CJBAT Logical Reasoning Questions and Answers 3 — Questions and Answers
Question 1: All detectives are officers. Some officers carry badges. Which conclusion must be true?
- All detectives carry badges
- Some detectives may carry badges (Correct answer)
- No detectives carry badges
- All officers are detectives
Correct answer: Some detectives may carry badges
Since only 'some' officers carry badges, it is possible but not certain that detectives (a subset of officers) carry badges.
Question 2: A suspect is seen leaving the bank at 3:00 PM. The robbery occurred between 2:45 PM and 3:15 PM. What can logically be concluded?
- The suspect committed the robbery
- The suspect was present during the possible robbery window (Correct answer)
- The suspect is innocent
- The robbery happened at 3:00 PM exactly
Correct answer: The suspect was present during the possible robbery window
3:00 PM falls within the robbery window, so the suspect was present during that period, but this alone does not prove guilt.
Question 3: If no patrol officers work the night shift and Officer Davis works the night shift, what must be true?
- Officer Davis is not a patrol officer (Correct answer)
- Officer Davis is a detective
- Officer Davis works overtime
- Patrol officers sometimes work nights
Correct answer: Officer Davis is not a patrol officer
Since no patrol officers work nights and Davis works nights, Davis cannot be a patrol officer.
Question 4: Crimes in District A decreased by 20% this year. What additional information would best support the claim that a new policy caused the decrease?
- District A had more officers last year
- Crime also decreased in all neighboring districts without the policy
- Districts without the policy saw no similar decrease (Correct answer)
- The policy was announced publicly
Correct answer: Districts without the policy saw no similar decrease
Showing that districts without the policy did not experience similar decreases strengthens the causal link to the policy.
Question 5: Which argument contains a flaw in reasoning? 'Officer Green always solves cases quickly. This case was solved quickly. Therefore, Officer Green solved this case.'
- The argument is valid
- It assumes correlation equals causation
- It commits the fallacy of affirming the consequent (Correct answer)
- It uses circular reasoning
Correct answer: It commits the fallacy of affirming the consequent
Affirming the consequent incorrectly concludes that because the result occurred, only one specific cause must be responsible.
Question 6: A series follows this pattern: 2, 5, 10, 17, 26, ___. What is the next number?
- 35
- 37 (Correct answer)
- 33
- 40
Correct answer: 37
The differences are 3, 5, 7, 9, 11 — odd numbers increasing by 2 — so 26 + 11 = 37.
Question 7: Four witnesses give conflicting accounts. Three say the car was red; one says it was blue. Which approach best reflects sound logical reasoning?
- Dismiss all testimony as unreliable
- Accept the majority view and investigate further (Correct answer)
- Charge the witness who said blue with lying
- Conclude the car's color is unknowable
Correct answer: Accept the majority view and investigate further
The majority account provides a working hypothesis, but further investigation (e.g., traffic cameras) should corroborate it.
CJBAT Logical Reasoning Questions and Answers 3
All detectives are officers.
Some officers carry badges.
Which conclusion must be true?