Thinking And Problem Solving

Are flexible rules of thumb that are faster but do not guarantee a solution.

Step 1: Algorithms are systematic, exhaustive procedures — if followed correctly, they GUARANTEE a correct solution. However, they can be slow and time-consuming. Step 2: Heuristics are informal, flexible 'rules of thumb' — the person is free to try any possible approach. Step 3: The key trade-off: Heuristics are faster but do NOT guarantee success. Step 4: Option A describes algorithms, not heuristics. Option C also describes the algorithmic approach. Option D is incorrect — heuristics are used in many domains, not just mathematics. Step 5: Understanding this trade-off between speed and certa

Mental set and functional fixedness

Step 1: The nine-dot problem requires connecting nine dots arranged in a 3×3 grid using four straight lines without lifting the pen. Step 2: Most people fail because they assume the lines must stay WITHIN the boundaries of the grid — this assumption is a mental set. Step 3: The actual solution requires drawing lines OUTSIDE the grid boundaries, which people resist due to their mental rigidity. Step 4: This classic example illustrates how mental set limits problem-solving ability by imposing unnecessary constraints. Step 5: It is NOT about inductive reasoning, incubation, or means-end analysis

Graham Wallas

Step 1: Graham Wallas was a leading early twentieth-century psychologist who studied creativity systematically. Step 2: He proposed the five-stage model of creative thinking: Preparation → Incubation → Illumination → Evaluation → Revision. Step 3: Sigmund Freud is known for psychoanalysis and the unconscious mind, not creativity stages. Step 4: Jean Piaget is known for his theory of cognitive development in children. B.F. Skinner is known for operant conditioning and behaviourism. Step 5: Therefore, Graham Wallas is the correct answer for the five-stage model of creative thinking.

Inductive reasoning

Step 1: Analyse the direction of reasoning. The scientist is starting with SPECIFIC observations (multiple experiments showing 100°C). Step 2: From these specific instances, a GENERAL conclusion is drawn ('water always boils at 100°C at sea level'). Step 3: This direction — from specific to general — is the defining feature of INDUCTIVE reasoning. Step 4: Deductive reasoning goes in the OPPOSITE direction — from a general rule to a specific conclusion. For example: 'All water boils at 100°C (general rule) → Therefore this water will boil at 100°C (specific conclusion).' Step 5: Most scientific