Deductive reasoning questions give you a rule, a policy or a legal definition, then a situation, and ask what the rule says about it. The rule is printed in the question. The skill is applying it exactly as written: every condition, every exception, nothing added.
40Section III questions, four abilities
16practice questions here
What the rules look like in our set
The handbook names the ability, not the item types. Set-ups in our practice questions:
A legal definition with amounts or conditions: possession under or over a weight, a weapon carried at home or away from it.
A procedure with required elements: what a chain-of-custody entry must show.
A policy with exceptions: when an action is allowed, and the cases where it isn't.
Which person or case fits the definition, from four short descriptions.
Split the rule into conditions
List the conditions. Mark and (all must hold), or (one is enough) and unless or except (a way out).
Check each option against every condition. Watch for an option that meets all but one.
Do the arithmetic the rule asks for. If amounts in separate containers are added together, add them before you compare with the limit.
Stop at the rule. If it doesn't mention something, that thing doesn't change the answer.
Inductive reasoning works the other way round: you start from several cases and find the rule. Inductive questions are in the practice test.
Deductive reasoning questions
0 of 16 answered · 0 correct
Question 1 of 16 · Deductive ReasoningNot answered
Read the following procedure and answer the question: 'EVIDENCE TRANSFER PROCEDURE 4.1: Every time an item of evidence changes hands, the chain-of-custody form must show: 1) the date and time of the transfer; 2) the printed name and signature of the person releasing the item; 3) the printed name and signature of the person receiving the item; and 4) the purpose of the transfer (for example, lab analysis or court). A transfer is not complete until both signatures appear. Items placed in a temporary evidence locker count as released by the depositing officer, and the evidence technician signs as receiver when the locker is emptied.'
Which chain-of-custody entry is complete under this procedure?
Answer explanations
A
Incorrect: With the technician's signature still to follow, the transfer is not complete.
B
Incorrect: It lacks the time, and the officer gave a printed name only, with no signature.
C
Incorrect: With no purpose listed, the entry is missing a required part.
D
Correct: It has all four parts: date and time, the lab-analysis purpose, and both names and signatures.
Question 2 of 16 · Deductive ReasoningNot answered
Found property. A person who finds lost property and knows, or has reason to know, who the owner is commits theft if he or she keeps it without making reasonable efforts to return it. A person who finds property with no identifying information may keep it if it is turned in to law enforcement and no one claims it within 90 days. Property that was mislaid, meaning deliberately put down and then forgotten, such as a wallet left on a store counter, is in the custody of the business owner, and giving it to the business satisfies the finder's duty.
Officer Grant reviews four found-property cases. Which person committed theft under the rule?
Answer explanations
A
Correct: The phone showed whose it was, so keeping it without trying to return it is theft under the rule.
B
Incorrect: Unmarked property may be kept once police have held it 90 days with no claim.
C
Incorrect: A wallet left on a counter is mislaid property, and giving it to the business meets the duty.
D
Incorrect: Turning in unmarked property is exactly what the rule asks for.
Question 3 of 16 · Deductive ReasoningNot answered
Consent searches. Consent must be voluntary. A person may limit the scope of consent, for example "you can look in the trunk," and may withdraw consent at any time; the search must stop at once when consent is withdrawn, but items already found may be kept. Consent from one occupant of a shared vehicle covers the common areas of the vehicle, but not another occupant's personal bag.
During a traffic stop, the driver tells Officer Reyes, "Go ahead and search the car." Reyes searches the glove compartment and finds nothing. He then opens the passenger's backpack on the floor, without asking the passenger, and finds a pistol. The driver then says, "Okay, that's enough, stop." Reyes keeps going, opens the trunk, and finds stolen power tools. Which item was lawfully found under the consent?
Answer explanations
A
Incorrect: The driver said stop before the trunk was opened, so the search had to end.
B
Correct: Neither item was lawfully found: the backpack needed the passenger's own consent, and the trunk was opened after consent ended.
C
Incorrect: The pistol in the backpack was not covered, since the driver cannot consent for another occupant's personal bag.
D
Incorrect: Both items fail: the backpack was not the driver's to open, and the trunk came after he withdrew consent.
Question 4 of 16 · Deductive ReasoningNot answered
Interviews of sexual assault victims. The initial interview must take place in a private setting, out of the hearing of anyone other than the officer, a victim advocate, and any person the victim asks to have present. Before the interview begins, the officer must offer the victim an advocate; if the victim declines, the interview may proceed without one. A victim may never be asked to take a polygraph examination as a condition of the investigation.
Officer Lee interviews a sexual assault victim in a closed interview room at the station. Before starting, Lee offers her a victim advocate; she declines but asks that her sister sit with her, and Lee agrees. Halfway through, Lee's partner comes in to take notes and stays until the end without asking the victim. Which action violated the policy?
Answer explanations
A
Incorrect: After an advocate is offered and declined, the interview may go ahead.
B
Incorrect: Not calling in an advocate anyway was no violation; the duty is to offer one, and she declined.
C
Correct: The rule limits the room to the interviewing officer, an advocate, and people the victim asks for; the partner was none of these.
D
Incorrect: The victim asked for her sister, so her presence is allowed.
Question 5 of 16 · Deductive ReasoningNot answered
Read the following ordinance paraphrase and answer the question: 'LOITERING OR PROWLING (paraphrased for training): A person commits this offense if he or she (1) loiters or prowls in a place, at a time, or in a manner not usual for law-abiding people, and (2) under circumstances that justify a reasonable alarm or immediate concern for the safety of persons or property nearby. Before any arrest, unless flight or other circumstances make it impossible, the officer must give the person a chance to explain his or her presence and conduct.'
Based only on this paraphrase, which situation meets both elements and allows an arrest?
Answer explanations
A
Incorrect: Sitting on a bench is not unusual enough to cause alarm, and he explained himself.
B
Correct: Trying car door handles at 0300 justifies alarm, and running away makes asking for an explanation impossible.
C
Incorrect: Walking and talking on a phone in the afternoon is ordinary behavior.
D
Incorrect: Nothing kept the officers from asking him to explain, so the arrest skips a required step.
Question 6 of 16 · Deductive ReasoningNot answered
Read the following department policy and answer the question: 'TRAFFIC POLICY 9.6, FIELD SOBRIETY EXERCISES: Field sobriety exercises are voluntary. Before starting, the officer shall tell the driver that the exercises are voluntary. If the driver declines, the officer shall document the refusal and decide whether to arrest based on all other observations, such as driving pattern, odor, speech, and balance. Officers shall not tell a driver that refusing the exercises will by itself result in arrest. Exercises shall be performed on a dry, level surface when one is reasonably available.'
Which action by Deputy Lang follows this policy?
Answer explanations
A
Incorrect: A dry, level surface must be used when one is reasonably available.
B
Correct: Recording the refusal and weighing his weaving and slurred speech is what the policy requires after a driver declines.
C
Incorrect: The driver must be told the exercises are voluntary before they start.
D
Incorrect: Officers may not say that refusing will by itself lead to arrest.
Question 7 of 16 · Deductive ReasoningNot answered
Read the following ordinance paraphrase and answer the question: 'JUVENILE CURFEW (paraphrased): A minor under 16 may not be in a public place between 2300 and 0600 hours Sunday through Thursday nights, or between 0000 and 0600 hours on Friday and Saturday nights. It is not a violation if the minor is: (a) accompanied by a parent or guardian; (b) traveling directly to or from a job; (c) attending, or traveling directly to or from, an organized school, religious, or civic event; or (d) involved in an emergency.'
Which minor under 16 is violating the curfew?
Answer explanations
A
Incorrect: At 2345 on a Wednesday he is walking home from a work shift, which is an exception.
B
Incorrect: At 0100 on a Friday night she is with her father, and a parent is an exception at any hour.
C
Correct: Tuesday is a Sunday-Thursday night, when curfew starts at 2300, and visiting a friend is not an exception.
D
Incorrect: On a Saturday the curfew starts at 0000, so 2330 is still allowed.
Question 8 of 16 · Deductive ReasoningNot answered
Restraints. All arrestees are handcuffed behind the back with the cuffs double-locked. Leg restraints may be used only if the arrestee kicks or tries to kick, or damages the patrol car. A hobble, which connects the leg restraints to the handcuffs, may be used only after leg restraints are applied and only if the arrestee keeps kicking after they are on. A hobbled arrestee must never be left face down and must be watched continuously.
Officer Wells arrests a man for trespass and handcuffs him behind the back. The man is calm until he is placed in the patrol car, where he kicks the rear window twice. Wells applies leg restraints, and the man stops kicking but keeps shouting insults. To "settle him down," Wells then hobbles him and lays him face down across the back seat. Which of Wells's actions violated the policy?
Answer explanations
A
Incorrect: Kicking the window is exactly what permits leg restraints.
B
Incorrect: Handcuffing a calm arrestee behind his back is what the policy requires for every arrestee.
C
Incorrect: Not hobbling him at the first kick was correct, since a hobble comes only after leg restraints and more kicking.
D
Correct: Hobbling him after the kicking stopped broke the rule, and a hobbled arrestee may never be left face down.
Question 9 of 16 · Deductive ReasoningNot answered
Probable cause from others' information. Information from an identified citizen who personally saw the crime is presumed reliable and can establish probable cause by itself. Information from an anonymous tipster is not enough alone; the officer must corroborate details showing inside knowledge, such as predicted future movements, not just easily observed facts like a person's clothing or car. Information from a paid informant must be corroborated unless the informant has given accurate information at least three times before.
Officer Blake is investigating a string of car break-ins on Oak Street and receives four pieces of information pointing to Tony Vale. Which one, standing alone, establishes probable cause under the policy?
Answer explanations
A
Incorrect: A car description is an easily observed fact, so it is not enough without corroboration.
B
Incorrect: A paid informant needs three accurate past tips to skip corroboration, and this one has two.
C
Correct: An identified citizen who saw the crime is presumed reliable and can establish probable cause alone.
D
Incorrect: An address is easily known and shows no inside knowledge.
Question 10 of 16 · Deductive ReasoningNot answered
Use of deadly force by a private person. A person is justified in using deadly force only if he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself, herself, or another, or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony. A person who is in his or her own dwelling has no duty to retreat before using force. Deadly force is not justified to recover property after the threat has ended or against a person who is fleeing and no longer poses a threat.
Homeowner Ray Colson wakes at 3 a.m. and finds an intruder in his kitchen holding a kitchen knife. Colson shouts; the intruder drops the knife on the floor, grabs Colson's laptop, and runs out the back door toward the fence. From his porch, Colson fires at the man as he climbs the fence, wounding him in the leg. Police later learn the intruder has a prior burglary conviction. Based on the rule, Colson's use of deadly force was:
Answer explanations
A
Incorrect: He had held a knife, but he dropped it and ran before Colson fired.
B
Incorrect: A prior record unknown at the time cannot justify the shot.
C
Incorrect: No duty to retreat does not permit deadly force once the threat is over.
D
Correct: The intruder dropped the knife and was fleeing, so the threat had ended and deadly force was no longer justified.
Question 11 of 16 · Deductive ReasoningNot answered
Alibi verification. When a suspect gives an alibi, the investigator must try to verify it through at least two independent sources, such as video, receipts, or witnesses who are not related to the suspect. An alibi is "verified" only when two independent sources confirm it. It is "refuted" when any reliable record places the suspect somewhere else during the time of the crime. Otherwise it is "unverified." A relative's statement is never an independent source.
A home on Pine Street is burglarized between 9:00 and 9:30 p.m. The suspect, Neil Ford, says he was at a movie theater from 8:45 to 11:00 p.m. His mother says she was with him there. A theater receipt shows his card bought a ticket at 8:40 p.m. Video from a gas station two blocks from Pine Street shows Ford himself buying a drink at 9:12 p.m. How should Detective Webb classify the alibi?
Answer explanations
A
Incorrect: Unverified does not fit, since a reliable record already places him elsewhere, which makes the alibi refuted.
B
Incorrect: His mother is never an independent source, and the video contradicts the alibi anyway.
C
Incorrect: The ticket is a reliable record of a purchase at 8:40, not of where he was at 9:12.
D
Correct: Video shows Ford two blocks from the scene at 9:12, which is a reliable record placing him outside the theater.
Question 12 of 16 · Deductive ReasoningNot answered
Domestic violence investigations. Officers must interview each adult party separately, out of sight and hearing of the other party. A child under 12 may be interviewed only with a non-suspect parent or guardian present; if no such parent is available, a victim advocate must be present instead. A suspect may never be present during the interview of a child. If a party needs medical treatment, the officer may delay that party's interview until treatment is complete.
Officer Stevens responds to a domestic violence call. Mara Voss has a small cut on her arm; her husband, Jon, is the suspect. Stevens interviews Mara in the kitchen while Jon waits outside with Officer Lee, then interviews Jon on the porch while Mara stays in the kitchen. Mara then goes to the ambulance to have her cut cleaned, so Stevens interviews their 10-year-old son in the living room with a victim advocate beside him. Jon insists on staying in the room, and Stevens allows it. Which action violated the policy?
Answer explanations
A
Incorrect: An advocate may stand in when no non-suspect parent is available, and Mara was at the ambulance.
B
Correct: The rule forbids a suspect in the room during a child's interview.
C
Incorrect: Interviewing Jon on the porch kept him out of Mara's sight and hearing, as required.
D
Incorrect: Interviewing Mara before her cut was treated is allowed; the rule permits a delay but does not require one.
Question 13 of 16 · Deductive ReasoningNot answered
Read the following policy and answer the question: 'WARRANT SERVICE POLICY 6.2: Officers serving a search warrant at a residence shall knock, announce their identity and purpose, and allow a reasonable time for a response before forcing entry, unless exigent circumstances exist. Exigent circumstances exist only when specific facts known to the officers show that knocking and announcing would lead to the destruction of evidence, endanger officers, or allow the suspect to escape. A general concern that drugs are easy to destroy, without specific facts, is not an exigent circumstance.'
Which fact would create an exigent circumstance under this policy?
Answer explanations
A
Incorrect: That cocaine could easily be flushed is the general concern the policy says is not enough.
B
Incorrect: A past arrest is not a specific fact about what is happening at the door.
C
Incorrect: Dark lights at night say nothing specific about destruction, danger or escape.
D
Correct: A shout of "flush it" with a running toilet is a specific fact showing evidence is being destroyed.
Question 14 of 16 · Deductive ReasoningNot answered
Defense of a home. A person is presumed to have a reasonable fear of imminent death or great bodily harm, and may use deadly force, when the person against whom force is used was unlawfully and forcibly entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling or occupied vehicle, and the person using force knew or had reason to believe this was happening. The presumption does not apply if (a) the person entering has a right to be in the dwelling, such as an owner or lawful resident, and there is no injunction or court order keeping him away; or (b) the person entering is a law enforcement officer performing official duties who identified himself.
At 1 a.m., Claire Hayes hears a man forcing open her bedroom window. It is her estranged husband, Greg, who is a co-owner of the house and still stays there several nights a week; he lost his key. There is no injunction or court order between them. Claire, frightened, fires her pistol and wounds him. Does the presumption of reasonable fear apply to Claire?
Answer explanations
A
Correct: Greg is a co-owner who stays there and is under no court order, so the exception to the presumption applies.
B
Incorrect: Coming in through a window does not override his right to be in the home.
C
Incorrect: The rule does not involve a duty to retreat; the presumption fails because of who Greg is.
D
Incorrect: Forcing entry does not matter here, because the presumption does not cover a person with a right to be in the home.
Question 15 of 16 · Deductive ReasoningNot answered
Child abuse victims. A child under 16 who is the alleged victim of abuse must be interviewed at the Child Advocacy Center by a certified forensic interviewer, not by the patrol officer. The patrol officer may ask only the questions needed to learn whether a crime occurred, who the suspect is, and whether the child is in immediate danger. The patrol officer must not question the child in the presence of the suspect and must not take a detailed recorded statement.
Officer Dawson responds to a call from a mother who says her 9-year-old daughter told her that her stepfather hit her. The stepfather is at work. In the kitchen, Dawson asks the girl what happened, who hurt her, and whether she feels safe at home tonight. He then asks her to describe every earlier incident over the past year and records her detailed answers on his body camera. Which action violated the policy?
Answer explanations
A
Incorrect: The officer may ask a few limited questions before the Center interview.
B
Incorrect: Asking who hurt her is allowed, since the officer may learn who the suspect is.
C
Correct: A detailed recorded account belongs to the forensic interviewer at the Center, not the patrol officer.
D
Incorrect: Asking whether she is safe at home tonight is one of the allowed questions about immediate danger.
Question 16 of 16 · Deductive ReasoningNot answered
Read the following policy and answer the question: 'MEDIA RELATIONS POLICY 2.5: At an active scene, officers may confirm to the media only the type of incident, its general location, and whether the scene is still active. The names of victims, suspects, or witnesses, the cause of any death, and any information about evidence shall be released only by the Public Information Officer (PIO) after approval by the case detective. Officers shall refer all other media questions to the PIO.'
At a fatal crash, a reporter asks Officer Dorsey several questions. Which may he answer himself?
Answer explanations
A
Incorrect: The cause of a death is for the PIO to release.
B
Incorrect: Whether a cell phone was found is evidence, which only the PIO may release.
C
Correct: Officers may confirm the type of incident, its general location, and whether the scene is still active.
D
Incorrect: The name of the driver who died comes only from the PIO.
Answer every question to see your score
!
Answering from the real law
Our rules are summaries written for the exercise and may be simpler than the statute. On the real test, too, the rule is printed in the question. When the printed rule and what you know about the law disagree, the printed rule wins. The handbook's instruction is to use only the material in the question.
What's the difference between deductive and inductive reasoning on the CJBAT?
Deductive: you get the rule and apply it to a case. Inductive: you get several cases, reports or a table and work out what links them. Both sit in Section III.
Are the laws in deductive questions real Florida law?
Don't rely on them as law. The test needs no outside knowledge, so each rule is given in full, and it may be simplified. Ours are written for practice in the same way.