CJBAT Logical Reasoning Questions & Answers 2 — Questions and Answers
Question 1: All patrol officers in District 7 are required to complete crisis intervention training. Officer Daniels is assigned to District 7. Which conclusion logically follows?
- Officer Daniels has already completed crisis intervention training
- Officer Daniels is required to complete crisis intervention training (Correct answer)
- Officer Daniels volunteered for crisis intervention training
- Officer Daniels is the only officer in District 7
Correct answer: Officer Daniels is required to complete crisis intervention training
Since all District 7 officers must complete the training and Daniels is in District 7, the requirement applies to Daniels.
This is a classic syllogistic reasoning problem. The major premise states all District 7 officers must complete training. The minor premise states Daniels is in District 7. The valid conclusion is that Daniels must complete the training. Option A goes beyond the premises. Option C introduces volunteering, which is not mentioned. Option D is unwarranted.
Question 2: A detective reviews five cases and notices that in every case where the suspect had a prior record AND was unemployed, the suspect failed to appear for court. Suspect X has a prior record but is currently employed. Based on the pattern, which conclusion is most supported?
- Suspect X will definitely appear for court
- Suspect X will definitely fail to appear
- The pattern does not predict Suspect X's behavior because the condition is not fully met (Correct answer)
- Suspect X should be denied bail
Correct answer: The pattern does not predict Suspect X's behavior because the condition is not fully met
The pattern requires both conditions. Since Suspect X only meets one condition, the pattern cannot predict the outcome.
This tests understanding of conjunctive (AND) conditions. The observed pattern links failure to appear with two conditions: prior record AND unemployment. Both must be present. Suspect X meets only one condition. We cannot conclude either outcome from the given pattern.
Question 3: If these statements are true, which conclusion is valid? Statement 1: No one under 21 can purchase a firearm from a licensed dealer in Florida. Statement 2: Maria is 19. Statement 3: Maria lives in Florida.
- Maria cannot own a firearm
- Maria cannot purchase a firearm from a licensed dealer (Correct answer)
- Maria cannot possess a firearm
- Maria has never handled a firearm
Correct answer: Maria cannot purchase a firearm from a licensed dealer
The premises only address purchasing from a licensed dealer. The valid conclusion is limited to that specific restriction.
Statement 1 restricts purchasing from licensed dealers for those under 21. Statements 2 and 3 establish Maria is under 21 and in Florida. The valid conclusion is that Maria cannot purchase from a licensed dealer. Options A and C go beyond the premises (ownership and possession have different legal standards). Option D makes an unsupported assumption.
Question 4: A series of burglaries occurs on consecutive Tuesday and Thursday nights for three weeks. Today is Monday. If the pattern continues, when is the next burglary most likely?
- Tonight (Monday)
- Tomorrow night (Tuesday) (Correct answer)
- Wednesday night
- This coming weekend
Correct answer: Tomorrow night (Tuesday)
The established pattern indicates burglaries on Tuesday and Thursday nights. Since today is Monday, the next occurrence is tomorrow (Tuesday).
Pattern recognition shows consistent burglaries on Tuesday and Thursday nights exclusively. With six data points confirming this pattern, tomorrow (Tuesday) is the strongest prediction. This type of temporal pattern analysis is commonly used in crime analysis to allocate patrol resources.
Question 5: Detective A says: 'If the alarm was disabled, then the burglar had inside knowledge.' Detective B says: 'The alarm was NOT disabled.' What can we logically conclude?
- The burglar did not have inside knowledge
- The burglar had inside knowledge
- Nothing can be concluded about inside knowledge from these statements (Correct answer)
- The alarm system was faulty
Correct answer: Nothing can be concluded about inside knowledge from these statements
When the antecedent of a conditional statement is false, the conditional tells us nothing about the consequent.
This tests understanding of conditional logic. Detective A states: If alarm disabled then inside knowledge. Detective B states the alarm was NOT disabled. When the antecedent is false, the conditional statement tells us nothing about the consequent. Concluding the burglar lacked inside knowledge would be the fallacy of denying the antecedent.
Question 6: Four suspects are questioned. Exactly one is guilty. Adams says: 'Brown did it.' Brown says: 'Davis did it.' Clark says: 'I didn't do it.' Davis says: 'Brown is lying.' If exactly one suspect is telling the truth, who committed the theft?
- Adams
- Brown
- Clark (Correct answer)
- Davis
Correct answer: Clark
If Clark is guilty: Adams lies, Brown lies, Clark lies (said 'I didn't'), Davis tells truth (Brown IS lying). Exactly one truth-teller.
Systematic testing: If Adams guilty: Adams lies, Brown lies, Clark tells truth, Davis tells truth (Brown lied). Two truth-tellers. If Brown guilty: Adams tells truth, Brown lies, Clark tells truth, Davis tells truth. Three truth-tellers. If Clark guilty: Adams lies, Brown lies, Clark lies, Davis tells truth. One truth-teller - this works! If Davis guilty: Adams lies, Brown tells truth, Clark tells truth. Two truth-tellers. Clark is the thief.
CJBAT Logical Reasoning Questions & Answers 2
All patrol officers in District 7 are required to complete crisis intervention training.
Officer Daniels is assigned to District 7.
Which conclusion logically follows?