Ohio Civil Service Problem Solving and Logic Questions and Answers — Questions and Answers
Question 1: Read the following statements:
1. All vehicles assigned to the Investigations Unit are sedans.
2. No sedans are equipped with a roof rack.
3. Vehicle #304 is assigned to the Investigations Unit.
Based on these statements, which of the following must be true?
- All sedans in the motor pool are assigned to the Investigations Unit.
- Vehicle #304 is not a sedan.
- Vehicle #304 does not have a roof rack. (Correct answer)
- Some vehicles with roof racks are assigned to the Investigations Unit.
Correct answer: Vehicle #304 does not have a roof rack.
The statements establish a clear logical chain. Since Vehicle #304 is in the Investigations Unit (Statement 3), it must be a sedan (Statement 1). Since it is a sedan, it cannot have a roof rack (Statement 2). Therefore, Vehicle #304 does not have a roof rack.
Question 2: A supervisor must assign four employees—Frank, Gina, Hank, and Iris—to four adjacent cubicles numbered 1, 2, 3, and 4. The assignment must follow these conditions:
- Frank's cubicle must be next to Gina's cubicle.
- Hank's cubicle number must be higher than Gina's.
- Iris must be assigned to a corner cubicle (1 or 4).
If Frank is assigned to cubicle #2, which of the following statements must be true?
- Gina is in cubicle #3.
- Iris is in cubicle #1.
- Hank is in cubicle #3.
- Hank is in a higher-numbered cubicle than Frank. (Correct answer)
Correct answer: Hank is in a higher-numbered cubicle than Frank.
If Frank is in cubicle #2, Gina must be in #1 or #3.
Case A: If Gina is in #1, Hank's number must be higher (>1), and Iris must be in a corner (#4, since #1 is taken). This leaves cubicle #3 for Hank. In this case, Hank (3) is in a higher cubicle than Frank (2).
Case B: If Gina is in #3, Hank's number must be higher (>3), so he must be in #4. Iris must be in the other corner (#1). In this case, Hank (4) is in a higher cubicle than Frank (2).
In both possible scenarios, Hank's cubicle number is higher than Frank's.
Question 3: An Ohio state grant program has three eligibility requirements for municipalities:
1. The municipality's population must be under 50,000.
2. The project must be related to either public park improvement OR water system upgrades.
3. The municipality must provide at least 25% in matching funds.
Which of the following municipalities is eligible for the grant?
- Town A: Population 48,000; proposes a road paving project; offers 30% matching funds.
- Township D: Population 32,000; proposes a public park improvement; offers 40% matching funds. (Correct answer)
- Village C: Population 15,000; proposes a water system upgrade; offers 20% matching funds.
- City B: Population 55,000; proposes a public park improvement; offers 25% matching funds.
Correct answer: Township D: Population 32,000; proposes a public park improvement; offers 40% matching funds.
Township D is the only applicant that meets all three criteria. Its population (32,000) is under 50,000 (Rule 1). The project is for public park improvement, which is an allowed category (Rule 2). Its matching funds (40%) are at least 25% (Rule 3). Town A fails Rule 2. Village C fails Rule 3. City B fails Rule 1.
Question 4: A department manager states, 'We implemented the new workflow software two months ago, and since then, our team's productivity has increased by 15%. This proves that the new software is the sole reason for our success.' What is the primary logical flaw in the manager's conclusion?
- The manager assumes that because one event followed another, the first event must have caused the second. (Correct answer)
- The manager is making a hasty generalization based on a short time frame.
- The manager is using circular reasoning by assuming the conclusion is true.
- The manager is attacking the old software instead of supporting the new one.
Correct answer: The manager assumes that because one event followed another, the first event must have caused the second.
This is a classic example of the 'post hoc ergo propter hoc' (after this, therefore because of this) fallacy. The manager incorrectly assumes that since the productivity increase happened after the software was introduced, the software must be the cause. This conclusion ignores other potential contributing factors like changes in personnel, process improvements, or seasonal workload variations.
Question 5: A supervisor is creating three-person teams from a group of available employees. The following rules for team composition must be followed:
- There are three types of employees: Analysts (A), Clerks (C), and Specialists (S).
- Each team must have exactly one Specialist.
- No team can have more than one Clerk.
- An Analyst cannot be on a team with another Analyst.
Which of the following team compositions is valid according to the rules?
- Specialist, Specialist, Clerk
- Specialist, Clerk, Clerk
- Analyst, Analyst, Specialist
- Specialist, Analyst, Clerk (Correct answer)
Correct answer: Specialist, Analyst, Clerk
The composition 'Specialist, Analyst, Clerk' is the only one that satisfies all rules. It has exactly one Specialist (Rule 1), not more than one Clerk (Rule 2), and does not have two Analysts (Rule 4). Option A violates Rule 1. Option B violates Rule 2. Option C violates Rule 4.
Question 6: The argument is presented: 'To reduce traffic congestion in downtown, the city should increase the number of public buses operating during peak hours. This action will encourage more people to leave their cars at home.' This argument logically depends on which of the following assumptions?
- The current bus system is unprofitable.
- A significant number of people who currently drive are willing and able to use public transportation. (Correct answer)
- Traffic congestion is the most serious problem facing the city.
- Increasing the number of buses will not cause any additional traffic delays.
Correct answer: A significant number of people who currently drive are willing and able to use public transportation.
The argument's conclusion (that congestion will be reduced) only works if people actually switch from cars to buses. The unstated but necessary assumption is that a sufficient number of commuters are willing and able to make this change. If commuters are unwilling to use buses for reasons like convenience, cost, or route availability, then adding more buses will not reduce the number of cars on the road.
