FREE P&G Logical Reasoning Questions and Answers

Question 1

Procter and Gamble have two departments, A and B. All employees in department A are engineers. Some employees in department B are engineers.
Which of the following statements is true?

Accepted Answer

Some engineers work in department A and some in department B.

Answer

The statement establishes a direct conditional relationship: a product is recalled *if* it fails to meet safety standards. Therefore, if a product *was* recalled, the necessary condition for that recall must have been met. This logically infers that the product in question failed to meet the required safety standards.

Question 2

If Procter and Gamble releases a product that fails to meet safety standards, it will be recalled. A product was recalled.
What can be inferred?

Accepted Answer

The product failed to meet safety standards.

Answer

The statement indicates a strong association between Procter and Gamble products and high quality. Therefore, if a product is observed to be *not* of high quality, it weakens the likelihood of it being a P&G product. The inference 'it is likely not a Procter and Gamble product' correctly reflects this probabilistic relationship, rather than a definitive exclusion.

Question 3

Procter and Gamble's products are known for high quality. If a product is not of high quality, what can be inferred?

Accepted Answer

It is likely not a Procter and Gamble product.

Answer

The premise states that Procter and Gamble's profits *increase* when their marketing budget increases, indicating a positive correlation. If this stronger statement is true, then the weaker statement that their profits *may* increase is also logically true. This option reflects a possible outcome consistent with the given premise without overstating the certainty or exclusivity of the relationship.

Question 4

If Procter and Gamble’s profits increase when their marketing budget increases, which of the following is true?

Accepted Answer

Their profits may increase when their marketing budget increases.

Answer

The rule clearly states that attending safety training is a mandatory requirement for *all* employees at Procter and Gamble. Therefore, if an individual has not attended this essential training, they cannot fulfill a universal condition of employment. This logically leads to the conclusion that the person in question is not an employee.

Question 5

Procter and Gamble has a rule that all employees must attend safety training. If an employee did not attend safety training,
which of the following can be concluded?

Accepted Answer

The person is not an employee.

Answer

Assuming the passage discusses Procter and Gamble's new product initiatives, the inference that 'The new product line is environmentally conscious' is directly supported by information typically found in corporate communications about sustainability efforts. Such passages often highlight features or goals related to ecological responsibility, making this the most direct and accurate conclusion from such context.

P&G - Procter and Gamble Assessment Test Practice Test

P&G - Procter and Gamble Assessment Test Practice Test

FREE P&G Logical Reasoning Questions and Answers