Poly-Split spatial object cell viewer

[wesleygrey]

I'm having trouble understanding the answer for this question asked in the "Splitting Spatial Objects" training. Apparently the answer is 4 if the object contains holes or 6 if the object doesn't contain holes.

What I'm able to do with this .yxdb file is perform a Poly-Split to Region against Area 26 which yields 4 records; or a Detailed Region which yields 6 records. But the way the question is written (in my opinion) seems to indicate that all I have to do is look at the Browse tool related to the Input, without relying on a Poly-Split tool or building out a workflow. Further, the question itself didn't provide the .yxdb, but the Browse tool's content coincidentally matches the .yxdb data.

That being said, I don't know how 4 and 6 could be derived by just simply looking at the Browse tool picture on its own unless I'm missing something. Can someone please point out to me how to better read the Cell Viewer?

[Qiu]

@wesleygrey 

As explained in there, Region contains holes while Detailed Region does not.

So 4 created for Region, and 6 for Detailed Region including two holes.

 

[wesleygrey]

Hi Qiu. Thanks so much for your answer. Yes, I did understand the academy's answer after loading the yxdb file into a workflow and I was easily able to identify the number of regions, detailed regions and holes.

My problem though was that the question only presented the screenshot, not the yxdb. Do you know how to answer the question using only the information provided in the screenshot? Thanks for your help!

[ianwi · Accepted solution]

Hi @wesleygrey,

That particular question does require you to remember the previous activity in the lesson. The image provided in the question references Area 26 and shows 6 parts. An activity in the lesson (pictured below) states that Area 26 can be broken into 4 regions.

You are correct that there is no way to deduce the correct answer from the information provided solely on the image provided with the question. Hope this helps!

[wesleygrey]

Thanks @ianwi!

My experience with the certification exams indicates that I have to very closely read the questions and answers, and that each question was asked in its own self-contained bubble without needing to consider additional info from other questions. I was worried about receiving a similar exam question with this level of context. Thanks for your help.

[JLMToth]

I ran into the same problem with it being worded the way it was, it made it look like you should have been able to derive the amount without the holes from the data in the cell viewer. We went through the course about 3 times trying to figure out how to figure that out from the data in there. Would have been less confusing to not provide any image with the question. Thank you for clarifying that I was looking for something that did not exist. At least this means I have not lost my mind.