yeah, you're right how do you know that the pattern doesn't have second rule such as always including a white shape though?
Because when there is a pattern like this, it is the number of sides that is relevant not the shapes themselves. It is a complicated enough pattern that they would be unlikely to include a second aspect. Also, there is no difference in the white shape numbers between Set A and Set B, allowing you to rule it out as a potential pattern. Focus on the differences between sets
yeah, you're right how do you know that the pattern doesn't have second rule such as always including a white shape though?
There will be evidence in the given patterns for the rule(s) and while there could be more than one rule, its almost always the case that there is a single one. Mainly both for the time to answer the quetion and the number of patterns that are available to confirm the rule and reject other ones. The new pattern conforms to the rule for B, and the number of white shapes (possibly zero, there is no evidence either way) is irrelevant in both A and B.
Because when there is a pattern like this, it is the number of sides that is relevant not the shapes themselves. It is a complicated enough pattern that they would be unlikely to include a second aspect. Also, there is no difference in the white shape numbers between Set A and Set B, allowing you to rule it out as a potential pattern. Focus on the differences between sets
ahh makes sense, thankyou, so if the rule seems simple THEN try and look for a secondary rule