Iq Test Worksheet Stock Illustrations - 1,930 Iq Test Worksheet ... - Free Printable

Let me analyze the pattern in the sequence of three given objects.

First, I’ll look closely at each figure:

1. First figure: A square with a diagonal line from top-left to bottom-right, and a red dot near the bottom-right corner (on the diagonal).
2. Second figure: A square divided vertically into two equal rectangles (a vertical line through the center), no red dot.
3. Third figure: A square with a diagonal line from top-right to bottom-left, and a red dot near the bottom-left corner (on that diagonal).

So the sequence is:
- Diagonal ↘ (top-left to bottom-right) + dot near end
- Vertical split (no dot)
- Diagonal ↗ (top-right to bottom-left) + dot near end

What changes? Let’s consider possible patterns:
- The line orientation: ↘ → vertical → ↗ — maybe rotating?
- ↘ is -45°, vertical is 90°, ↗ is +45° — not a simple rotation.
- Maybe it's alternating between “diagonal with dot” and “line-only”?
- But we have: diag+dot, line-only, diag+dot → so next should be line-only again.

Now check the line-only options:
- B: vertical line + red dot → has a dot, but second figure had *no* dot.
- D: vertical line, no dot ✔
- A: horizontal line, no dot
- C: diagonal ↗ + dot (like third figure)
- E: vertical line + dot, but dot is centered, not on edge

Wait — second figure is vertical line, no dot. So if pattern is:
1. ↘ + dot
2. vertical line, no dot
3. ↗ + dot
→ then 4 should be: horizontal line, no dot? Or maybe symmetry?

Let’s think about symmetry or transformation:

From fig 1 to fig 2: diagonal ↘ becomes vertical line — maybe rotate 45° clockwise?
Diagonal ↘ (−45°) rotated 45° CW → vertical (90°)? No, −45° + 45° = 0° (horizontal). Hmm.

Alternative idea: The red dot is always on the *lower* end of the line segment inside the square.

- In fig 1: line goes TL→BR, dot near BR (lower end).
- In fig 3: line goes TR→BL, dot near BL (lower end).

So the line always goes from upper corner to lower corner, and dot is at lower corner side.

Then fig 2 is the *only* one without a dot — maybe it's the “midpoint” or “neutral” state.

Another angle: Look at the number of line segments:
- Fig 1: 1 diagonal + 1 dot (but dot is not a line)
- Fig 2: 1 vertical line
- Fig 3: 1 diagonal + 1 dot

Maybe the pattern is: with dot, without dot, with dot, without dot — so next should be *without dot*, and the line should be horizontal (since we’ve seen diagonal ↘, vertical, diagonal ↗ — next logical is horizontal to complete 4 directions).

Check options:
- A: horizontal line, no dot ✔
- D: vertical line, no dot — but we already had vertical in position 2; repeating same line type may not be intended.
- B, C, E all have dots — but positions 2 and 4 should be dot-less if alternating.

Sequence:
1. ↘ + dot
2. | (vertical), no dot
3. ↗ + dot
→ 4. — likely — (horizontal), no dot → option A.

Also, visually, the three figures seem to be rotating the diagonal: first ↘, then “straightened” to vertical (maybe intermediate), then ↗ — next would be horizontal (← or →), which is A.

Yes, A is horizontal line, no dot.

Let me double-check by zooming in on each option to confirm details.