How did you interpret the problem?
When I saw the problem, I first thought it was not going to be possible to solve. Meaning; that I would not solve this problem without more information. When I sent the cat over first the mouse and dog did not fight by their selves. Then whenever I sent the dog or mouse over, they would fight with the cat. I even thought about leaving the cat on the existing shore and trying to move the mouse and dog, and found that the cat fought with them there on the existing shore. My thoughts then were that there had to be a trick to this. I had a conceptual block and knew there was something else to the problem that was not mentioned in the writing [ (Morris & Maisto, 2002) ]. What strategy did you use and how did you evaluate your progress? I used the heuristics, called means-end analysis to solve the problem (Morris & Maisto, 2002). I knew that the cat, mouse, and dog where on one shore line and the end result of the problem was they all needed to be on the other shore. I also thought about the problem of fighting amongst the animals. The dog only fights with the cat, but not the mouse. The mouse only fights with the cat, but not the dog. The biggest problem was the cat, because it fought with either the dog or mouse. I then thought that if I could only leave the cat alone without the dog or mouse, I could solve the problem, so I sent the cat over first, and came back for the dog. I took the dog over and brought the cat back to the existing shore. Next I took the mouse over to join the dog and then returned to get the cat. Finally I took the cat over again to join the rest of the animals. Looking at the problem I evaluated my progress as very good. I looked at the example, eliminated the wrong or simplest ideas and then looked for creative ways to solve the problem. Did you encounter any obstacles while solving the problem?
The only obstacles I encountered were a mental block [...