20 Reasoning & Judgment Practice Questions & Answers

1. 1. All officers on the night shift carry a radio. Officer Reyes does not carry a radio. Which conclusion MUST be true?

   • A.Officer Reyes forgot his radio.
   • B.Officer Reyes works the day shift.
   • C.All night-shift officers are like Reyes.
   • D.Officer Reyes is not on the night shift.✓ Answer

   This is modus tollens: if being on the night shift guarantees carrying a radio, then lacking a radio proves one is not on the night shift. The other options add facts (day shift, forgetfulness) that the premises never establish.

   Source: Deductive reasoning — modus tollens (denying the consequent)Report a problem with this question

2. 2. Every stolen vehicle in the report was recovered within the city limits. Car #7 was not recovered within the city limits. What must be true?

   • A.Car #7 was recovered outside the city.
   • B.Car #7 is still missing.
   • C.Car #7 is not one of the stolen vehicles listed in the report.✓ Answer
   • D.Car #7 was never stolen by anyone.

   By modus tollens, if all reported stolen vehicles were recovered inside the city, then a vehicle not recovered inside the city cannot be one of those reported stolen vehicles. Options B and C guess its actual status, which the premises do not give.

   Source: Deductive reasoning — modus tollensReport a problem with this question

3. 3. No officer who failed the firearms qualification is assigned to patrol. Officer Kim is assigned to patrol. Which conclusion must be true?

   • A.Officer Kim is the best marksman on the force.
   • B.Officer Kim passed every training test.
   • C.Officer Kim did not fail the firearms qualification.✓ Answer
   • D.Some patrol officers failed the firearms qualification.

   If no one who failed is on patrol, then anyone on patrol did not fail, so Kim must have passed the firearms qualification. The premise says nothing about other tests or Kim's skill relative to others.

   Source: Deductive reasoning — categorical syllogismReport a problem with this question

4. 4. Department policy: 'If a detainee requests medical attention, an officer must call for medical staff.' A detainee requests medical attention. Under this policy, what must the officer do?

   • A.Call only if an injury is visible.
   • B.Release the detainee immediately.
   • C.Wait for a supervisor before acting.
   • D.Call for medical staff.✓ Answer

   The rule is a direct conditional: the request is the trigger and calling for medical staff is the required action. Because the condition (a request) is met, the officer must perform the stated action; the policy adds no requirement of visible injury or supervisor approval.

   Source: Rule application — conditional policy (modus ponens)Report a problem with this question

5. 5. An officer responds to a store. The front window is shattered inward, the cash register drawer is open and empty, and muddy footprints lead from the window to the register and back. What is the MOST likely explanation?

   • A.An employee simply forgot to lock up.
   • B.Someone broke in through the window and took the cash.✓ Answer
   • C.Strong wind shattered the window on its own.
   • D.A customer accidentally knocked over the register.

   Inductive reasoning selects the explanation that best accounts for all the evidence together: glass broken inward, an emptied register, and a footprint trail connecting the two point to a break-in and theft. Wind or forgetfulness explains none of the combined clues.

   Source: Inductive reasoning — inference to the best explanation (abduction)Report a problem with this question

6. 6. Over three months, thefts from parked cars spike every Friday night in one lot, which has a broken overhead light. What is the MOST likely explanation?

   • A.Thieves exploit the poorly lit lot when it fills with weekend visitors.✓ Answer
   • B.Owners forget where they parked on weekends.
   • C.The lot attracts theft only because it is Friday.
   • D.Parked cars become more valuable on Fridays.

   Inductive reasoning favors the explanation linking the observed pattern to plausible causes: darkness (broken light) plus more targets (weekend crowds) explains both the location and the Friday timing. The alternatives ignore the lighting or offer no real mechanism.

   Source: Inductive reasoning — pattern-to-cause inferenceReport a problem with this question

7. 7. Arrange these dispatch events into the correct chronological order: (1) the officer clears the call, (2) dispatch receives a 911 call, (3) the officer arrives on scene, (4) dispatch assigns the officer.

   • A.Officer arrives → 911 call received → officer assigned → officer clears
   • B.911 call received → officer assigned → officer arrives → officer clears the call✓ Answer
   • C.Officer assigned → 911 call received → officer clears → officer arrives
   • D.Officer clears → officer arrives → officer assigned → 911 call received

   A call cannot be assigned before it is received, an officer cannot arrive before being assigned, and a call cannot be cleared until after the officer has handled it on scene. Only the first sequence respects every one of these dependencies.

   Source: Sequencing — cause-before-effect orderingReport a problem with this question

8. 8. Put the steps of a routine traffic stop in the correct order: (1) approach the vehicle, (2) observe a traffic violation, (3) run the driver's license, (4) signal the driver to pull over.

   • A.Observe a violation → signal the driver to pull over → approach the vehicle → run the license✓ Answer
   • B.Approach the vehicle → observe a violation → signal to pull over → run the license
   • C.Run the license → observe a violation → signal to pull over → approach the vehicle
   • D.Signal to pull over → observe a violation → run the license → approach the vehicle

   The stop is triggered by first observing a violation; only then does the officer signal the driver over, walk up to the car, and finally obtain and run the license. Each step supplies what the next one needs, so the order is fixed.

   Source: Sequencing — procedural orderingReport a problem with this question

9. 9. Policy: 'Officers may pursue a fleeing vehicle only if the suspect is wanted for a violent felony AND road conditions are safe.' A suspect flees after shoplifting (a misdemeanor); the roads are clear and dry. What is the correct action?

   • A.Pursue only after backup arrives.
   • B.Pursue, because road conditions are safe.
   • C.Pursue at high speed to catch the suspect.
   • D.Do not pursue, because shoplifting is not a violent felony.✓ Answer

   The policy joins two conditions with AND, so both must be met to authorize pursuit. Safe roads satisfy one condition, but a misdemeanor is not a violent felony, so the requirement fails and pursuit is not authorized.

   Source: Rule application — conjunctive condition (both clauses required)Report a problem with this question

10. 10. Policy: 'A conducted-energy weapon may be used only when a subject is actively resisting or is assaultive.' A subject is already handcuffed, seated, and quietly compliant. May the officer use the weapon under this policy?

    • A.Yes, to move the subject along faster.
    • B.No, because the subject is neither actively resisting nor assaultive.✓ Answer
    • C.Only if the subject is speaking loudly.
    • D.Yes, because the subject is under arrest.

    The policy authorizes the weapon only under two named conditions — active resistance or assaultive behavior. A compliant, handcuffed subject meets neither condition, so use is not permitted; being under arrest or talking is not one of the listed triggers.

    Source: Rule application — authorization limited to stated conditionsReport a problem with this question

11. 11. All items logged into evidence must have a tag number. Item 14 has no tag number. Which conclusion must be true?

    • A.Item 14 was stolen from the property room.
    • B.Item 14 belongs to an officer.
    • C.Item 14 was not properly logged into evidence.✓ Answer
    • D.Item 14 has no value to the case.

    By modus tollens, if proper logging requires a tag number, then the absence of a tag number means the item was not properly logged. The premise says nothing about theft, ownership, or the item's value.

    Source: Deductive reasoning — modus tollensReport a problem with this question

12. 12. A witness statement says: 'The suspect fled either east on Main Street or north on Oak Avenue.' Camera footage confirms the suspect did NOT go north on Oak Avenue. What must be true?

    • A.There is not enough information to decide.
    • B.The suspect fled east on Main Street.✓ Answer
    • C.The suspect fled south on Oak Avenue.
    • D.The suspect did not flee at all.

    This is a disjunctive syllogism: given an 'either A or B' statement, ruling out B forces A to be true. Since the north-on-Oak option is eliminated, the remaining option — east on Main — must hold.

    Source: Deductive reasoning — disjunctive syllogismReport a problem with this question

13. 13. Identical graffiti tags appear on five buildings along one street within a single week. What is the MOST reasonable inference?

    • A.The buildings' paint spontaneously formed the tags.
    • B.The tags appeared with no human involvement.
    • C.Five unrelated strangers drew identical tags by coincidence.
    • D.The same person or group created the tags.✓ Answer

    Inductive reasoning favors the simplest explanation that fits the pattern: identical tags clustered in time and place point to a single author. Independent strangers producing identical tags by chance is far less probable, and paint does not form tags on its own.

    Source: Inductive reasoning — inference to the simplest explanationReport a problem with this question

14. 14. During a stop, a driver has bloodshot eyes, slurred speech, an open container of alcohol in the car, and fails a field sobriety test. Which inference is BEST supported?

    • A.The driver is an especially skilled driver.
    • B.The driver is likely impaired.✓ Answer
    • C.The driver is simply tired from a long day.
    • D.The driver has seasonal allergies.

    Inductive reasoning weighs the combined evidence: bloodshot eyes, slurred speech, open alcohol, and a failed sobriety test converge on impairment. Any single clue might have another cause, but together they most strongly support that one conclusion.

    Source: Inductive reasoning — convergent evidenceReport a problem with this question

15. 15. Arrange these arrest-processing steps in the correct order: (1) transport the arrestee to the station, (2) search the arrestee at the scene, (3) conduct a custodial interview after reading the Miranda warning, (4) take the booking photograph at the station.

    • A.Custodial interview → search at the scene → transport to the station → booking photograph
    • B.Booking photograph → transport to the station → search at the scene → custodial interview
    • C.Transport to the station → search at the scene → booking photograph → custodial interview
    • D.Search at the scene → transport to the station → take booking photograph → custodial interview after Miranda warning✓ Answer

    Processing moves from scene to station: the search happens at the scene, then transport, then booking (photograph) at the station, and a custodial interview follows only after the Miranda warning. This order keeps each step in its required location and time.

    Source: Sequencing — arrest-processing procedureReport a problem with this question

16. 16. Policy: 'A written report must be filed within 24 hours of any incident involving injury.' An officer handles a minor fender-bender with no injuries to anyone. What does THIS policy require?

    • A.A report must be filed within one hour under this policy.
    • B.This policy's 24-hour deadline does not apply, because no one was injured.✓ Answer
    • C.A report must still be filed within 24 hours under this policy.
    • D.This policy forbids filing any report at all.

    The rule's 24-hour requirement is expressly limited to incidents 'involving injury.' A no-injury collision falls outside that condition, so this particular policy does not impose the 24-hour deadline; it neither shortens the deadline nor bars a report.

    Source: Rule application — condition limits the rule's scopeReport a problem with this question

17. 17. Rule: 'Whenever the alarm sounds, the vault door locks automatically.' Investigators find that the vault door did not lock. What must be true?

    • A.The alarm did not sound.✓ Answer
    • B.The vault's locking mechanism is broken.
    • C.Someone deliberately disabled the alarm.
    • D.The alarm sounded but was ignored.

    By modus tollens, if the alarm sounding guarantees the vault locks, then the vault failing to lock proves the alarm did not sound. The premises do not establish a malfunction or tampering — those are unsupported guesses.

    Source: Deductive reasoning — modus tollensReport a problem with this question

18. 18. Dispatch policy ranks calls: (1) life-threatening emergencies, (2) crimes in progress, (3) completed property crimes. At the same moment an officer receives a completed car break-in, a robbery in progress, and a report of a person who is not breathing. Which should be handled FIRST?

    • A.Whichever call was received first.
    • B.The person who is not breathing.✓ Answer
    • C.The completed car break-in.
    • D.The robbery in progress.

    The policy assigns the highest priority to life-threatening emergencies, and a person not breathing is exactly that. Applying the stated ranking, it outranks the in-progress robbery (level 2) and the completed break-in (level 3) regardless of arrival order.

    Source: Rule application — priority rankingReport a problem with this question

19. 19. The same rare shoe print is found at three burglaries in one neighborhood over two weeks, and all three homes were entered through an unlocked back door. What is the BEST supported inference?

    • A.The three burglaries were likely committed by the same person.✓ Answer
    • B.Three different burglars happened to wear the same rare shoe.
    • C.The shoe print is unrelated to the burglaries.
    • D.The homeowners staged the burglaries themselves.

    Inductive reasoning connects shared, distinctive features to a common source: a rare print plus the same entry method, clustered in one area and time, most strongly supports a single offender. Coincidental matches across three separate burglars are far less likely.

    Source: Inductive reasoning — common-source inference from a shared signatureReport a problem with this question

20. 20. In a lineup, the suspect is taller than person #2, and person #2 is taller than person #4. Which conclusion must be true?

    • A.Person #2 and person #4 are the same height.
    • B.The suspect is the tallest person in the room.
    • C.Person #4 is the shortest person in the room.
    • D.The suspect is taller than person #4.✓ Answer

    Height comparisons are transitive: if the suspect exceeds #2 and #2 exceeds #4, then the suspect must exceed #4. The premises compare only these three, so claims about the whole room or equal heights are not guaranteed.

    Source: Deductive reasoning — transitivity of ordered relationsReport a problem with this question

Practice questions modeled on the common domains of police officer written entrance exams (reading, writing/grammar, math, reasoning). Not legal advice and not affiliated with or endorsed by any law-enforcement agency or testing vendor. Agencies use different exams — check your agency's announcement for its specific format. BLS occupation profile →