LAPD - Los Angeles Police Department Logical and Deductive Reasoning Questions and Answers 1 — Questions and Answers
Question 1: Read the following statements: 1. All LAPD officers who complete their probationary period are eligible to apply for specialized assignments. 2. Officer Miller has completed his probationary period. 3. Specialized assignments include K-9, SWAT, and Air Support. Based only on the information provided, which of the following statements MUST be true?
- Officer Miller is a member of the K-9 unit.
- Only officers in K-9, SWAT, or Air Support are considered specialized.
- Officer Miller has applied for a specialized assignment.
- Officer Miller is eligible to apply for the Air Support assignment. (Correct answer)
Correct answer: Officer Miller is eligible to apply for the Air Support assignment.
Statement 1 establishes a rule: completing probation makes an officer eligible for specialized assignments. Statement 2 confirms Officer Miller meets this condition. Statement 3 lists Air Support as a specialized assignment. Therefore, it can be logically deduced that Officer Miller is eligible to apply for the Air Support assignment. The other options make assumptions not supported by the text; we don't know if he has applied, if he was accepted, or if the list of specialized units is exhaustive.
Question 2: An LAPD directive states: 'If an officer encounters a suspect who is non-compliant but unarmed, the officer should use de-escalation techniques before resorting to any physical force. If de-escalation fails, the officer may use a control hold. The use of a TASER is only authorized if the suspect poses an immediate threat of physical harm to the officer or others.' An officer confronts an unarmed suspect who is yelling and refusing to comply with commands. The officer immediately uses a TASER to subdue the suspect. Which conclusion logically follows?
- The officer's action was inconsistent with the directive. (Correct answer)
- The suspect posed an immediate threat of physical harm.
- De-escalation techniques would have been ineffective.
- The officer should have used a control hold first.
Correct answer: The officer's action was inconsistent with the directive.
The directive creates a sequence: de-escalation, then control holds for non-compliance, and TASER only for an immediate threat. The scenario describes non-compliance without mentioning an immediate threat. By immediately using a TASER, the officer skipped the required preceding steps and used a tool for a condition that was not stated, making the action inconsistent with the directive.
Question 3: A sergeant makes the following statement at roll call: 'The recent installation of new security cameras in Rampart Division has caused a decrease in vehicle burglaries in that area.' For this statement to be logically correct, which of the following must be assumed?
- All vehicle burglaries are reported to the police.
- No other anti-crime initiatives were started at the same time.
- Potential burglars are deterred by the presence of security cameras. (Correct answer)
- The number of arrests for vehicle burglary has also decreased.
Correct answer: Potential burglars are deterred by the presence of security cameras.
The statement links the cameras (cause) to the decrease in crime (effect). The unstated logical connection, or assumption, is that the cameras are what influenced the behavior of potential criminals. In other words, it assumes that the presence of cameras acts as a deterrent. The other options are not necessary assumptions for the statement to be logical.
Question 4: Consider the following facts: - The theft occurred at exactly 10:00 PM. - Witness one stated the suspect fled north on Main St. - Witness two stated the suspect was wearing a black jacket. - Security footage from a camera located one block north on Main St. shows the suspect at 10:01 PM wearing a grey jacket. Which of the following can be logically concluded from these facts?
- Witness one's account of the suspect's direction of travel is inaccurate.
- The time of the theft must be earlier than 10:00 PM.
- The suspect changed jackets between the crime scene and the security camera.
- Witness two's description of the suspect's jacket is contradicted by the video evidence. (Correct answer)
Correct answer: Witness two's description of the suspect's jacket is contradicted by the video evidence.
There is a direct conflict between what Witness two stated ('black jacket') and what the security footage shows ('grey jacket'). All other facts are consistent; fleeing north on Main St. and being captured on video a block away one minute later is a plausible sequence of events. The only direct contradiction is the color of the jacket.
Question 5: An LAPD policy states, 'Officers must activate their Body Worn Video (BWV) camera when responding to any radio call for service. If an officer is already at an incident when it becomes an enforcement action, they must activate the BWV at that point.' Officer Garcia is handling a non-criminal noise complaint. While she is talking to the resident, she observes illegal narcotics on a table. What is the logically correct action for Officer Garcia to take, according to this policy?
- Finish her conversation before activating the camera.
- Disregard the policy as the initial call was non-criminal.
- Immediately activate her BWV camera. (Correct answer)
- Wait for a supervisor to arrive before activating the camera.
Correct answer: Immediately activate her BWV camera.
The policy has two conditions for activation. The second condition applies here: 'If an officer is already at an incident when it becomes an enforcement action, they must activate the BWV at that point.' The moment Officer Garcia observes illegal narcotics, the non-criminal incident becomes a potential criminal matter and thus an enforcement action. Therefore, she must activate her camera immediately.
Question 6: All detectives in the Robbery-Homicide Division (RHD) are required to have at least five years of patrol experience. Detective Jones is assigned to the RHD. Therefore, it can be logically deduced that:
- Detective Jones has at least five years of patrol experience. (Correct answer)
- All detectives with five years of patrol experience are in the RHD.
- Detective Jones has worked in the RHD for five years.
- Only RHD detectives are required to have patrol experience.
Correct answer: Detective Jones has at least five years of patrol experience.
This is a classic example of deductive reasoning (a syllogism). The premise is that a specific qualification (at least five years of patrol experience) is required for a specific group (RHD detectives). Since Detective Jones is a member of that group, he must possess that qualification. The other options reverse the logic or make unsubstantiated claims.
LAPD - Los Angeles Police Department Logical and Deductive Reasoning Questions and Answers 1
Read the following statements:
1.
All LAPD officers who complete their probationary period are eligible to apply for specialized assignments.
2.
Officer Miller has completed his probationary period.
3.
Specialized assignments include K-9, SWAT, and Air Support.
Based only on the information provided, which of the following statements MUST be true?