This brain teaser is extracted from my book on how to succeed the first round of interview in consulting firms. You need to be well organized to avoid double and triple counts. Counting the figures by structuring the reasoning by base (1, 10, 100) is possible but takes a long time. A trick is to quantify the following proposal: how many numbers ...Read More »
Brain teasers are classical tests you will find especially in the first rounds of consulting interviews. These tests will not by themselves directly give you an offer, but they are a real challenge for many candidates…
To give you a first picture of this type of test, here is an article illustrating brain teasers. These tests are very common in investment banking, a little less in consulting firms. Nonetheless, it’s not rare to come upon such exercises, especially during the first rounds of interviews, so better to prepare yourself seriously. The risk with brainteasers is to panic and lose one’s composure.
Brainteasers are inspired from real projects, from logic questions and classical statements in this field. The objective is to reason in an organized manner, also following your intuition. The day of your interview, it is primarily the way you put your reasoning that will be decisive. That said, given the level of competition, having prepared your application through training on these super classic brainteasers – ask your investment banking colleagues – is a minimum for acing your interviews in this dimension…
Here, what matters is to find out what prevents you from moving forward in the reasoning when/if you are stuck. The identification of the roadblock is the key to the resolution of a brainteaser. The statements are classic, but the resolution process I propose is not: I chose a “consultant” approach to address each of the issues. You will not find this kind of approach elsewhere. The bias is to choose the kind of approach that will put the most value in your application; it is on this basis that the approach of the training Consulting Case Revolution was built. There is no reason to change a method that works!
Firstly, if you aim at McKinsey and if you have already trained on the PST, you know that the correct answer for such a statement is not “enough data to respond.” Why? First of all, because nothing in the statement specifies that you have matches! Then we get to the heart of the matter. We should beware of ...Read More »