In the standard 2–4–6 induction task, subjects are instructed to discover the rule generating sequences of three numbers by inventing number triples for which they receive immediate feedback. The rule is “ascending numbers”. Performance is greatly aided with Dual Goal (DG) instructions that ask subjects to discover two rules, one that generates “Dax” triples (equivalent to “yes” instances with Single Goal [SG] instructions) and another that generates “Med” triples (equivalent to “no” instances). The present study eliminates two explanations for this effect suggested by Wharton, Cheng, and Wickens (1993). Experiment 1 tested their Information-Quantity hypothesis that the effect results simply from the DG subjects testing more triples prior to proposing a rule. Our DG subjects were more likely to solve the problem and produced more “negative” triples than SG subjects when both groups generated exactly 15 triples. Two further groups received feedback only after generating all 15 triples, and again DG subjects were more likely to solve the problem and to generate more “negative” triples. Experiment 2 tested Wharton et al.'s Goal-Complementarity hypothesis that success under DG instructions hinges on preserving the complementary representation of the two rules. We compared SG instructions with three types of DG instructions that suggested different types of triples (Dax, Med, both Dax and Med, neither Dax nor Med). DG instructions were more effective in promoting successful rule discovery regardless of differences in rule complementarity. Our analysis of the heterogeneity of the examplars generated with DG instructions in both experiments suggest that success on the 2–4–6 task is as much a consequence of the breadth of hypotheses that subjects entertain as it is a consequence of the testing strategy.

No abstract