Reasoning/Inductive reasoning
PATTERNS · RULE DISCOVERY

From a few examples to the rule.

Inductive tests show you part of a pattern and ask what comes next. The skill is finding the simplest rule that fits every example, then checking it against the ones that might break it.

TRY IT · WASON'S 2-4-6 PUZZLE2, 4, 6 follows a secret rule. Test your own three numbers to find it.
no tests yet
WHEN YOU'RE READY, PICK THE RULE

What is inductive reasoning?

Inductive reasoning is the ability to infer a general rule from specific examples and use it to predict what comes next.

Tests measure it with number series, letter series, figure sequences and "which belongs to the group" items. It is a core part of fluid intelligence, and unlike deduction its conclusions are only ever probable: a new example could always break the rule.

By What's Your IQ · Published 3 Oct 2026 · Updated 3 Oct 2026
Format
Series or sets with a hidden rule and 4–5 options
Question types
Number series, letter series, find the rule, figure series
Typical employer test
20–30 items in 20–30 minutes
Measures
Pattern detection, hypothesis testing, fluid reasoning
This test
12 puzzles, 12 minutes, free, explained answers
INDUCTION · THIS TEST

Examples → rule

3, 6, 9, 12 … so: +3 each timeThe conclusion is the best explanation of what you've seen. It's probable, not guaranteed: the next term could be 16 if the real rule were something stranger.
DEDUCTION · THE OPPOSITE DIRECTION

Rule → example

"Add 3 each time", start at 3 … so: 15 is fifthGiven the rule, the answer is certain. That's what logical and syllogism tests measure.

The difference table

The fastest general method for number series. Subtract neighbours until a row stops changing, then build back up.
SERIES
2510172637
Δ1
357911
Δ2
2222
Next: 37.The second differences are constant (2). Extend that row, add it to the last first difference (9 + 2 = 11), then add that to the last term.

Six patterns to check first

Simon and Kotovsky (1963) showed most series are built from a few repeating operations. Try them in this order.
1Constant step4, 9, 14, 19Add or subtract the same amount. First differences are equal.
2Growing step2, 3, 5, 8, 12The step itself changes by a fixed amount. Second differences are equal.
3Multiply3, 6, 12, 24Each term is a fixed multiple of the last. Ratios are equal.
4Squares & cubes1, 4, 9, 16 · 1, 8, 27Look for n² or n³, sometimes plus or minus a constant.
5Alternating5, 10, 8, 16, 14Two rules take turns, or two series are interleaved. Split odd and even positions.
6Add the previous two1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8Each term depends on the two before it (Fibonacci-style).

Take the test

12 puzzles · 12 minutes · scratch paper allowed
Number series6 puzzlesLetter series3 puzzlesFind the rule3 puzzles: which one belongs?
WASON, 1960

Test the cases that could prove you wrong.

In the original 2-4-6 study, most people announced a wrong rule at least once, usually something like "even numbers rising by two". They kept testing triples that fitted their guess and never one that didn't.

6 / 29found the rule without a wrong guessWason (1960) [1]
On a test, this means:Once a rule fits, check it against the last term and every option. If two options fit, your rule is too loose.

How to solve a number series with a difference table

  1. 1Write the differences between each pair of neighbouring numbers.
  2. 2If those differences aren't constant, take the differences of the differences.
  3. 3When a row becomes constant, extend it by one and add back up to get the next term. If no row settles, try ratios instead.

Keep going

References
  1. Wason, P. C. (1960). On the failure to eliminate hypotheses in a conceptual task. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 12(3), 129–140.
  2. Klauer, K. J., & Phye, G. D. (2008). Inductive reasoning: A training approach. Review of Educational Research, 78(1), 85–123.
  3. Heit, E. (2000). Properties of inductive reasoning. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 7(4), 569–592.
  4. Simon, H. A., & Kotovsky, K. (1963). Human acquisition of concepts for sequential patterns. Psychological Review, 70(6), 534–546.