Step 1: Count the dots in each given tile. The first tile has 2 dots, the second tile has 3 dots, the fourth tile (just after the missing one) has clearly more dots than the second tile, and the fifth tile has even more dots than the fourth. Since each tile is bigger than the one before it, and the jump keeps getting larger, a simple "add 1 each time" rule will not explain the picture; we need a rule that grows faster.
Step 2: Test a Fibonacci-style rule. A natural way for a growing sequence to speed up the way this one does is for each term to equal the sum of the two terms before it, instead of a fixed common difference. Starting from the first two given tiles, 2 and 3, add them: \[ 2 + 3 = 5 \] This predicts the missing third tile should have 5 dots.
Step 3: Check the rule against the remaining tiles. Continue the same rule forward using the predicted value 5: \[ 3 + 5 = 8 \] \[ 5 + 8 = 13 \] These predicted values, 8 and 13, match the larger and denser dot counts visible in the fourth and fifth tiles of the sequence. Since the rule correctly predicts both tiles that are already given, and not just the missing one, it confirms the underlying pattern really is "each tile's dot count equals the sum of the two tiles before it."
Step 4: Match the predicted count to an option. The missing tile must show exactly 5 dots. Checking the four answer choices: option (A) shows 4 dots in a 2 by 2 grid, option (B) shows 5 dots arranged as four corner dots with one dot in the centre, the standard five-pattern seen on a die, option (C) shows 6 dots, and option (D) shows 7 dots. Only option (B) has the required count of 5 dots.
Final Answer: The missing tile has 5 dots, arranged as four corner dots with one centre dot.\[ \boxed{\text{Option (B)}} \]
