Recruitment question

This was on a recruitment assessment help me work this one out its 7 right?

I believe you can almost certainly rule out 0 and 8 from a glace.

> I like those odds!

The totals for each of the first three rows are multiples of 9 (9, 9, 18).

The fourth row already sums to 18, so... 0?

could be Fibonacci * 9 = 9 9 18 27
?=9

9 was not one of the given answers
i was thinking 7 because the outer lines add up to 25 and indeed the internal diamonds however the only diamond that wouldn't work is the 2,7,6,? diamond if it was in fact 7

The two numbers below a block are the digits of 8 times the number above. If a block is below two blocks, it's the sum of the corresponding digits.

Row 1 is just a 9.
Row 2 is 72, since (*8=72
Row 3 is 576, because 2*8=16, 7*8=56, and since the middle block is shared, we had the 6 from 56 and the 1 from 12 to get 7.

For the missing block, 6*8=48, and 7*8=56, so the ? is 6+4->0

If this thing was on a recruitment assessment, that's not a place you want to work.

72/9 = 8
576/72 = 8
4608/576 = 8

Ans: 0

Sorry if this solution was already posted. Too lazy to read comments.

could be an iq society recruitment
your point still stands that is probably not a place OP wants to be

to be fair, you need a rather high IQ in order to pass our recruitment test...

9*8^0 = 9
9*8^1 = 72
9*8^2 = 576
9*8^3 = 4608
So the missing number is 0.

This question honestly doesn't seem challenging enough to be an IQ recruitment tool. From what I've seen, it would appear that the answer is A, BUT there are various ways to arrive at that answer. As there are multiple ways to achieve the answer, it isn't particularly challenging.

I kind of assume they would ask you how you got to your answer. That's usually what recruiters are interested in. It's like those questions Google supposedly (used to?) ask interviews like "how many fire hydrants are there in San Francisco. They don't care so much about your answer; it's your reasoning process that matters.

0

t. wrong

Yes, OP

neat

Fair enough.

Doesn't seem logically consistent, how would someone build from the ground up logically that the pattern that is meant is to be seen here is that one of the diagonals is supposed to contain the same number in each square?

I will be pissed if this method and the answer that follows is not correct, it seems too simple and requires the least amount of logical stretches to be wrong

What's the next number in the series
9, 72, 576, ...

I thought it would be much more complicated until I saw the responses on here. Funny how framing the question differently can throw a person off so much.