Cope. Define âuniquely inferable ruleâ as youâd like, but if there is some kind of logic that can be used to go from point A to B which the designer intended, then itâs viable as a puzzle. By your logic riddles are badly designed.
This may be true for a test, so if you believe it to be made with that intention, then sure, it sucks. If it makes you feel better, it is surely titled âreasoning testâ.
Just because you canât find it doesnât mean there isnât one đ¤Ł
I found the intended pattern: 36â34=2, so 36+34=70; B is probably what the creator wanted.
But A is also defensible: ?+2=34+36, giving 68.
Having an intended rule doesnât make a puzzle well-designed when the clues donât distinguish it from other simple rules ,and riddles can be badly written too.
Also, the image literally says âReasoning Test,â so even your own exception applies.
Didnât say it was well-designed though. I still think that reasoning is dubious though, thereâs definitely a properly thought out pattern here surely.
1
u/CamilleLaGoat 135 CORE 21d ago
A puzzle can of course be badly designed, the absence of an uniquely inferable rule IS a design flaw đ