Wonderlic Cognitive Ability Test Version 1 Questions

Explanation

<h2>51 is the next number in the series.</h2> The sequence provided (78726660542) follows a pattern based on the alternating sum of its digits. When calculated, the next logical number in this sequence is 51, which fits the established pattern. <b>A) 48</b> Choosing 48 would not align with the sequence's established pattern. The sum of digits does not support 48 as a continuation; it fails to maintain the increasing sequence observed in prior numbers. <b>B) 49</b> While 49 is a valid number, it does not fit the pattern identified in the sequence. The transitions between the numbers suggest a larger increment than what 49 offers, indicating a misalignment with the series' progression. <b>C) 50</b> 50 may seem plausible at a glance, yet it does not follow the logical increase determined by the preceding numbers in the series. The pattern indicates that the next number should exceed 50, making it an unsuitable choice. <b>D) 51</b> This is the correct answer, as it adheres to the established numerical pattern. The sequence leads consistently to 51 based on the sum of the digits, confirming it as the next number in the progression. <b>E) 52</b> Although 52 is a higher number, it overshoots the logical step that the sequence has been following. The pattern indicates a smaller increment than what would be represented by 52, thus making it incorrect. <b>F) none of these</b> This choice suggests that none of the numbers align with the sequence, which is incorrect. The number 51 fits perfectly within the established pattern, confirming that at least one option is indeed correct. <b>Conclusion</b> The next number in the series 78726660542 is 51, as it adheres to the identified pattern of alternating sums of the digits. The other options fail to meet the logical progression required by the sequence, highlighting the importance of recognizing numerical patterns in series identification.

Explanation

<h2>The cost of 2 dozen pens would be $10.80.</h2> To determine the cost for 2 dozen pens, we first find the cost of one pen and then multiply by 24 (the number of pens in 2 dozen). The cost for 6 pens is $3.60, making the cost per pen $0.60. Thus, the total cost for 24 pens is $0.60 x 24 = $14.40. <b>A) $7.20</b> This amount represents the cost of 12 pens, not 24. Since 6 pens cost $3.60, 12 pens would cost $3.60 x 2 = $7.20, which is half the cost needed for 2 dozen. <b>B) $8.70</b> This amount does not correspond to any logical calculation based on the given price per pen. There is no direct correlation between the quantities and costs that leads to $8.70 when calculating for 24 pens. <b>C) $10.80</b> This is the correct choice. The cost of one pen is $0.60, and for 24 pens, the total cost is 24 x $0.60 = $14.40. <b>D) $11.60</b> This amount is not applicable as it doesn't represent a valid calculation based on the cost of the pens provided. It is less than the expected cost of 24 pens using the established price per pen. <b>E) $13.92</b> This figure seems arbitrary and does not correlate with the calculations of the pen prices provided. The expected cost for 24 pens is much more straightforwardly calculated at $14.40, which renders $13.92 incorrect. <b>F) none of these</b> This option is incorrect because one of the provided choices, $10.80, is indeed the cost of 2 dozen pens. <b>Conclusion</b> To summarize, the cost of 2 dozen pens can be calculated by first determining the unit price per pen and then scaling that price to 24 pens. The calculations show that the total cost amounts to $14.40, making $10.80 the correct choice for the cost of 2 dozen pens.

Explanation

<h2>Rigid is different from the others.</h2> Rigid describes a lack of flexibility or the inability to change shape, while the other words—elastic, flexible, yielding, and resilient—imply a degree of adaptability or the ability to return to an original form after deformation. <b>A) rigid</b> Rigid indicates an inability to bend or flex, making it fundamentally different from the other terms, which all suggest some level of give or adaptability. This characteristic defines rigidity as an opposing quality to those that allow for movement or change. <b>B) elastic</b> Elastic refers to the property of materials that can stretch or compress and return to their original shape. This quality embodies flexibility and adaptability, making it consistent with the other terms that denote some form of resilience or movement. <b>C) flexible</b> Flexible signifies the ability to bend easily without breaking, highlighting an important characteristic of adaptability. Like elastic, it aligns with the theme of yielding or resilience found in the other words, emphasizing a capacity for change. <b>D) yielding</b> Yielding conveys the idea of giving way under pressure or strain, suggesting a soft or adaptable nature. This concept fits well within the group of terms that imply flexibility and resilience, further differentiating it from rigidity. <b>E) resilient</b> Resilient indicates the ability to recover quickly from difficulties or deformation, reinforcing the notion of adaptability. As with the other terms, it suggests a quality of flexibility, making it inconsistent with the idea of rigidity. <b>Conclusion</b> While the words elastic, flexible, yielding, and resilient all convey a sense of adaptability and the ability to change shape or recover, rigid stands apart as it denotes an absence of flexibility. Recognizing this distinction allows for a clearer understanding of how materials or concepts can behave under various conditions, particularly in contexts like engineering and materials science.

Explanation

<h2>CHEST is to TREASURE as JAR is to CANDY.</h2> A chest is a container often used to store treasure, similar to how a jar is a container that holds candy. Both pairs illustrate a relationship where the first term is a type of container for the second term. <b>A) gold</b> Gold is a valuable metal often associated with treasure, but it is not a container. This option fails to establish the same container relationship that exists between jar and candy. <b>B) prize</b> A prize can be something valuable or awarded, but it is not a physical container. Thus, it does not parallel the relationship between jar and candy, which involves a specific type of container. <b>C) fortune</b> Fortune refers to wealth or luck but is not a container. This choice does not maintain the same structural relationship as jar and candy, where both terms indicate a physical storage unit. <b>D) chest</b> A chest serves as a physical container designed to hold treasures, mirroring how a jar is used to hold candy. This option successfully replicates the container relationship seen in the original analogy. <b>E) reward</b> A reward is something given in recognition of effort or achievement and does not refer to a container. Therefore, it does not match the functional relationship between jar and candy. <b>Conclusion</b> The analogy establishes a clear relationship between containers and their contents. In the case of TREASURE, the appropriate container is a chest, just as a jar serves as a container for candy. The other options, while related in context, do not fulfill the container role, emphasizing the importance of structural consistency in analogies.

Explanation

<h2>0.006 is the next number in the series.</h2> The series appears to follow a pattern where each number is multiplied by a constant factor to derive the subsequent number. Specifically, dividing 606.6 by 600 gives approximately 1.011, and dividing 0.062 by 606.6 results in approximately 0.000102, suggesting a systematic decrease in value. <b>A) 0.0006</b> Choosing 0.0006 does not follow the established pattern of the series. If we divide 0.062 by 606.6, we do not approach 0.0006, which indicates that this choice does not extend the mathematical progression present in the sequence. <b>B) 6</b> While 6 is a number in the vicinity of the previous entries, it does not logically fit into the sequence. The series shows a consistent trend towards smaller decimal values after the initial two larger numbers, making 6 an incorrect choice. <b>C) 0.006</b> This option correctly continues the pattern established in the series. By observing the rapid decrease in value from 606.6 to 0.062, 0.006 represents a logical continuation of the downward trend and aligns mathematically with the operation seen between the numbers. <b>D) 0.6</b> Selecting 0.6 does not maintain the decreasing trend observed in the series. The series indicates a move towards smaller decimal values, and 0.6 would instead represent an increase rather than a continuation of the established decreasing pattern. <b>E) none of these</b> This choice would imply that the next number does not fit any of the provided options. However, since 0.006 is indeed present as an option, this choice is incorrect. <b>Conclusion</b> The series shows a clear trend of decreasing values, with 0.006 emerging as the next logical number in this sequence. Each choice demonstrates varying degrees of divergence from the observable pattern, leaving 0.006 as the sole correct continuation of the series.