Border Patrol Agent

Answers to Logical Reasoning Practice Test

1. Correct Answer: B) some jurisdictions still distinguish between crimes malum in se and
malum prohibitum.

This question is concerned with classification of crimes into sets—that is, with the classification
of crimes as either malum in se or malum prohibitum. The last phrase in the last sentence tells us
that many jurisdictions make the distinction between these two categories of crimes. Response B
follows from that sentence, because if many jurisdictions make the distinction, some jurisdictions
make the distinction. From the fact that many jurisdictions make the distinction, it cannot be
inferred that many do not make the distinction. Therefore, Response A is incorrect.
Responses C, D, and E are based on erroneous definitions of the two classes of crimes. The
paragraph tells us that all crimes characterized as malum in se are inherently evil. Response C is
false because it cannot be the case that SOME crimes characterized as malum in se are NOT
inherently evil. The paragraph also tells us that all crimes characterized as malum prohibitum are
declared as offenses by a legislature. Response D is false because it cannot be the case that SOME
crimes characterized as malum prohibitum are NOT declared by a legislature to be an offense. In
the paragraph, we are told that filing a tax return late is malum prohibitum, rather than malum in se.
Response E is incorrect because it cannot be the case that failing to file a tax return is malum in se.

2. Correct Answer: C) If Claus Inc. can show that it was not negligent, then it is not liable.

The second sentence states the liability rule for common carriers: all common carriers are liable
for cargo damage unless they can show that they are not negligent; if they can show that they are
not negligent, then they are not liable for cargo damage. Claus Inc. is a common carrier, and
accordingly this rule applies to it. From this rule it follows that if Claus Inc. can show it was not
negligent, then it is not liable, Response C. Response A contradicts this rule by claiming that
when Claus Inc. is liable it can show that it was not negligent. Response B contradicts this rule
by claiming that Claus Inc. is not liable even when it cannot show that it is not negligent.
Responses D and E concern Nichols Inc., a contract carrier. However, the terms of the Nichols
Inc. contract were not disclosed in the paragraph, so neither response is supported.

3. Correct Answer: A) some e-mail messages that have been requested as part of
investigations have contained messages that would never be said face-to-face.

This is an example of a test question with a negative lead-in statement. It asks for the conclusion
that is NOT supported by the paragraph. That means that four of the statements are valid
conclusions from the paragraph while one is not. Response B (some messages that people would
never say face-to-face are sent in e-mail messages) is a valid conclusion because it restates a fact
given in the last sentence of the paragraph. Response E (some e-mail messages contain
information that would be omitted from formal writing) is valid because it restates the other fact
in the last sentence of the paragraph.

The next-to-last sentence in the paragraph is the source of both response C (some e-mail
messages have been requested as part of investigations) and response D (e-mail messages have
not been exempted from investigations). Both of these choices restate information in that
sentence, based on the fact that access to e-mail messages was sought and granted. This leaves
only the first option, response A (Some e-mail messages that have been requested as part of
investigations have contained messages that would never be said face-to-face). This is the only
choice that does NOT represent a valid conclusion, because even though we know from the
paragraph that there is a group of e-mail messages that are requested in investigations and also
that there is a group of messages that contain information that people would not say face-to-face,
there is nothing that says that these groups overlap. We simply do not know.

4. Correct Answer: B) Phyllis T. was not married and had no dependents.

This question concerns an either/or situation. The paragraph states that benefits under the Federal
Employees Compensation Act are awarded at one level (3/4 of salary) if a beneficiary is married
or has dependents when injured and at another level (2/3 of salary) if this is not true.
Phyllis T. is eligible for benefits under the Act. The paragraph states that Phyllis T.’s benefit
level was 2/3 of her salary. Given this benefit level, it is clear that Phyllis T. did not meet either
of the conditions for the 3/4 level. Therefore, responses A, C, and D cannot be correct (A states
that she was married, C states that she had dependents, and D states that she both was married
and had dependents). Response E goes beyond the facts given because prior marriages are not
listed as a factor relating to this benefit. The one correct conclusion is that Phyllis T. did not
meet either requirement to qualify for the higher benefit level (3/4 of salary), so response B is the
correct answer to the question.

5. Correct Answer: E) some of the engineers were immigrants

Response E is correct because it restates the third sentence in terms of the overlap between
immigrants and engineers in the country described in the paragraph. Response A says that most
immigrants are engineers or nurses, which are professional occupations. However, the second
sentence says that most immigrants are not employed in professional occupations, so Response A
is false. Response B is false because it denies that there is any overlap between immigrants and
nurses, even though this overlap is clear from the third sentence of the paragraph. Response C is
false because it denies the overlap between immigrants and engineers. Because the paragraph
does not give complete information about the non-professionals (immigrant and non-immigrant)
in the country described in the paragraph, Response D is invalid.

6. Correct Answer: D) all of the .45 caliber weapons were sold legally

The second and last sentences are the two main premises in the paragraph. These two sentences
give information about three categories of weapons: weapons made by Precision Arms, weapons
sold legally, and .45 caliber weapons.

The last sentence states that none of the illegally sold weapons were .45 caliber. This means that
none of the .45 caliber weapons were sold illegally. Notice that this new statement is a double
negative. In affirmative form the statement means that all of the .45 caliber weapons were sold
legally, Choice D.

The information that all of the .45 caliber weapons were sold legally (last sentence), combined
with the information that all of the weapons made by Precision Arms were sold legally (second
sentence), allows us to draw no valid conclusions about the relationship between the .45 caliber
weapons and the weapons made by Precision Arms. There is insufficient information about the
entire group of weapons sold legally to know whether the group of .45 caliber weapons and the
group of weapons made by Precision Arms overlapped entirely (Choice A), partially (Choice C),
or not at all (Choice B).

Choice E contradicts the second sentence and is, therefore, invalid.

7. Correct Answer: C) if fingerprints are decipherable, then it is impossible to identify the
person to whom they belong

This question asks for the response option that cannot be validly concluded from the information
in the paragraph. The only response option that cannot be validly concluded is Response C, so
the correct answer to question 7 is Response C. Response C is invalid because the paragraph
does not provide enough information to conclude whether or not it would be possible to identify
the person to whom the fingerprints belong from the mere fact that the fingerprints are
decipherable.

Response A refers to a condition where it is possible to identify the person to whom fingerprints
belong. Based on the final sentence in the paragraph, this condition of fingerprints means that
the fingerprints could be classified by general shape and contour or by pattern type. Based on
the second sentence, the ability to classify the fingerprints means that the fingerprints are
decipherable.

Since Response B refers to a condition in which finger patterns from fingerprints are not
decipherable, we know from the second sentence that, in that circumstance, they cannot be
classified by general shape and contour or by pattern type. From the final sentence in the
paragraph, we can infer that since they cannot be classified by these characteristics, then it is
impossible to identify the person to whom the fingerprints belong.

According to the second sentence, fingerprints cannot be classified by general shape and contour
or by pattern type when they are not decipherable. Therefore, if fingerprints can be classified by
general shape and contour or by pattern type, then the fingerprints must be decipherable,

Response D. According to the third sentence, it is impossible to identify the owner of a set of
fingerprints when the fingerprints cannot be classified by general shape and contour or by pattern
type. Therefore, if it is possible to identify the person to whom fingerprints belong, then the
fingerprints must be able to be classified by general shape and contour or pattern type, Response
E. Notice that Responses D and E are valid based on the same type of reasoning. The first and
second statements of the second sentence were made opposite and reversed in Response D, and
the first and second statements of the final sentence were made opposite and reversed in
Response E.

8. Correct Answer: E) some devices in which a physical reaction is produced, such as that
caused by overloading a container with compressed air, are mechanical explosives

The correct answer is E. The third sentence states the overlap between all mechanical explosives
and devices in which a physical reaction is produced, such as that caused by overloading a
container with compressed air. From this, we can safely conclude that some devices in which a
physical reaction is produced, such as that caused by overloading a container with compressed
air, are mechanical explosives.

Response A is incorrect because the paragraph does not provide sufficient information to validly
conclude that all explosives which have been restricted to military weapons are nuclear weapons.
It may be that some types of explosives other than nuclear weapons also have been restricted to
military weapons.

Responses B and C are incorrect because they contradict the paragraph. Response B contradicts
the third sentence, and Response C contradicts the last sentence.

Response D is incorrect because the paragraph provides no information about whether or not
mechanical explosives are restricted to military weapons.


Leave a Reply

*

Looking for something?

Use the form below to search the site:

Still not finding what you're looking for? Drop a comment on a post or contact us so we can take care of it!

Other Law Enforcement Sites

    Archives