>>11794752>it relies on assumed knowledge of the sequenceIt doesn't really, since the sequence is self-justifying. Even if you've never heard of the name Fibonacci before, once you've figured out the pattern of the symmetry axes, you are left to choose between either a sequence that goes "1, 1, 2, 3, 4" (with no explanation for the double 1) or the correct "1, 1, 2, 3, 5," where each number is plainly the sum of the previous two. It does seem like a rather cruel extra step though. I was once professionally administered an IQ test as part of a full battery of neuropsychological testing, and achieved the maximum score determinable by the short version of the test, and I probably would have gone with A on this question. There's no way I would have taken the time to work out that second layer of analysis in a real testing situation, I would see the "1, 2, 3, 4" and not think about the extra 1. The only "hint" the question seems to provide is that there is no answer choice corresponding to "3," which would have been an attractive answer as it would make the entire grid "symmetrical," and thinking through that possibility would force you to recognize the extra 1 in the corner (which could lead you to realize that "4" can't be right). By omitting a "3" answer, the problem clues you in that "3" is not right, and the correct pattern must be something else.
