Cube counting: do faces have to touch?
Started by FROGGBUSTER
Would there have to be a cube there where the red is pointing?
I originally did the problem assuming only edges had to touch...[/QUOTE
Faces DO have to touch. Edge to Edge touching shouldn't be looked at
From what I remember in other people's postings, the actual DAT wont be as ambiguous as in the above example. So if that's the case, I wouldn't worry.
And if you think about it, that would make sense. If the actual had ambiguity like this, then there would be an uproar of half the test takers claiming one thing while the other half claiming the opposite. The DAT wouldn't allow that to be a scenario.
And if you think about it, that would make sense. If the actual had ambiguity like this, then there would be an uproar of half the test takers claiming one thing while the other half claiming the opposite. The DAT wouldn't allow that to be a scenario.
Would there have to be a cube there where the red is pointing?
I originally did the problem assuming only edges had to touch...
I dont think there is a cube there, I believe the rule is that you have to clearly see each cube. When its not clear such as in your pic, then its merely the face of the cube behind it and not the top of the imaginary cube next to it.
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
yes they have to touch, it has to be all 1 piece that is cemented together.
another yes on that the actual DAT is not as ambiguous. But I wouldn't call this one as iffy. CDP as another doozy, that you call would out right call bogus as there is no way anyone can see it. I forgot what test number its on.
you should search the forums this question has been discussed numerous times.
another yes on that the actual DAT is not as ambiguous. But I wouldn't call this one as iffy. CDP as another doozy, that you call would out right call bogus as there is no way anyone can see it. I forgot what test number its on.
you should search the forums this question has been discussed numerous times.
Faces have to touch. Now we know. =/
frog i made similar mistakes to you but the easy way to think about it is that since you technically cannot see that cube thats "hidden" because of the long column, then it might or might not exist. So the rule is that it does not exist to prevent confusion, thats why i always look for a "set" of cubes, meaning if I see two cubes next to each other, i know there is two, if i see it from the angle like in the problem you showed, i side with the fact there is only 1 cube there.
3:41 AM holy crap frogger your schedules are all messed up
