24 Logical Reasoning Practice Questions & Answers

1. 1. Treat statements (1)-(2) as true even if they seem implausible, and use no outside knowledge. (1) If a duty log is marked "verified," then a second reviewer has signed it. (2) Tuesday's duty log has no second reviewer's signature. From the information given, it can be validly concluded that:

   • A.Every duty log signed by a second reviewer is marked "verified."
   • B.The second reviewer was absent on Tuesday.
   • C.Tuesday's duty log is not marked "verified."✓ Answer
   • D.Tuesday's duty log is marked "verified."

   The only transformation of "If P, then Q" that is always valid is the contrapositive: if not Q, then not P. Here P = marked "verified" and Q = signed by a second reviewer. Statement (2) gives not-Q, so not-P follows necessarily. The tempting distractor is the converse ("every log signed by a second reviewer is marked verified"): the rule guarantees a signature whenever the mark appears, but says nothing about logs that carry a signature for some other reason. "The second reviewer was absent" goes beyond the facts given — the passage never mentions attendance.

   Source: CBP Border Patrol Agent Entrance Examination Preparation Guide — Logical Reasoning, "If-Then" Statements (contrapositive valid; converse invalid)Report a problem with this question

2. 2. Treat statements (1)-(2) as true even if they seem implausible, and use no outside knowledge. (1) If a vehicle is scheduled for maintenance, it is removed from the duty roster. (2) Vehicle 12 was removed from the duty roster. From the information given, it can be validly concluded that:

   • A.Every vehicle removed from the duty roster is scheduled for maintenance.
   • B.The statements do not settle whether Vehicle 12 was scheduled for maintenance.✓ Answer
   • C.Vehicle 12 was not scheduled for maintenance.
   • D.Vehicle 12 was scheduled for maintenance.

   Affirming the consequent is invalid. "If P, then Q" plus Q does not yield P, because Q may have other independent causes — a vehicle could be pulled off the roster after an accident, for reassignment, or for any reason the passage never lists. So the only thing forced is that the question remains open. Option A is the classic converse error; option D states the converse as a general rule and is invalid for the same reason; option B commits the opposite error of treating the rule as if it were the only route to removal and then denying it.

   Source: CBP Border Patrol Agent Entrance Examination Preparation Guide — Logical Reasoning, "If-Then" Statements (an obligation may have more than one independent trigger)Report a problem with this question

3. 3. Treat statements (1)-(2) as true even if they seem implausible, and use no outside knowledge. (1) If a trainee completes the night module, the trainee receives a blue endorsement. (2) Trainee R did not complete the night module. From the information given, it can be validly concluded that:

   • A.Trainee R did not receive a blue endorsement.
   • B.Trainee R received a blue endorsement.
   • C.The statements do not settle whether Trainee R received a blue endorsement.✓ Answer
   • D.No trainee who skips the night module receives a blue endorsement.

   This is the error of denying the antecedent. "If P, then Q" tells you what happens when P occurs; it says nothing about what happens when P does not occur. Completing the night module is stated as sufficient for the endorsement, never as necessary, so some other path to a blue endorsement is not excluded. Option A is the tempting distractor precisely because everyday speech often treats "if" as "only if" — the exam does not. Option C simply generalizes that same error.

   Source: CBP Border Patrol Agent Entrance Examination Preparation Guide — Logical Reasoning, "If-Then" Statements (denying the antecedent yields no conclusion)Report a problem with this question

4. 4. Treat statements (1)-(3) as true even if they seem implausible, and use no outside knowledge. (1) If a sample tag is illegible, the sample cannot be matched to a case file. (2) If a sample cannot be matched to a case file, it cannot be entered into the evidence index. (3) Sample 7 was entered into the evidence index. From the information given, it can be validly concluded that:

   • A.No sample with an illegible tag was ever collected.
   • B.Sample 7 could not be matched to a case file.
   • C.Every sample with a legible tag can be matched to a case file.
   • D.Sample 7's tag is not illegible.✓ Answer

   Chain the two conditionals: illegible → not matchable → not indexable, so illegible → not indexable. Statement (3) denies the final consequent, and the contrapositive of the whole chain gives "indexed → tag not illegible." Option C contradicts the chain, since being indexed forces matchability. Option A is the converse of statement (1): legibility is never said to be enough for a match, only that illegibility rules it out. Option D goes beyond the facts, which describe a rule, not a collection history.

   Source: CBP Border Patrol Agent Entrance Examination Preparation Guide — Logical Reasoning practice item on chained conditionals (fingerprint decipherability chain)Report a problem with this question

5. 5. Treat statements (1)-(2) as true even if they seem implausible, and use no outside knowledge. (1) The unit has twelve inspectors assigned to Post 4. (2) Every inspector assigned to Post 4 carries a signal mirror. From the information given, it can be validly concluded that:

   • A.Everyone who carries a signal mirror is assigned to Post 4.
   • B.No one outside Post 4 carries a signal mirror.
   • C.Some people who carry a signal mirror are not assigned to Post 4.
   • D.Some people who carry a signal mirror are inspectors assigned to Post 4.✓ Answer

   "All A are B," together with the fact that group A is not empty, licenses exactly one converse-style move: some B are A. Twelve real inspectors carry mirrors, so at least some mirror-carriers are Post 4 inspectors. What an "all" statement never tells you is anything about the rest of group B. That is why both option C ("some carriers are not at Post 4") and options A and D (which claim the group of carriers extends no further) are invalid — the passage is simply silent about mirror-carriers outside Post 4. Note that the correct answer here is not the one containing an absolute word; on this exam "all" and "none" appear in right and wrong options alike, so that folklore is no guide.

   Source: CBP Border Patrol Agent Entrance Examination Preparation Guide — Logical Reasoning, "All"/"Every" Statements; and "Ignore advice about avoiding options containing 'all' or 'none'"Report a problem with this question

6. 6. Treat statement (1) as true even if it seems implausible, and use no outside knowledge. (1) Many members of the survey crew are not trained in rope rescue. From the information given, it can be validly concluded that:

   • A.Most members of the survey crew are not trained in rope rescue.
   • B.No member of the survey crew is trained in rope rescue.
   • C.Some members of the survey crew are not trained in rope rescue.✓ Answer
   • D.Some members of the survey crew are trained in rope rescue.

   "Many" is a partial-group quantifier, and the one thing it licenses is the weaker existential claim "some." It does not license anything about the remainder of the group. Option A is the trap the official guidance singles out: in ordinary conversation "many X are not Y" hints that some X are Y, but that is conversational implicature, not logic, and it must be suppressed here. Option B inflates "many" into "most" (quantity creep), and option D inflates a partial statement into a claim about the entire group.

   Source: CBP Border Patrol Agent Entrance Examination Preparation Guide — Logical Reasoning, partial-group quantifiers ("some," "most," "many"); "many are not" exampleReport a problem with this question

7. 7. Treat statement (1) as true even if it seems implausible, and use no outside knowledge. (1) None of the crates unloaded at Dock B were crates sealed with red tape. From the information given, it can be validly concluded that:

   • A.No crate anywhere was sealed with red tape.
   • B.Some crates sealed with red tape were unloaded at Dock B.
   • C.Every crate unloaded at Dock B was sealed with blue tape.
   • D.None of the crates sealed with red tape were unloaded at Dock B.✓ Answer

   A "none" statement establishes zero overlap between two groups, and zero overlap is perfectly symmetric: if no member of group X is in group Y, then no member of Y is in X. So the original statement and option D say the same thing from the other side. Option A directly contradicts the premise. Option B invents a second tape color the passage never mentions, and option C expands a claim about one dock into a claim about all crates everywhere — both go beyond the facts given. Negative information is genuine information and must be used, not skipped over.

   Source: CBP Border Patrol Agent Entrance Examination Preparation Guide — Logical Reasoning, "None" statements (no-overlap is symmetric)Report a problem with this question

8. 8. Treat statement (1) as true even if it seems implausible, and use no outside knowledge. (1) There is no equipment locker in the depot that is not inspected each month. From the information given, it can be validly concluded that:

   • A.Some equipment lockers in the depot are not inspected each month.
   • B.Only some equipment lockers in the depot are inspected each month.
   • C.Everything inspected each month is an equipment locker in the depot.
   • D.Every equipment locker in the depot is inspected each month.✓ Answer

   Two negatives in the same sentence cancel: "there is no locker that is not inspected" converts to the affirmative "every locker is inspected." The reliable technique is to rewrite the sentence in affirmative form before comparing it with the options. Options B and C are what candidates pick when they count only one of the negatives and read the sentence as denying universal inspection; both contradict the premise once it is converted. Option D reverses the statement, claiming the monthly-inspection group contains nothing but lockers, which the sentence never says.

   Source: CBP Border Patrol Agent Entrance Examination Preparation Guide — Logical Reasoning, Cautions About Wording (double negatives resolve to a positive)Report a problem with this question

9. 9. Treat statements (1)-(2) as true even if they seem implausible, and use no outside knowledge. (1) A relief request is approved at the higher rate if the requester works a night shift or holds a supervisory rating; every other relief request is approved at the standard rate. (2) M's relief request was approved at the standard rate. From the information given, it can be validly concluded that:

   • A.M holds a supervisory rating but does not work a night shift.
   • B.M has never held a supervisory rating.
   • C.M works a night shift but does not hold a supervisory rating.
   • D.M does not work a night shift, and M does not hold a supervisory rating.✓ Answer

   The rule is a disjunction: either condition alone is enough to trigger the higher rate. Because the "otherwise" branch fired, neither disjunct can have been satisfied, so both must be negated. Options B and D are tempting because each keeps one disjunct true — but if either were true, the higher rate would have applied, contradicting statement (2). Option C is wrong for a different reason: the rule speaks only about holding the rating now, so a claim about M's entire past goes beyond the facts given.

   Source: CBP Border Patrol Agent Entrance Examination Preparation Guide — Logical Reasoning practice item on either/or benefit-tier rules ("goes beyond the facts given")Report a problem with this question

10. 10. Treat statements (1)-(2) as true even if they seem implausible, and use no outside knowledge. (1) Several storage rooms in the annex were repainted last quarter. (2) Several storage rooms in the annex contain climate-controlled cabinets. From the information given, it can be validly concluded that:

    • A.No repainted room contains a climate-controlled cabinet.
    • B.Every room containing a climate-controlled cabinet was repainted.
    • C.At least one repainted room contains a climate-controlled cabinet.
    • D.The statements do not settle whether any repainted room contains a climate-controlled cabinet.✓ Answer

    Two groups are described separately and the passage never states that they intersect. When no overlap is asserted, no overlap can be inferred — and equally, no separation can be inferred. The groups might coincide completely, partly, or not at all; we simply do not know. Option A is the unstated-overlap fallacy and is the most common wrong choice because the two sentences sit side by side and invite a connection. Option B makes the mirror-image error of asserting they are disjoint, and option C adds a universal claim that neither sentence supports.

    Source: CBP Border Patrol Agent Entrance Examination Preparation Guide — Logical Reasoning practice items in which two groups are described with no stated intersection ("we simply do not know")Report a problem with this question

11. 11. Treat statements (1)-(3) as true even if they seem implausible, and use no outside knowledge. (1) Bin 1 and Bin 2 each hold at least one item. (2) Every item in Bin 1 was photographed. (3) Every item in Bin 2 was photographed. From the information given, it CANNOT be validly concluded that:

    • A.Any item that was not photographed is in neither Bin 1 nor Bin 2.
    • B.No item in Bin 1 went unphotographed.
    • C.Some photographed items are items in Bin 1.
    • D.Some items in Bin 1 are also items in Bin 2.✓ Answer

    The lead-in is negative, so the task is to find the one conclusion that does NOT follow, not the one that is true-sounding. Knowing that everything in Bin 1 was photographed and everything in Bin 2 was photographed tells you nothing about whether the two bins share any contents; a shared property does not create a shared membership. Option A is the legitimate "all A are B, A is non-empty, therefore some B are A" move; option C is the contrapositive of (2) and (3) taken together; option D simply restates (2). Candidates most often miss items like this by reverting to hunting for a valid conclusion after reading a negative lead-in.

    Source: CBP Border Patrol Agent Entrance Examination Preparation Guide — Logical Reasoning, negative lead-in phrases and the no-stated-overlap patternReport a problem with this question

12. 12. Treat statements (1)-(4) as true even if they seem implausible, and use no outside knowledge. (1) Four checkpoints — Q, R, S and T — were inspected one at a time, no two at the same time. (2) S was inspected before R. (3) T was inspected after R. (4) Q was inspected before S. From the information given, it can be validly concluded that:

    • A.T was inspected before S.
    • B.Q was inspected first.✓ Answer
    • C.S was inspected last.
    • D.R was inspected second.

    "Before" is transitive, so the constraints chain into a single forced order: Q before S, S before R, R before T, giving Q, S, R, T. Q is therefore first. Option A is false under that order (R is third), option B reverses the chain, and option D contradicts it. When four items are linked by three separate before-relations that share endpoints, the arrangement is fully determined and every position can be read off directly; there is no need to consider alternative orderings.

    Source: Deductive ordering by transitivity of the "before" relation; CBP Border Patrol Agent Entrance Examination Preparation Guide — general instruction to reason only from the supplied factsReport a problem with this question

13. 13. Treat statements (1)-(5) as true even if they seem implausible, and use no outside knowledge. (1) Five reports — A, B, C, D and E — were filed one at a time. (2) B was filed before D. (3) A was filed immediately after D. (4) C was filed before B. (5) E was not filed first. From the information given, it can be validly concluded that:

    • A.B was filed second.
    • B.E was filed last.
    • C.C was filed first.✓ Answer
    • D.D was filed immediately before E.

    Statements (2), (3) and (4) chain into C before B before D immediately before A. Only C and E can occupy the first position, and (5) eliminates E, so C must be first — that conclusion is forced. Nothing else is: E can sit in the second, third or fifth slot, which leaves B either second or third, so options B and C are merely possible, not necessary. Option D is impossible, since (3) requires A to follow D immediately, leaving no room for E between them. The discipline the exam requires is to separate what must be true from what could be true.

    Source: Deductive ordering with an immediate-succession constraint; CBP Border Patrol Agent Entrance Examination Preparation Guide — distinguish conclusions that must follow from those that merely couldReport a problem with this question

14. 14. Treat statements (1)-(4) as true even if they seem implausible, and use no outside knowledge. (1) Agents F, G and H are each assigned to exactly one of three posts — North, Center and South — and no two share a post. (2) F is not at South. (3) H is at neither North nor Center. (4) G is not at Center. From the information given, it can be validly concluded that:

    • A.G is at Center.
    • B.H is at North.
    • C.F is at Center.✓ Answer
    • D.F is at North.

    Work from the most restricted element first. Statement (3) rules out two of the three posts for H, so H must be at South. That leaves North and Center for F and G. Statement (4) puts G at North, and the remaining post, Center, must go to F. Options A and C directly contradict the eliminations, and option D is ruled out because G already occupies North. Purely negative constraints are still fully usable information: eliminating possibilities is how a unique assignment gets forced.

    Source: Deductive assignment under exclusion constraints; CBP Border Patrol Agent Entrance Examination Preparation Guide — negative statements carry real informationReport a problem with this question

15. 15. Treat statements (1)-(4) as true even if they seem implausible, and use no outside knowledge. (1) Four items — W, X, Y and Z — are each loaded into exactly one of two vehicles, one blue and one grey. (2) W and X are not in the same vehicle. (3) Y is in the same vehicle as W. (4) Z and X are both in the grey vehicle. From the information given, it can be validly concluded that:

    • A.W is in the grey vehicle.
    • B.The blue vehicle holds three of the four items.
    • C.Y and Z are in the same vehicle.
    • D.Y is in the blue vehicle.✓ Answer

    Statement (4) places X in the grey vehicle. By (2), W cannot be with X, and since there are only two vehicles, W must be in the blue one. By (3), Y goes wherever W goes, so Y is blue as well. Option A contradicts that chain, option B is false because Z is grey while Y is blue, and option D is false because the blue vehicle holds exactly two items, W and Y. With only two groups available, "not in the same group" is as informative as a direct assignment — this is the step candidates most often fail to exploit.

    Source: Deductive grouping with a binary partition; CBP Border Patrol Agent Entrance Examination Preparation Guide — reason only from supplied constraintsReport a problem with this question

16. 16. Treat statements (1)-(2) as true even if they seem implausible, and use no outside knowledge. (1) A permit is issued only if the applicant submits a site plan. (2) Applicant K submitted a site plan. From the information given, it can be validly concluded that:

    • A.K was not issued a permit.
    • B.The statements do not settle whether K was issued a permit.✓ Answer
    • C.Everyone who submits a site plan is issued a permit.
    • D.K was issued a permit.

    "Only if" marks a necessary condition, not a sufficient one: it translates as "permit issued → site plan submitted." Satisfying a necessary condition guarantees nothing, because there may be other requirements the passage never lists. Options A and D are the standard necessary/sufficient confusion, treating the site plan as if it were enough on its own. Option B overcorrects in the other direction. The one forced result is that the outcome remains undetermined.

    Source: CBP Border Patrol Agent Entrance Examination Preparation Guide — Logical Reasoning, Cautions About Wording ("only" and "only if" create necessary conditions)Report a problem with this question

17. 17. Treat statements (1)-(2) as true even if they seem implausible, and use no outside knowledge. (1) Only members of the mapping team may enter the archive room. (2) L entered the archive room. From the information given, it can be validly concluded that:

    • A.L is a member of the mapping team.✓ Answer
    • B.L was the only person who entered the archive room.
    • C.Every member of the mapping team entered the archive room.
    • D.Some members of the mapping team may not enter the archive room.

    "Only members of X may do Y" states that membership is required for the act: anyone who does Y is a member of X. Since L performed the act, L must be a member. Option A reverses the statement into a claim that every member actually entered, which permission alone never establishes. Option C misreads the word "only" as attaching to L rather than to the membership requirement. Option D contradicts the rule, which grants the permission to members generally.

    Source: CBP Border Patrol Agent Entrance Examination Preparation Guide — Logical Reasoning, Cautions About Wording ("only" creates very strong statements)Report a problem with this question

18. 18. Treat statement (1) as true even if it seems implausible, and use no outside knowledge. (1) Every crate routed through Lane 3 is weighed. Which one of the following additional statements, if true, would make the conclusion "Crate 88 was weighed" follow necessarily?

    • A.Crate 88 was not routed through Lane 5.
    • B.Some crates routed through Lane 3 are heavy.
    • C.Every crate that is weighed is routed through Lane 3.
    • D.Crate 88 was routed through Lane 3.✓ Answer

    A universal rule delivers a conclusion about an individual only when that individual is shown to belong to the rule's subject class. Adding "Crate 88 was routed through Lane 3" supplies exactly that membership, and the conclusion follows. Option B is the converse of the rule and runs the wrong direction — it would let you infer routing from weighing, not weighing from anything. Option C eliminates one alternative but leaves any number of other lanes open, so it does not place Crate 88 in Lane 3. Option D adds a property of some crates that has no bearing on Crate 88.

    Source: CBP Border Patrol Agent Entrance Examination Preparation Guide — Logical Reasoning, applying "all"/"every" rules to a named individualReport a problem with this question

19. 19. Treat statement (1) as true even if it seems implausible, and use no outside knowledge. (1) If a report is flagged, it is reviewed by the duty supervisor. Which one of the following additional statements, if true, would make the conclusion "Report 14 was not flagged" follow necessarily?

    • A.Report 14 was reviewed by the duty supervisor.
    • B.The duty supervisor reviews every report in the office.
    • C.Report 14 was not reviewed by the duty supervisor.✓ Answer
    • D.Some flagged reports are reviewed twice.

    To reach a "not P" conclusion from "if P, then Q," you must deny the consequent: establishing not-Q forces not-P by contrapositive. Option A is the affirming-the-consequent trap; because reviews may have other causes, a review is consistent with the report being flagged or unflagged and settles nothing. Option C adds detail about review frequency that never touches the flag status. Option D would actually make the conclusion unreachable, since universal review means no report's review status distinguishes flagged from unflagged.

    Source: CBP Border Patrol Agent Entrance Examination Preparation Guide — Logical Reasoning, "If-Then" Statements (contrapositive: opposite and reversed)Report a problem with this question

20. 20. Treat the following as a set of statements offered by different sources; use no outside knowledge. (1) Every vehicle in the motor pool has a spare tire. (2) Vehicle 6 is in the motor pool. (3) No vehicle assigned to night patrol has a spare tire. (4) Vehicle 6 is assigned to night patrol. These four statements cannot all be true. Which of the following correctly identifies the contradiction?

    • A.Statements 1 and 3 contradict each other on their own.
    • B.Statements 2 and 4 cannot both be true of the same vehicle.
    • C.Statements 1 and 2 require Vehicle 6 to have a spare tire, while statements 3 and 4 require it to have none.✓ Answer
    • D.Statement 3 is the converse of statement 1, so one of them must be false.

    A contradiction exists when the same claim about the same object is both forced true and forced false. Statements 1 and 2 combine to force "Vehicle 6 has a spare tire"; statements 3 and 4 combine to force "Vehicle 6 has no spare tire." No single pair is inconsistent on its own, which is why option A fails: statements 1 and 3 are compatible so long as no motor-pool vehicle is ever assigned to night patrol. Option B is wrong because nothing bars a motor-pool vehicle from night patrol in the abstract; the clash appears only once the spare-tire property is derived. Option D misuses the term "converse"; statement 3 is a separate universal negative, not a transformation of statement 1.

    Source: CBP Border Patrol Agent Entrance Examination Preparation Guide — Logical Reasoning, combining "all" and "none" statements about the same individualReport a problem with this question

21. 21. Treat statements (1)-(2) as true even if they seem implausible, and use no outside knowledge. (1) A supervisor claims that a new checklist caused equipment errors to fall. (2) The only evidence offered is that recorded errors fell during the three months after the checklist was introduced. Which one of the following, if true, would most weaken the supervisor's claim?

    • A.Recorded errors continued to fall over the following three months.
    • B.The checklist contains twelve items.
    • C.Staff members said the checklist was easy to use.
    • D.In those same three months, the unit replaced all of its aging equipment with new units.✓ Answer

    The claim infers causation from a sequence in time. The strongest way to weaken such an argument is to supply an alternative cause that operated over the same period and could produce the same drop. Wholesale equipment replacement does exactly that, leaving the checklist unnecessary as an explanation. Option D describes more of the same correlation and if anything supports the claim. Options A and C are irrelevant: ease of use and item count say nothing about what produced the change in error counts.

    Source: CBP Border Patrol Agent Entrance Examination Preparation Guide — Logical Reasoning, cause-and-effect statements and the "unstated cause" errorReport a problem with this question

22. 22. Treat statements (1)-(2) as true even if they seem implausible, and use no outside knowledge. (1) An analyst claims that posting a diagram at the loading gate caused loading times to drop. (2) Loading times at that gate dropped in the month after the diagram was posted. Which one of the following, if true, would most strengthen the analyst's claim?

    • A.Loading times at the gate had also dropped in the month before the diagram was posted.
    • B.The diagram was printed in color.
    • C.At three comparable gates where no diagram was posted, loading times over the same month did not change.✓ Answer
    • D.Workers at the gate said they liked the diagram.

    A causal claim built on a single before-and-after observation is strengthened by a comparison that holds other conditions fixed. If comparable gates without the diagram showed no change over the same month, the general factors that affect all gates are ruled out and the diagram stands as the distinguishing difference. Option D actively undermines the claim by showing the decline was already under way. Options A and B describe features of the diagram and attitudes toward it, neither of which links the diagram to the measured drop.

    Source: CBP Border Patrol Agent Entrance Examination Preparation Guide — Logical Reasoning, evaluating support for a stated cause-and-effect conclusionReport a problem with this question

23. 23. Treat statements (1)-(2) as true even if they seem implausible, and use no outside knowledge. (1) All agents on the swing shift carry a handheld radio. (2) No agent who carries a handheld radio is assigned to the mailroom. From the information given, it CANNOT be validly concluded that:

    • A.Any agent assigned to the mailroom is not on the swing shift.
    • B.No agent on the swing shift is assigned to the mailroom.
    • C.Some agents assigned to the mailroom work the day shift.✓ Answer
    • D.No agent assigned to the mailroom carries a handheld radio.

    The lead-in is negative, so the answer is the single conclusion that does not follow. Combining (1) and (2) gives swing shift → radio → not mailroom, which yields options A and D (the same conclusion stated two ways) and option B (the symmetric restatement of the no-overlap in (2)). Option C introduces a day shift that the premises never mention and asserts that mailroom agents belong to it; the passage says only what mailroom agents are not. Note that three of the four options contain "no" or "not" and are nonetheless valid — absolute wording is no clue to correctness on this exam.

    Source: CBP Border Patrol Agent Entrance Examination Preparation Guide — Logical Reasoning, combining "all" with "none"; and the instruction to ignore folklore about options containing "all" or "none"Report a problem with this question

24. 24. Treat statements (1)-(3) as true even if they seem implausible, and use no outside knowledge. (1) A deposit slip must be countersigned if the amount exceeds the branch limit. (2) A deposit slip must also be countersigned if it is submitted after closing time. (3) Slip 22 was countersigned. From the information given, it can be validly concluded that:

    • A.The statements do not settle whether the amount on Slip 22 exceeded the branch limit.✓ Answer
    • B.The amount on Slip 22 exceeded the branch limit.
    • C.Slip 22 both exceeded the branch limit and was submitted after closing time.
    • D.Slip 22 was submitted after closing time.

    Two independent rules each make countersigning obligatory, so observing a countersignature cannot tell you which rule applied — this is the reason the converse of an if-then is invalid. Slip 22 might have exceeded the limit, or arrived after closing, or triggered both, and the passage lists no further constraint that would narrow it. Options A and B each pick one trigger arbitrarily; option C compounds the error by asserting both. The forced conclusion is that the cause of the countersignature is undetermined.

    Source: CBP Border Patrol Agent Entrance Examination Preparation Guide — Logical Reasoning practice item on reporting obligations with multiple independent triggers (converse invalid)Report a problem with this question

Practice questions modeled on the general aptitude domains of the CBP Border Patrol Agent entrance exam (logical reasoning, reading comprehension, artificial-language test, situational reasoning). Not legal or immigration advice and not affiliated with or endorsed by U.S. Customs and Border Protection. Check the official announcement for the current exam format. CBP Careers →