OACP - Ontario Association of Chief of Police Logical Reasoning and Analysis Questions and Answers

Question 1

A community reports a rise in vandalism during the same summer months that ice cream sales are highest.
A resident concludes that eating ice cream causes people to commit vandalism.
What is the primary flaw in this reasoning?

Accepted Answer

The resident is confusing correlation with causation.

Answer

The resident is using a circular argument.

Answer

The resident is appealing to emotion instead of logic.

Answer

The resident is making a hasty generalization from a small sample size.

Question 2

A police service has the following policy: 'Officers must activate their body-worn camera (BWC) *before* initiating any investigative or enforcement encounter. A traffic stop is defined as an enforcement encounter.' Officer Davis pulls over a vehicle for speeding but only activates her BWC after she has approached the driver's window and started speaking. Based *only* on these facts, which conclusion is certain?

Accepted Answer

Officer Davis did not follow the BWC policy.

Answer

The driver of the vehicle was uncooperative.

Answer

The BWC footage will be inadmissible in court.

Answer

Officer Davis forgot to charge her BWC.

Question 3

An investigator at a burglary scene states, 'The suspect obviously knew the occupants were on vacation, which is why they chose to break in this week.' What is the primary, unstated assumption the investigator is making?

Accepted Answer

The break-in was not a random act.

Answer

The suspect lives in the same neighbourhood.

Answer

The suspect has committed similar crimes before.

Answer

The occupants posted their vacation plans on social media.

Question 4

An officer writes the following in their notebook: 'The driver had bloodshot eyes and slurred his speech. He was clearly intoxicated.' Which part of this statement is an inference rather than an observation?

Accepted Answer

"He was clearly intoxicated"

Answer

"The driver had bloodshot eyes"

Answer

"and slurred his speech"

Answer

All parts of the statement are observations.

Question 5

You are analyzing witness statements to reconstruct a timeline. Statement 1: 'The suspect ran out the front door just after I heard the alarm.' Statement 2: 'The glass shattered, and then the alarm started ringing.' Statement 3: 'I saw the suspect near the building moments before I heard glass shatter.' What is the correct chronological sequence of events?

Accepted Answer

Suspect seen near building -> Glass shatters -> Alarm sounds -> Suspect runs out.

Answer

Alarm sounds -> Suspect runs out -> Glass shatters.

Answer

Suspect seen near building -> Alarm sounds -> Glass shatters -> Suspect runs out.

Answer

Glass shatters -> Suspect runs out -> Alarm sounds -> Suspect seen near building.

Question 6

A single, unidentified footprint is found in the mud beneath a window that was forced open at a crime scene. Which of the following is the MOST logical and defensible inference to be drawn from this fact alone?

Accepted Answer

A person was standing in that specific location at some point after it last rained.

Answer

The crime was committed by only one person.

Answer

The suspect wore a specific size and brand of shoe.

Answer

The person who left the footprint is guilty of the crime.