I put C... so did everyone else it seems lol.

It's a dumb question IMO. It's only C by a process of elimination, and consequently picking the least incorrect answer. Because they all could be wrong.

 

[buriza]

Part-time employees do not work in the New York office.
Based on the information above, which of these statements MUST be true?

All full-time employees work in the New York office.
All employees in the New York office are part-time.
All employees in the New York office work full-time.
Some employees in the New York office work part-time.
No full-time employees work in any office except the New York office.

A is incorrect because we do not have enough information to know whether ALL full-time employees work in just the New York office.

B is incorrect because it contradicts the statement.

D is incorrect because it also contradicts the statement.

E is incorrect because we also do not have enough information to know whether NO full-time employees work anywhere else.

Therefore I would've thought C, assuming there are other workers and it is only between part-time and full-time.

 

[OzKo]

Part-time employees do not work in the New York office.
Based on the information above, which of these statements MUST be true?
...
All full-time employees work in the New York office.
We know that there is more than one office because the PT employees don't work at NY. No information regarding FT employees outside of NY

All employees in the New York office are part-time.
Contradicts the original statement

All employees in the New York office work full-time.
We only know that there are PT and FT employees. We cannot assume that there are other types. There are no PT at New York.

Some employees in the New York office work part-time.
Contradicts the original statement

No full-time employees work in any office except the New York office.
Not enough information. Can't assume without more info

 

[Schmeag]

All employees in the New York office work full-time.
We only know that there are PT and FT employees. We cannot assume that there are other types. There are no PT at New York.

While you cannot assume that there are other types, you also cannot assume that there aren't other types. While I agree with your reasoning, this one key difference would make me say that there is no right answer and instead say:

Not enough information. Can't assume without more info

Hence, enoilgam provides a question that addresses that assumption.

 

[buriza]

Frankly there can be only one answer to this question though. Since we've all agreed that B and D get wiped out, this leads to A, C and E. The problem is, the reasoning you use to come to the conclusion that A is correct (largely probabilistic I think) also makes you come to the conclusion that E can be correct. And given there can be only one answer to this question, the answer can neither be A or E. So it's probably a matter of C being "most correct."

 

[Schmeag]

Frankly there can be only one answer to this question though. Since we've all agreed that B and D get wiped out, this leads to A, C and E. The problem is, the reasoning you use to come to the conclusion that A is correct (largely probabilistic I think) also makes you come to the conclusion that E is correct. And given there can be only one answer to this question, the answer can neither be A or E. So it's probably a matter of C being "most correct."

Absolutely, however, the question asks which "MUST" be correct. With an unfounded assumption, the answer of C relies on a mix of plausibility and/or IRL knowledge. I don't suppose that there is technically a sixth answer, which would be to leave the field blank?

 

[OzKo]

While you cannot assume that there are other types, you also cannot assume that there aren't other types. While I agree with your reasoning, this one key difference would make me say that there is no right answer and instead say:


Hence, enoilgam provides a question that addresses that assumption.

The difference is that we know that there a FT and PT employees. This is a key assumption that the question gives us. We can assume that there are no other types because we are directed to only use the information included to make the judgement. Sure, you need more information to make a call, but it's clear that they are saying to only assume there are PT and FT employees. You don't need to additional information to prove that C) is true. To do so would be using information from the real world. The question explicitly states not to use information outside of what is included in the question.

There is zero information regarding the other offices except that PT employees work in those offices, so we cannot answer for E). For E) to be true, you need more information which we cannot deduce based on the information that is already included.

 

[Sy123]

Assumptions:

(1) - You need to assume that the options "full-time" and "part-time" are exhaustive in so far as there is no excluded middle

(2) - You must also assume that it is possible that there is more than one office

(3) - There exists employees in the NY office (*)

Without these assumptions it is impossible to solve the question

-----

Approaching it rigorously, the question supposes that the answer MUST be true, i.e. it is necessarily true given the information. Therefore, to eliminate an option, one need only conceive of a scenario in which the answer is false, yet the information is true:

- A: It is possibly false that 'all full-time employees work in the NY office', since it possible that there is another office (assumption 2) and that full time employees work there, this doesn't imply any contradiction with the data

- B: It is necessarily false that all employees that work in the NY office are part time, since by the data there are no employees who work part time

- C: Suppose for sake of reductio that it is false that "all employees in the NY office work full-time", using assumption (1), then there must be some employees who work in the NY office who are part time (assumption 3), but this contradicts the original statement. However the original statement is true, therefore it is false that it is false that "all employees in the NY office work full-time", meaning it is true.

- D: This directly contradicts the information, as if it were true that some employees work in the NY office part time, then this contradicts "no part time employees work in NY"

- E: This is possibly false, since we can suppose the falsity of the statement "No full-time employees work in any office except the NY office" by conceiving of FT employees working out of NY, with no contradiction to the information. Moreover, A and E imply each other, and since only 1 answer is correct, if A was correct, then E would be, and if E was correct, A would be. But neither case can be true since there is only 1 correct answer, therefore neither A or E is correct.

--------

(*) this assumption however is merely due to the ambiguity of the language, if option C stated "if there existed employees in NY, then they are full time" then this assumption can be dispensed with

 

[buriza]

Absolutely, however, the question asks which "MUST" be correct. With an unfounded assumption, the answer of C relies on a mix of plausibility and/or IRL knowledge. I don't suppose that there is technically a sixth answer, which would be to leave the field blank?

Well I would say since C is the most correct answer, it MUST be correct too.

Seriously speaking though, it all comes to the point that you have to pick one answer at the end of it all.

 

[Schmeag]

The difference is that we know that there a FT and PT employees. This is a key assumption that the question gives us.

Actually, we only know that there are PT employees. FT employees are only mentioned in the answer section and are not included as part of the true statement. FT employees, like the other offices are only mentioned or inferred in the answer section.

 

[OzKo]

Actually, we only know that there are PT employees. FT employees are only mentioned in the answer section and are not included as part of the true statement. FT employees, like the other offices are only mentioned or inferred in the answer section.

Hahah I think you're trying to a bit too clever here tbh.

It's defeating the purpose of what the test is meant to measure.

 

[Schmeag]

Hahah I think you're trying to a bit too clever here tbh.

It's defeating the purpose of what the test is meant to measure.

Perhaps, but from a logical standpoint, the question falls flat. In an exam situation, I would probably pick C and move on, but it would be based on my perception of plausibility and outside knowledge laced with pseudo-logic.

 

[OzKo]

IMO the question should be asking which is the BEST answer rather than which is the TRUE answer considering that.

 

[Schmeag]

IMO the question should be asking which is the BEST answer rather than which is the TRUE answer considering that.

This would also work.

 

[Carrotsticks]

Wow this question blew up much more than I had anticipated.