Logical and Deductive Reasoning Flashcards
7 cards from real LAPD practice questions. Tap to flip, then mark Knew It or Still Learning — missed cards come back until you master them.
Read the first 7 Logical and Deductive Reasoning flashcards as text
A logical argument states: 'If the alarm was disabled, the thief had inside knowledge. The alarm was disabled.' Which form of reasoning leads to a valid conclusion?
Answer: Modus ponens
Affirming the antecedent (modus ponens): the condition is true, so the conclusion follows — the thief had inside knowledge.
An investigator notes that vandalism incidents spike every third weekend of the month. The current date is the third weekend. What is the most defensible action?
Answer: Increase patrols as a precautionary measure based on the pattern
A consistent pattern justifies proactive resource deployment without overstepping legal authority.
Four officers — W, X, Y, Z — must each patrol a different district: North, South, East, West. W cannot patrol North. X must patrol East. Y and Z cannot patrol South. Which district does W patrol?
Answer: South
X takes East; Y and Z cannot take South, so W must take South; the remaining districts go to Y and Z.
A detective reasons: 'Most car thieves prefer older vehicles. This stolen car is new. Therefore, the thief is probably not a typical car thief.' What type of reasoning is this?
Answer: Inductive reasoning leading to a probable conclusion
Drawing a probable conclusion from a general pattern is inductive reasoning, not deductive certainty.
Statements: 'No officer on probation can work overtime. Officer Patel is working overtime.' What must be true?
Answer: Officer Patel is not on probation
If no probationary officer works overtime and Patel works overtime, Patel cannot be on probation.
A report says: 'The suspect fled north OR east.' A camera confirms the suspect did NOT go north. What is the valid conclusion?
Answer: The suspect fled east
Disjunctive syllogism: with one option of an 'or' eliminated, the other must be true.
Officers investigate a scene where two witnesses give conflicting accounts of the suspect's height — one says 5'8" and the other says 6'2". What is the most logical investigative response?
Answer: Seek additional evidence (video, measurements) to resolve the conflict
Conflicting witness accounts should prompt corroboration through objective evidence rather than arbitrary selection or averaging.