PELLET B Logical Reasoning Patterns 2 — Questions and Answers
Question 1: If all patrol officers carry radios, and Officer Gomez is a patrol officer, which conclusion is valid?
- Officer Gomez may carry a radio
- Officer Gomez carries a radio (Correct answer)
- Some patrol officers do not carry radios
- Officer Gomez is the only one with a radio
Correct answer: Officer Gomez carries a radio
This is a straightforward syllogism. Since all patrol officers carry radios and Gomez is a patrol officer, Gomez must carry a radio.
This question tests deductive reasoning through a categorical syllogism. The major premise states that all patrol officers carry radios (universal affirmative). The minor premise identifies Officer Gomez as a patrol officer. By the rules of deductive logic, the conclusion must follow necessarily: Officer Gomez carries a radio. Option A is too weak ('may' is unnecessary when the premise is universal), and options C and D directly contradict the given premises.
Question 2: A detective notices that every burglary in a neighborhood occurred on a weeknight when streetlights were broken. What is the most logical conclusion?
- Broken streetlights cause burglaries
- Burglars prefer well-lit areas
- There may be a correlation between broken streetlights and burglary timing (Correct answer)
- Fixing streetlights will eliminate all crime
Correct answer: There may be a correlation between broken streetlights and burglary timing
Correlation does not equal causation. The most logical conclusion acknowledges the pattern without assuming a direct causal relationship.
This question tests the ability to distinguish correlation from causation, a critical reasoning skill for law enforcement. While there is clearly a pattern between broken streetlights and burglaries, jumping to a causal conclusion (option A) commits a logical fallacy. Option D overgeneralizes, and option B contradicts the evidence. The careful conclusion (option C) acknowledges the observed relationship while leaving room for other explanations, such as a third variable or coincidence.
Question 3: Consider the sequence: 3, 6, 12, 24, __. What number comes next?
- 30
- 36
- 48 (Correct answer)
- 42
Correct answer: 48
Each number is doubled to get the next: 3x2=6, 6x2=12, 12x2=24, 24x2=48.
This is a geometric sequence where the common ratio is 2. Each term is obtained by multiplying the previous term by 2: 3, 6, 12, 24, 48. Pattern recognition in numerical sequences is tested on the PELLET B because officers frequently need to identify trends in data, such as crime statistics or patrol scheduling patterns.
Question 4: Statement: 'No civilians were present during the incident.' Which of the following must be true?
- Only officers were present during the incident
- The incident occurred in a restricted area
- Anyone present during the incident was not a civilian (Correct answer)
- Civilians arrived after the incident
Correct answer: Anyone present during the incident was not a civilian
If no civilians were present, then every person who was present was not a civilian. This is the logical contrapositive of the original statement.
This question tests understanding of logical negation and necessary versus possible conclusions. The original statement says no civilians were present. Option C is the only one that must be true, as it is a direct restatement of the premise. Option A adds an assumption (only officers exist as non-civilians), option B is unsupported, and option D introduces a timeline element not addressed.
Question 5: Officer Park responds to three calls in order: a noise complaint at 8 PM, a traffic stop at 9 PM, and a domestic disturbance at 10 PM. If each call took exactly 45 minutes, when was Officer Park free after the last call?
- 10:30 PM
- 10:45 PM (Correct answer)
- 11:00 PM
- 11:15 PM
Correct answer: 10:45 PM
The last call began at 10 PM and took 45 minutes, so Officer Park was free at 10:45 PM.
This question tests time-based logical reasoning. The key calculation involves only the last call: it started at 10:00 PM and lasted 45 minutes, ending at 10:45 PM. The previous calls are provided as potential distractors. Officers must manage time-based information accurately for shift scheduling, response times, and incident timelines.
Question 6: If the following statements are true: 'All suspects were photographed' and 'John was not photographed,' which conclusion follows?
- John is a suspect who avoided the camera
- John may or may not be a suspect
- John is not a suspect (Correct answer)
- The photographing process was incomplete
Correct answer: John is not a suspect
Since all suspects were photographed and John was not photographed, John cannot be a suspect. This follows the logical contrapositive.
This is a classic contrapositive reasoning problem. The original conditional is: if someone is a suspect, then they were photographed. The contrapositive is: if someone was not photographed, then they are not a suspect. Since John was not photographed, he must not be a suspect. In policing, this type of reasoning is essential for processing evidence and making valid inferences during investigations.
PELLET B Logical Reasoning Patterns 2
If all patrol officers carry radios, and Officer Gomez is a patrol officer, which conclusion is valid?