PPAER Logical and Deductive Reasoning 3 — Questions and Answers
Question 1: A sergeant reviews shifts: morning officers handle traffic; evening officers handle patrol. Officer Diaz handles patrol. During which shift does Officer Diaz most likely work?
- Morning
- Evening (Correct answer)
- Both shifts
- Neither shift
Correct answer: Evening
Patrol is associated with the evening shift, so Diaz most likely works evenings.
Question 2: Statement: 'Whenever the downtown unit is understaffed, response times increase.' The downtown unit is fully staffed today. What can be concluded?
- Response times will definitely decrease today
- Response times may or may not increase today (Correct answer)
- The unit will remain fully staffed tomorrow
- Response times will increase anyway
Correct answer: Response times may or may not increase today
The conditional only tells us what happens when understaffed; it says nothing about response times when fully staffed.
Question 3: Crime scene analysts say the fire started between 9 PM and 11 PM. A witness places the arson suspect elsewhere at 10 PM. What is the logical conclusion?
- The suspect is definitely innocent
- The witness testimony narrows but may not eliminate the suspect (Correct answer)
- The suspect committed arson before 10 PM
- The fire started at exactly 10 PM
Correct answer: The witness testimony narrows but may not eliminate the suspect
The alibi covers only 10 PM within a two-hour window, leaving opportunity outside that specific time.
Question 4: All officers who received commendations this year attended advanced training. Officer Park received a commendation. What follows?
- Officer Park will receive another commendation
- Officer Park attended advanced training (Correct answer)
- Advanced training guarantees commendations
- All advanced training attendees got commendations
Correct answer: Officer Park attended advanced training
Since all commended officers attended advanced training and Park was commended, Park attended the training.
Question 5: A logical sequence: Red → Stop, Yellow → Caution, Green → Go. A driver stopped at a green light. Which is the most logical explanation?
- The driver followed the rule correctly
- The driver violated the logical rule (Correct answer)
- Green sometimes means stop
- The light must have been broken
Correct answer: The driver violated the logical rule
Under the stated rules, green means go, so stopping at green violates the logical sequence.
Question 6: An investigator concludes: 'The victim knew the attacker because the door showed no forced entry.' Which assumption underlies this reasoning?
- Attackers always break doors
- Unlocked doors mean the victim let someone in willingly (Correct answer)
- No forced entry means the victim had a key
- The attacker used a window instead
Correct answer: Unlocked doors mean the victim let someone in willingly
The investigator assumes no forced entry indicates voluntary access, implying familiarity between victim and attacker.
Question 7: Five suspects were interviewed. Suspects 1-4 gave consistent accounts placing themselves together. Suspect 5 contradicts them. What is the most logical inference?
- Suspect 5 is the culprit
- The group of four may be colluding or Suspect 5 may be mistaken (Correct answer)
- Suspect 5 is telling the truth
- All five suspects are lying
Correct answer: The group of four may be colluding or Suspect 5 may be mistaken
Consistent group accounts could indicate collusion or accuracy; Suspect 5's contradiction could reflect honesty or error without additional evidence.
PPAER Logical and Deductive Reasoning 3
A sergeant reviews shifts: morning officers handle traffic; evening officers handle patrol.
Officer Diaz handles patrol.
During which shift does Officer Diaz most likely work?