All examples show grids of squares with an image in each square, such that there is some "rule" the images within the grid obey. The "rule" can be about how the images relate to their neighbors, it can involve the position of the images in the grid, and it can involve properties of the grid considered as a whole.

Intentionally left out of this Problem (shown here sorted ambiguously) are cases in which the rule is not possible to deduce without seeing more squares. Due to this choice to omit those kinds of examples from the right, another acceptable solution to this Problem is "it is possible to deduce the contents of the missing square once the underlying rule is understood vs. not so."

All examples show grids of squares with an image in each square, such that there is some "rule" the images within the grid obey. The "rule" can be about how the images relate to their neighbors, it can involve the position of the images in the grid, and it can involve properties of the grid considered as a whole.

Intentionally left out of this Problem (shown above sorted ambiguously) are cases in which the rule is not possible to deduce without seeing more squares. Due to this choice to omit those kinds of examples from the right, another acceptable solution to this Problem is "it is possible to deduce the contents of the missing square once the underlying rule is understood vs. not so."

All examples show grids of squares with an image in each square, such that there is some "rule" the images within the grid obey. The "rule" can be about how the images relate to their neighbors, it can involve the position of the images in the grid, and it can involve properties of the grid considered as a whole.

Intentionally left out of this Problem (shown above sorted ambiguously) are cases in which the rule is not possible to deduce without seeing more squares. Due to this choice to omit those kinds of examples from the right, another acceptable solution to this Problem is "it is possible to deduce the contents of the missing square once the underlying rule is understood vs. not so."

See BP362 for more examples of 2x2 grids that would for this reason be left out here.

All examples show grids of squares with an image in each square, such that there is some "rule" the images within the grid obey. The "rule" can be about how the images relate to their neighbors, it can involve the position of the images in the grid, and it can involve properties of the grid considered as a whole.

Intentionally left out of this Problem (shown above sorted ambiguously) are cases in which the rule is not possible to deduce without seeing more squares. Due to this choice to omit those kinds of examples from the right, another acceptable solution to this Problem is "it is possible to deduce the contents of the missing square once the underlying rule is understood vs. not so."

See BP362 for more examples of 2x2 grids that would in this sense be sorted ambiguously here.

All examples show grids of squares with an image in each square, such that there is some "rule" the images within the grid obey. The "rule" can be about how the images relate to their neighbors, it can involve the position of the images in the grid, and it can involve properties of the grid considered as a whole.

Intentionally left out of this Problem (shown above sorted ambiguously) are cases in which the rule is not possible to deduce without seeing more squares. Due to this choice to omit those kinds of examples from the right, another acceptable solution to this Problem is "it is possible to deduce the contents of the missing square once the underlying rule is understood vs. not so."

All examples show grids of squares with an image in each square, such that there is some "rule" the images within the grid obey. The "rule" can be about how the images relate to their neighbors, it can involve the position of the images in the grid, and it can involve properties of the grid considered as a whole.

Intentionally left out of this Problem (shown above sorted ambiguously) are cases in which the rule is not possible to deduce without seeing more squares. Due to this choice to omit those kinds of examples from the right, another acceptable solution is "it is possible to deduce the contents of the missing square once the underlying rule is understood vs. not so."

All examples show grids of squares with an image in each square, such that there is some "rule" the images within the grid obey. The "rule" can be about how the images relate to their neighbors, it can involve the position of the images in the grid, and it can involve properties of the grid considered as a whole.

Intentionally left out of this Problem (shown above sorted ambiguously) are cases in which the rule is not possible to deduce without seeing more squares. Due to this choice to omit those kinds of examples from the right, another acceptable solution is "it is possible to deduce the contents of the missing square after the underlying rule is understood."

All examples show grids of squares with an image in each square, such that there is some "rule" the images within the grid obey. The "rule" can be about how the images relate to their neighbors, it can involve the position of the images in the grid, and it can involve properties of the grid considered as a whole.

Intentionally left out of this Problem (shown above sorted ambiguously) are cases in which the rule is not possible to deduce without seeing more squares. Due to this decision, another acceptable solution is "it is possible to deduce the contents of the missing square after the underlying rule is understood."

All examples show grids of squares with an image in each square, such that there is some "rule" the images in the grid.

Intentionally left out of this Problem (shown above sorted ambiguously) are cases in which the rule is not possible to deduce without seeing more squares. Due to this decision, another acceptable solution is "it is possible to deduce the contents of the missing square after the underlying rule is understood."

All examples show grids of squares with an image in each square, such that there is some "rule" the images in the grid.

Intentionally left out of this Problem (shown above sorted ambiguously) are cases in which the rule is not possible to deduce without seeing more squares. Because of this, another acceptable solution is "it is possible to deduce the contents of the missing square after the underlying rule is understood."

It is possible to deduce the contents of the missing square vs. not so.

All examples show grids of squares with an image in each square, such that there is some "rule" the images in the grid.

Intentionally left out of this Problem are cases in which the rule is not possible to deduce without seeing more squares. Because of this, another acceptable solution is "it is possible to deduce the contents of the missing square after the underlying rule is understood."

Aaron David Fairbanks