Don't take something like this too seriously. Trying to come up with all sorts of way out there answers can be fun, pretending to have correct answers is just stupid because the questions are way too underspecified. Not to mention that the supposedly "correct answers" in this case are internally inconsistent anyway. Nobody should accept to or have to accept to play a game where the counterpart simply changes the rules at will.

[font="Comic Sans MS"]Explanation: This question tests whether you tend to do simple things in an over-complicated way. [/font]
[/quote]

[font="Arial"]If you didn't get the question the first time, explaining your answer here will only further the argument that you do simple things in an over-complicated way.[/font]

[font="Comic Sans MS"]Explanation: This question tests whether you tend to do simple things in an over-complicated way. [/font]

[font="Arial"]If you didn't get the question the first time, explaining your answer here will only further the argument that you do simple things in an over-complicated way.[/font]
[/quote]

I believe cutting up a giraffe is much more simple than trying to find a refrigerator large enough to hold one.

And more practical. What use is a cold, live giraffe? Meanwhile giraffe steak is delicious, and keeping it until you need it is just good planning.

I thought "make a bigger refrigerator".

This is relevant to game design - as well as many artistic endeavors - because this is about establishing an internal reality.

Basically, you make assumptions about the "rules". The "refrigerator" is assumed to be a consumer grade kitchen fridge.

The second question plays on the fact that you're likely to treat the questions as isolated entities, and the correct answer also adds details about the fridge (it can only fit one large animal apparently). You likely learned to treat them as isolated because that's how school tests usually work. The author knows that and is intentionally using your prior knowledge.

Minding assumptions and cultivating an understanding of rules is done a lot, usually for the consumer's benefit. This does the same, to troll.

Some examples of what I mean. One is if you're writing, there are rules. For example, you might frequently switch perspectives or plan to later, or you might stick the main character's point of view strictly, or whatever. There's many ways to do it, as long as the work is internally consistent. But...

How does the reader know what the rule is in your work? Do you put a label on the front, "3rd person limited with character X only"?

No. Well not usually. You try to characterize the work early. If you plan to switch person perspective a lot, you might make sure there is one switch early on. If you plan to switch between more than two characters, you might make sure there's three perspectives show within the first portion of the book.

Chord progressions in music are often used to the same effect, to establish what the scale is.

Video games, meanwhile, are often arted up with things from real life like people and sky and ground so you can intuit what the rules are. You know that when Mario "jumps" he'll go down, and which way down is, because there's earth and sky in the picture and you're familiar with that.

This is equivalent to if Mario jumped, he went straight up into the ceiling where there's spikes, and the game said "geez you're a moron", and you couldn't play again.

Now that you mention it, this test is trully a good one for designers. Some will just give up and say it's stupid or meant for fun (which it is), but some will pick up the challenge and redesign it.

What I mean is, when there is an idea you have, can you defend it.... Or rather expand it so it makes sense to a reader? Game design is all about convincing the player that the world he sees is true, that he can submerge himself in it. If the players raise questions about the integrity of the idea/structure (as said with the Mario-floaring-up-to-deadly-spikes example), they will be at the very least suprised and struck out of immersion. Then it is a personal matter of either saying the game is stupid or trying to beat it regardless, as a form of challenge.

Same happens in dreams. We dream the most absurd things in our sleep (holy cow was my dream a bloody massacre today O.o), and in the dream, what we see is reality. I know it has something to do with my brain switching off reasoning for some... reason? But the fact is, dreaming is the most absolute form of immersion. Still, there are dreams we are aware of that are dreams -- these either fade away fast (they break apart, like a badly designed game breaks apart a fragile experience) or we have fun with in our own way (the world is known to us and it no longer generates random content, it's not the same as it was before).

Never thought this topic could have a value besides thinking up stupid answers for equally stupid questions xD

You can totally break things intentionally too and it be a positive experience. Winterbells, for example, actually does have you just keep going up. Sorta. Note how the rule is established by letting you test your prior knowledge (rabbits jump), surprise you with a subversion (bells make you go up whut?) and makes you fail immediately (you likely don't already know hitting the ground ends it).

By using a little tact (careful word choice and presentation tactics I won't go into) and letting you try again and achieve total understanding of the rules, it gives a polar opposite experience to the reasoning test.

(Also note how the "How To Play" instruction at the open is super careful not to mention the flight or end condition.)

You can totally break things intentionally too and it be a positive experience. Winterbells, for example, actually does have you just keep going up. Sorta. Note how the rule is established by letting you test your prior knowledge (rabbits jump), surprise you with a subversion (bells make you go up whut?) and makes you fail immediately (you likely don't already know hitting the ground ends it).

By using a little tact (careful word choice and presentation tactics I won't go into) and letting you try again and achieve total understanding of the rules, it gives a polar opposite experience to the reasoning test.

(Also note how the "How To Play" instruction at the open is super careful not to mention the flight or end condition.)

There's one flash game that I can't remember the name of that was the same level over and over and all it did was change the ruleset every time to crazy stuff (gravity pulls up and you jump down, spikes are good, etc). I remember having a great time with that game just because each level was like a riddle where you had to reevaluate your preconceived notions about the game.

That sounds brilliant. Winterbells is a super light example, that one sounds more like the reasoning test (except for the trolling).

Speaking of changing the rules partway through.