PELLET B Reasoning 2 — Questions and Answers
Question 1: An officer observes that DUI arrests double within 2 miles of the stadium during major events. What should the department do before the next event?
- Close all bars within 2 miles
- Increase DUI patrols and checkpoints near the stadium (Correct answer)
- Assume no additional DUIs will occur
- Wait until after the event to respond
Correct answer: Increase DUI patrols and checkpoints near the stadium
Proactive policing based on observed patterns means deploying additional resources before the event.
Using observed patterns for proactive decisions is effective law enforcement. The data shows doubled DUI arrests during events. Increasing targeted patrols is reasonable. Option A is overreaching, option C ignores data, and option D is reactive rather than proactive.
Question 2: Three robbery suspects: Alex has a confirmed alibi. Beth was near the scene 30 minutes before. Carlos's fingerprints were found but he works there. Who should be investigated further?
- Alex, because witnesses can lie
- Beth, because proximity warrants investigation (Correct answer)
- Carlos, because fingerprints prove guilt
- None of them
Correct answer: Beth, because proximity warrants investigation
Beth's unexplained proximity is the most suspicious detail. Alex has a verified alibi, Carlos has a legitimate explanation.
Logical evaluation of evidence: Alex's alibi is confirmed. Carlos's fingerprints are explained by employment. Beth's proximity is unexplained and suspicious. Option A speculates beyond the information. Option C ignores legitimate explanations. Officers must weigh evidence quality and prioritize leads.
Question 3: Home burglaries increase during school hours on weekdays but drop on school holidays. What is the most reasonable inference?
- Teachers are committing the burglaries
- Students or young adults may be responsible for some burglaries (Correct answer)
- Homeowners are filing false reports
- The data is coincidental
Correct answer: Students or young adults may be responsible for some burglaries
The correlation with school schedules suggests perpetrators whose availability aligns with school timing.
Inductive reasoning from patterns: burglaries correlate with school hours and decrease during holidays. The most reasonable inference involves people whose schedules align with school patterns. Option A is unsupported, option C suggests fraud without evidence, option D dismisses a clear pattern.
Question 4: Crime data: Area 1 has 50 calls/week with 2 officers, Area 2 has 80 calls/week with 3 officers, Area 3 has 30 calls/week with 3 officers. If one officer must be reassigned, which area should lose one?
- Area 1, fewest officers
- Area 2, most calls
- Area 3, lowest calls-to-officer ratio (Correct answer)
- Cannot be determined
Correct answer: Area 3, lowest calls-to-officer ratio
Area 3 has 10 calls/officer (lowest ratio). Areas 1 and 2 have 25 and 27 calls/officer respectively.
Workload ratios: Area 1: 25 calls/officer. Area 2: ~27. Area 3: 10. Area 3 has the lowest workload and can best afford to lose an officer (would become 15 calls/officer, still below others). Data-driven resource management is essential for police administrators.
Question 5: A suspect claims he was watching a specific live TV show during the crime. The detective discovers it was a rerun from a week earlier. What does this suggest?
- The suspect confused dates innocently
- The suspect's alibi is questionable because the detail is inaccurate (Correct answer)
- The suspect is definitely guilty
- The show schedule is irrelevant
Correct answer: The suspect's alibi is questionable because the detail is inaccurate
The specific inaccuracy makes the alibi questionable since the claimed live broadcast was actually a rerun.
Critical evaluation: the suspect anchored his alibi with a specific verifiable claim that proved false. This makes the alibi questionable but does not prove guilt. Option A is possible but less likely given the specific 'live' claim. Option C overreaches. Detectives must verify claims and assess discrepancies carefully.
Question 6: Five officers cover a parade route. A must be at front. B cannot be next to C. D must be immediately behind A. Which arrangement(s) work?
- A, D, B, E, C
- A, D, C, E, B
- A, B, D, C, E
- Both A and B are valid (Correct answer)
Correct answer: Both A and B are valid
A is first, D second. Then B and C must not be adjacent. Both A,D,B,E,C and A,D,C,E,B satisfy all constraints.
A first, D second (immediately behind). Remaining positions 3-5 for B, C, E. Option A: B at 3, C at 5, separated by E. Valid. Option B: C at 3, B at 5, separated by E. Valid. Option C: B at 2 position, violating D-behind-A constraint. Invalid. Both A and B work.
PELLET B Reasoning 2
An officer observes that DUI arrests double within 2 miles of the stadium during major events.
What should the department do before the next event?