Page 1 of 266
CBP PRACTICE EXAM 2026 QUESTIONS WITH
ANSWERS GRADED A+
Qeestion 1
Statement: From the information given above, it can be validly
concluded that some jurisdictions still distinguish between crimes
malum in se and malum prohibitum.
A) Valid conclusion
B) Invalid conclusion
Answer: A
Rationale: This is a valid conclusion. The passage explicitly states
that "Some jurisdictions no longer distinguish...although many still
,Page 2 of 266
do." The phrase "many still do" directly supports the conclusion
that some jurisdictions continue to make this distinction. The
conclusion follows necessarily from the premise without additional
assumptions.
Question 2
Passage: A trucking company can act as a common carrier—for
hire to the general public at published rates. As a common
carrier, it is liable for any cargo damage, unless the company
can show that it was not negligent. If the company can
demonstrate that it was not negligent, then it is not liable for
cargo damage. In contrast, a contract carrier is only responsible
for cargo damage as spelled out in the contract.
Conclusion: A common carrier that cannot prove it was not
negligent is liable for cargo damage.
,Page 3 of 266
A) Valid conclusion
B) Invalid conclusion
Answer: A
Rationale: The passage establishes that a common carrier is
liable for cargo damage UNLESS it shows it was not negligent.
This is logically equivalent to: if it cannot prove it was not
negligent, then it is liable. This is a valid application of modus
tollens reasoning.
Question 3
, Page 4 of 266
Passage: Some of the people who speak Spanish are at my
party. Everyone from the Spanish embassy speaks Spanish. Juan
is at my party.
Statement: Juan is from the Spanish embassy.
A) Valid conclusion
B) Invalid conclusion
Answer: B
Rationale: While everyone from the Spanish embassy speaks
Spanish, not everyone who speaks Spanish is from the Spanish
embassy. Juan could be a Spanish speaker from another
background. This is an invalid conclusion (fallacy of the converse).
CBP PRACTICE EXAM 2026 QUESTIONS WITH
ANSWERS GRADED A+
Qeestion 1
Statement: From the information given above, it can be validly
concluded that some jurisdictions still distinguish between crimes
malum in se and malum prohibitum.
A) Valid conclusion
B) Invalid conclusion
Answer: A
Rationale: This is a valid conclusion. The passage explicitly states
that "Some jurisdictions no longer distinguish...although many still
,Page 2 of 266
do." The phrase "many still do" directly supports the conclusion
that some jurisdictions continue to make this distinction. The
conclusion follows necessarily from the premise without additional
assumptions.
Question 2
Passage: A trucking company can act as a common carrier—for
hire to the general public at published rates. As a common
carrier, it is liable for any cargo damage, unless the company
can show that it was not negligent. If the company can
demonstrate that it was not negligent, then it is not liable for
cargo damage. In contrast, a contract carrier is only responsible
for cargo damage as spelled out in the contract.
Conclusion: A common carrier that cannot prove it was not
negligent is liable for cargo damage.
,Page 3 of 266
A) Valid conclusion
B) Invalid conclusion
Answer: A
Rationale: The passage establishes that a common carrier is
liable for cargo damage UNLESS it shows it was not negligent.
This is logically equivalent to: if it cannot prove it was not
negligent, then it is liable. This is a valid application of modus
tollens reasoning.
Question 3
, Page 4 of 266
Passage: Some of the people who speak Spanish are at my
party. Everyone from the Spanish embassy speaks Spanish. Juan
is at my party.
Statement: Juan is from the Spanish embassy.
A) Valid conclusion
B) Invalid conclusion
Answer: B
Rationale: While everyone from the Spanish embassy speaks
Spanish, not everyone who speaks Spanish is from the Spanish
embassy. Juan could be a Spanish speaker from another
background. This is an invalid conclusion (fallacy of the converse).
