Cubiks Assessment Questions Explained

SEO title: Cubiks Test Questions Explained by Section

Meta description: What Cubiks (Talogy) questions look like: Logiks verbal, numerical and abstract blocks, PAPI's two formats, and situational judgement items.

Suggested URL: /tests/cubiks-assessment-questions-explained

Quick answer

Cubiks question types are cleanly separated, because Logiks separates them. Within one sitting you work through a verbal block, a numerical block and an abstract block, each with its own countdown, and within each block every item is a variation on that one type. You are never switching between a data table and a shape sequence mid-block, which makes each type learnable on its own.

What varies is how much time you get to apply what you know. The commonly published Logiks General Intermediate configuration puts 50 questions into 12 minutes, which is a recognition test more than a reasoning test — you either see the answer quickly or you move on. The commonly published Advanced configuration puts 30 questions into 20 minutes, typically described as around eight minutes each for verbal and numerical and four for abstract, which allows genuine working on harder items. Standalone single-ability Logiks Advanced tests give one ability a much longer window — commonly reported around 25 minutes for verbal, 25 for numerical, 15 for abstract.

Beyond Logiks, a Cubiks process may include PAPI, the personality questionnaire, and a situational judgement component. Neither is a reasoning test and neither is scored the same way. The sections below cover what each type actually asks and the fastest reliable route through it. Employers configure their own versions, so use your invitation and instruction screens for exact counts and timings, and note that you may see either the Cubiks or Talogy name — Cubiks came under the Talogy brand on 15 March 2022.

Verbal items: passages, and sometimes words

The verbal block typically mixes two kinds of task, and they reward different rhythms.

The first is passage-based reasoning: a short piece of text and statements to evaluate against it. The discipline that carries this is narrow and unnatural — judge only what the passage establishes, never what you know to be true in the world. If a statement is accurate in reality but the text does not support it, it is not supported. Where an insufficient-information option exists, candidates avoid it because it feels like refusing to answer, and instead reason to true or false by supplying an assumption the passage never made. The test is mechanical: if deciding requires information the text does not contain, that is the answer.

Watch quantifiers and hedges — "all", "most", "some", "may", "always", "only". A statement that strengthens the passage, turning "some regions grew" into "all regions grew", is unsupported rather than supported, and these differences are easy to skim past at speed.

The second kind is word-level: analogies, word relationships, opposites, vocabulary. These are pure recognition and reward a different approach. Define the relationship precisely before looking at the options — not "these are similar" but "this is the tool used for that action" — and the near-miss distractors usually fall away. If two options still look equally good after a few seconds, take the more specific relationship and move on.

Read the statement or the question stem first, then go to the passage for the line it depends on. In a block that may run at only a few seconds per item, targeted scanning beats careful reading followed by working through the questions.

Numerical items: business arithmetic under a clock

The numerical block presents short data — tables, charts, occasionally a couple of linked figures — with questions drawing on percentages, ratios, proportions, averages, unit rates and simple growth or discount calculations. Nothing here is conceptually advanced.

The marks are lost in reading rather than in calculation. Before touching a number, orient yourself: what the units are, which column or series corresponds to which period or category, whether a footnote adjusts anything. That orientation is reusable across several questions on the same exhibit, which makes ten seconds at the start a good investment.

Then read the question to its end. Solving correctly for the wrong quantity — the change when the total was asked for, one period when an average across three was wanted — is a very common way to lose a mark while doing the arithmetic perfectly.

Estimate when the answer options are widely spread. If the choices differ substantially in magnitude, you need the scale rather than the exact figure, and aggressive rounding gets there quickly. Reserve precise calculation for items where two options sit close together.

The time pressure here differs sharply by version, which changes tactics. In a fast Intermediate block you are recognising the operation and executing it almost immediately. In an Advanced block described at roughly a minute per question, you have room to set up properly and check — and the questions are built to need it. Practising at the wrong tempo produces the wrong instincts, so establish which version you are sitting before you drill.

Abstract items: a finite rule set and a checklist

The abstract block presents sequences of shapes governed by an underlying rule, and asks what comes next or which figure breaks the pattern.

The rules come from a small, finite set: rotation, reflection, changes in the number of elements, shading or colour, size, position within the frame, and rules that alternate between successive figures. There are not many, and none is complicated once you know to look for it.

What separates candidates is method. Looking at a sequence and waiting for the rule to reveal itself works on easy items and fails completely on harder ones. Running a fixed checklist over every item — testing each feature in turn until one holds across the sequence — resolves items in a fraction of the time and, crucially, gives you something to do when an item looks impenetrable.

The alternating-rule case is where most of the perceived difficulty lives and where the checklist pays off most. When one rule governs the odd-numbered figures and another governs the even-numbered ones, the sequence looks incoherent until you separate them, at which point it usually becomes straightforward.

Where several features change at once, identify them one at a time rather than trying to hold the whole transformation in mind. Confirm "rotates 90 degrees clockwise" holds across the sequence, then look for the second rule layered on top.

This block matters more than its size suggests. Across the commonly published Logiks General configurations, abstract carries the shortest allocation — often around four minutes — so speed converts directly into marks here. It is also the block where practice produces the most dramatic gain, because the entire gap for most adults is unfamiliarity with a rule set they have not seen since school.

PAPI: normative and ipsative formats

PAPI is Cubiks' personality questionnaire and it is not a reasoning test. It measures a set of personality factors broken down into need and role scales — broadly, what you are inclined to seek out at work and how you tend to operate — and produces a profile rather than a score.

It comes in two formats that feel quite different to complete. The normative version presents a large set of statements which you rate on a scale, which allows comparison between candidates. The ipsative version presents small groups of statements and asks which is most like you and which is least — a forced-choice design that describes the relative strength of your own preferences.

Candidates routinely find the ipsative format uncomfortable, because several statements in a group may feel partly true and being forced to pick feels arbitrary. That discomfort is the design working, not a sign you are answering badly. Forced choice exists partly to make an idealised profile hard to construct.

Both formats are typically untimed, commonly taking somewhere in the region of 25 to 35 minutes. There is no advantage in rushing and none in deliberating endlessly — first responses tend to be the more consistent ones, and over-analysing usually produces a less coherent profile rather than a better one.

Answer honestly. Beyond the practical point that these instruments are built to resist gaming, a profile that misrepresents you can land you in a role that does not suit you, which is a worse outcome than a rejection.

Situational judgement items

Where a situational judgement component is included, you get short workplace scenarios with several possible responses. The two common formats are rating each response for effectiveness on a scale, or ranking the responses from most to least effective.

Rating and ranking are not the same task and reward slightly different thinking. Rating lets you mark two responses as similarly effective; ranking forces you to separate them, which means you need a reason why one edges the other even when both are reasonable.

In either case, read for the underlying principle rather than the surface facts. Most scenarios turn on a small number of themes: raise problems early rather than concealing them, check before assuming, weigh the impact on colleagues and customers, and escalate when something genuinely exceeds your authority. Responses that involve going around a manager, deferring a problem indefinitely, or acting on an unverified assumption generally rate poorly.

Watch for scenarios that are quietly about integrity — spotting an error in work already sent, being asked to cut a corner, handling information you should not have. These usually have a clear intended answer, which is to surface the issue promptly and transparently.

These sections are typically not timed as aggressively as the Logiks blocks, so read each scenario properly rather than skimming for keywords.

How TestSolve can help

TestSolve lets candidates practise realistic question types, see worked explanations, and review their mistakes before a real online assessment. Because Cubiks keeps question types in separate timed blocks, the natural way to use it is the same way: drill Logiks-style verbal items until the passage discipline is automatic, then numerical until orienting to an exhibit costs nothing, then abstract until the feature checklist runs by itself.

The worked explanations are what make that efficient rather than repetitive. Seeing which figure in a table the question actually turned on, why a statement overstates its passage, or that a shape sequence resolves the moment you separate the odd and even figures gives you the intended route rather than the one you improvised. Reviewing mistakes across a batch then shows which block deserves the rest of your preparation — with Cubiks that is often abstract, because it carries the tightest allocation and the least familiar material.

Frequently asked questions

TestSolve is independent and not affiliated with any test provider or employer named on this page. All product names and trademarks belong to their respective owners.