Where did the american education system fail so horrendously?

The lines split the plane in 10 areas.

another perfectly fine answer is 8 since on the first picture 5 could be the numbers of points in which an even number of lines intersect

>but 10 isn't correct ever
In the first image, there are four squares, four squares +1 = 5.

In the second image, there are nine squares, nine squares +1 = 10.

All the solutions are completely arbitrary as no values are assigned, just assumed.

easy there are 8 vertices in the first image so one is worth 5/8.
In the second image there are 15 vertices si it amounts to 15*5/8 = 75/8 = 9 + 3/8

if the first image is 5 then the next image must be 6 right?

>4 interior squares + 1 exterior square = 5
>Therefore 9 interior squares + 1 exterior square = 10
But
>5 total intersections
>Therefore 12

Oh look it's one of those questions that had multiple answers. But instead of just saying "this question has no definitive answer, therefore it's pointless to even try to answer it" retards on the internet will jerk themselves off over their preferred solution.

Its 10 in my opinion. In the first one you have 5 squares, counting the big one, the second has 10. But it is not an explicit problem so it can't just be "solved", it depends on the interpretation you give to the graphs.

>is social media actively making people less intelligent

Yes.

Ah, I recognize this problem. Here's an alternate version, solved the same way:

Benis = 3
Bagina = ?
if u can solb then u r super smard :DDD

It's 10 (number of squares).

This. There are two types of cubes. The ones in the first image, and the ones in the second. In this image the answer is undefined because there is no relative amount to gauge ?'s value on.

If it's number of squares then it's 14

its 7.5

The answer is 6 because they are just index numbers. They try to trick you by starting with 5 instead of 1 or 0.

Where the fuck do you see any cubes, dumbass?

Wow, you're that kind of person that is just slightly above-average but still pretty retarded. You were right that we can't really know the answer because we don't know the question. But then you come out and say that even though it's impossible to know the answer, you somehow have divine knowledge that it isn't 10.

Leave this board.

Holy shit, it's true.

12, its clearly counting the number of T and X crossings

Clearly we are only supposed to count the smallest and largest squares. 10

Clearly if the area of 4 squares is 5, than the area of 9 is 11.25

Since the length of twelve eqal line segments is 5, of twenty four it must be 10

>300 posts of tryhard pseudo intellectual faggots arguing about a poorly defined question, complete with whining about the ills of social media and circlejerking about brainlets
nice board

45/4

11,25

Period.

>mfw a group of self proclaimed geniuses is arguing about a facebook troll post on an east Mongolian basket weaving forum

>Collection of squares equals 5

Incorrect

These problems are fucking stupid. There are numerous valid logical arbitrary solutions most of the time.

The people who make the poorly defined problems are clearly 100 IQ or less brainlets.

>is social media actively making people less intelligent
possible as they may spend more time than before not using their brain by consuming easily digestable content.

>Cubes
>In a 2D image

>where did the american education system fail so horrendously?
The Prussian model was designed for the industrial-era mass-production workers of its era, not abstract thought or creativity.

>is social media actively making people less intelligent
no, though it does disincentivize long-form content, which is almost the same

>or is it just giving the ever-present stupid majority a voice?
yes, though like the internet, the benefit of letting smart people connect better probably outweighs the downsides of making stupid people louder too

all that said...have a relevant pic

11.25

There are a ton of different ways to interpret this figure. There is no explicit answer, as it is a subjective task, not objective.

It's seven.
You count the number of lines required to make the design and subtract one.

Veeky Forums is full of brainlets, I swear.

9{5࿊ is the correct answer

value / num of cubes:
5/4 = x/9
45 = 4x
x = 45 / 4 = 11.25

27 rectangles with area greater than 1

"is social media actively making people less intelligent?" he pontificates as he strokes his patchy neckbeard, before hitting the submit button to push another iteration of his tripe to a chinese cartoon shitposting board

...

The people who make these are elder trolls.

It's 7.

>cubes
Brb going to smash my head in the refrigerator door until blood comes out my sensory organs

4 squares = 5
1 square = 5/4
9 squares = 9x(5/4)
=45/4
=11.25

>squares
You mean cubes

There are, at least, 3 diferent answers for this shit:
If you consider that the right answer is the number of lines less 1, it will be 7;
If you divide 5 for the number of small squares (4) and then multiply for 9, it'll be 11,25;
If you consider that each square, independent of it's size, is equal to 1, the answer will be 14

But the real fun is to watch you guys feuding for such an useless thing.

Isn't just a simple matter of working out the value of a square and multiplying the quantity? How is this any different to a simple algebra problem. It's not ambiguous as it already defines a solution.

Divide 5 into 4 to find the value of a square, then you can count the squares and multiply the amount of squares by the value. alternatively, work out the value of the total squares of the smaller shape and then multiply the total value by the factor of the size increase of the larger.

2nd method is preferred as you could reuse the same method for greater increases in the size of the object and only have to trade out one value.

But yeah, this is 11 year old tier algebra

>It's not ambiguous
How can you be this retarded?

Leave this board.

>no one interpreted it in the objectively superior way of 'number of squares in the picture'

Plebs

You imbesils you count the amount of overlapping sticks

Answer is 12.

not three but infinite and all of you guys are retards
the upper one can be any pattern whatsoever, just find any relationship between the left picture and the number that's true, whichever you want (number of fields plus one, or the number of black pixels in the fucking picture divided by whichever number you need in order to get five, or whatever the fuck) and just apply it to the bottom one
fuck's sake

...

What about the 2x2 squares in the second figure? There's individual squares (9) and one huge square (1) and four 2x2 squares (4).

The equation is

"Shortest number of lines required to make the figure without picking the pencil up PLUS FOUR"

So the question mark is 7.

>ITT: Brainlets BTFO by simple ambiguity, just like every other bullshit social media

I'm disappointed, Veeky Forums

those retarded games are spammed to attract retards who think themselves as intelligent people
and you faggots still fall for it

>where did the american education system fail so horrendously?
kek

>half abstract, half concrete

Pure concrete solution is to measure the large square, ignoring the small ones.

Pure abstract solution is to ignore the size of the squares entirely.

If the answer was the number of intersections why would you need a bigger square in the second pic?

I think that it's simply the number of squares

1. 1+4 = 5
2. 1+9+4=14

kek

Yeah so each completed box counts as 1 I assume.

There are
9 1-boxes
4 4-boxes
1 9-box
Making the answer 14 (maybe)

In general for an nxn array of boxes, there will be
n^2 1-boxes
(n-1)^2 2^2-boxes
...
1 n^2 box
??????
Profit

This yields A= 1/6(n)(n+1)(2n+1) boxes.

Note that for n=2 A=5 and for n=3 A=14.

>ambiguous question

The brainlet test is seeing if you take the time to try solving it at all

this

And no matter what you do, you end up being stupid brainlet (which is word that is used on this board quite often, thought i never seen any clear definition anywhere.). I realized long time ago that Veeky Forums is just board full of masturbating twats. Some masturbate to porn, some to gore, some to traps, furries etc. But people on this board especialy masturbate to their ego and thoughts of superiority over normal people, due to their ability to solve/argue about meaningless stupid instagram post.

This.

And the fascinating thing is that the fucktards wont stop for one minute to consider that it was some equally stupid fucktard who created the meaningless stupid Instagram post in the first place.

>brainlet
From manlet, meaning guy shorter than average.

11

it is clearly asking for the smallest prime that is also larger than the number of small squares

Here we fucking go