FCTC Verbal Reasoning 2 — Questions and Answers
Question 1: All firefighters must complete annual physical fitness assessments. Carlos is a firefighter. What can be concluded?
- Carlos chooses whether to complete the assessment
- Carlos must complete an annual physical fitness assessment (Correct answer)
- Carlos has already passed the assessment
- Carlos is exempt if he has a medical condition
Correct answer: Carlos must complete an annual physical fitness assessment
The logical conclusion from 'all firefighters must complete annual assessments' + 'Carlos is a firefighter' is that Carlos must complete an annual physical fitness assessment.
This is a classic syllogistic reasoning problem: Major premise: All firefighters must complete annual physical fitness assessments. Minor premise: Carlos is a firefighter. Conclusion: Carlos must complete an annual physical fitness assessment. This is deductive reasoning — the conclusion necessarily follows from the two premises. Options introducing exceptions (medical condition) or uncertainty (chooses) add information not present in the premises and are therefore incorrect. Verbal reasoning tests evaluate the ability to apply universal statements to specific cases.
Question 2: A fire station that responds to more than 5,000 calls per year is considered a high-volume station. Station 12 responded to 5,247 calls last year. Which of the following is most accurate?
- Station 12 may or may not be high-volume
- Station 12 is a high-volume station (Correct answer)
- Station 12 is below the threshold by 247 calls
- The designation depends on other factors
Correct answer: Station 12 is a high-volume station
5,247 calls exceeds the 5,000-call threshold, so Station 12 meets the definition of a high-volume station.
The definition states: >5,000 calls per year = high-volume. Station 12 had 5,247 calls, which exceeds 5,000. Therefore, Station 12 qualifies as a high-volume station. Note: the threshold is 'more than 5,000' — a station with exactly 5,000 calls would NOT qualify (5,001 or more is required). 5,247 > 5,000, so the conclusion is direct and certain. Verbal reasoning tests require applying defined thresholds and criteria accurately.
Question 3: 'No probationary firefighter may operate apparatus without a driver certification. Miguel does not have a driver certification.' What can be concluded about Miguel?
- Miguel is a probationary firefighter
- Miguel may operate apparatus under supervision
- Miguel is not permitted to operate apparatus (Correct answer)
- Miguel needs to pass a written exam only
Correct answer: Miguel is not permitted to operate apparatus
The rule states no one without driver certification may operate apparatus. Since Miguel lacks certification, he may not operate apparatus — regardless of whether he is probationary or not.
The statement establishes: No probationary firefighter without driver certification may operate apparatus. Miguel has no driver certification. Therefore, Miguel cannot operate apparatus. Note a subtle logical point: the premise says probationary firefighters without certification cannot operate — but the question is about Miguel specifically, who lacks certification. The conclusion holds: without driver certification, operation is not permitted. The rule applies to him. This tests careful application of conditional rules.
Question 4: 'If a structure has more than four stories, a ground ladder will not reach the roof.' Headquarters tower is 6 stories tall. Which conclusion follows?
- Ground ladders may reach the roof under certain conditions
- The tower roof cannot be reached by a ground ladder (Correct answer)
- Ground ladders are not needed at the tower
- The tower is within ground ladder reach
Correct answer: The tower roof cannot be reached by a ground ladder
Six stories exceeds four stories; therefore, per the stated rule, a ground ladder will not reach the roof of Headquarters tower.
Logical reasoning: Conditional rule: If stories > 4, ground ladder cannot reach roof. Headquarters tower = 6 stories. 6 > 4, so the condition is triggered. Conclusion: Ground ladder cannot reach the roof of Headquarters tower. This is a straightforward conditional syllogism (modus ponens). The options adding conditions ('may reach under certain conditions') introduce exceptions not present in the rule. Verbal reasoning tests require applying conditional rules directly as stated.
Question 5: 'Firefighters assigned to ladder companies receive aerial operations training. All aerial operations trainees complete a written exam and a practical skills evaluation.' Firefighter Santos is assigned to a ladder company. Which MUST be true?
- Santos has already completed the written exam
- Santos will complete both a written exam and a practical skills evaluation (Correct answer)
- Santos will only need the practical evaluation
- Santos is exempt from written exams
Correct answer: Santos will complete both a written exam and a practical skills evaluation
Santos is on a ladder company → receives aerial ops training → all aerial ops trainees complete written exam AND practical skills evaluation. Therefore Santos will complete both.
Deductive chain: (1) Ladder company assignment → aerial operations training. (2) All aerial operations trainees → complete written exam AND practical skills evaluation. (3) Santos is assigned to a ladder company. Combining (1) + (3): Santos receives aerial operations training. Applying (2): Santos must complete both the written exam and the practical skills evaluation. Both components are required — the answer cannot be just the practical evaluation or just the written exam.
Question 6: Analyze the following argument: 'Station 9 has a response time under 4 minutes to 90% of calls. This is better than the district average of 6 minutes. Therefore, Station 9 is the best-performing station in the city.' What is the logical flaw in this argument?
- Response time is not relevant to performance
- The argument correctly concludes Station 9 is the best
- The argument only compares Station 9 to the district average, not all stations in the city (Correct answer)
- Response times should not be measured
Correct answer: The argument only compares Station 9 to the district average, not all stations in the city
The argument compares Station 9 only to the district average — it doesn't compare to all other individual stations in the city. Other stations may also outperform the district average.
The logical flaw is overgeneralization from insufficient comparison: 'better than the district average' does not establish 'best in the city.' Many other stations may also have response times under 4 minutes or have response times better than Station 9. The district average includes high-performing and low-performing stations — being above average narrows the field but does not identify the top performer. Valid 'best in city' conclusions require direct comparison with all other city stations, not just the average. This tests critical evaluation of argument structure.
FCTC Verbal Reasoning 2
All firefighters must complete annual physical fitness assessments.
Carlos is a firefighter.
What can be concluded?