Customs Border protection Questions
with Complete Solutions (Latest 2025)
Often, crimes are characterized as either malum in se-
inherently evil-or malum prohibitum- criminal because they
are declared as offenses by a legislature. Murder is an
example of the former. Failing to file a tax return illustrates
the latter. Some jurisdictions no longer distinguish between
crimes malum in se and malum prohibitum, although many
still do - Correct Answers ✅A) Many jurisdictions no longer
distinguish between crimes malum in se and malum
prohibitum
B) Some jurisdictions still distinguish between crimes malum
in se and malum prohibitum
C) Some crimes characterized as malum in se are not
inherently evil
D) Some crimes characterized as malum prohibitum are not
declared by a legislature to be an offense
E) Sometimes failing to file a tax return is characterized as
malum in se
Answer: B - This question is concerned with classification of
crimes into sets-that is, with the classification of crimes as
either malum in se or malum prohibitum. The last phrase in
the last sentence tells us that many jurisdictions make the
distinction between these two categories of crimes. Response
,Customs Border protection Questions
with Complete Solutions (Latest 2025)
B follows from that sentence, because if many jurisdictions
make the distinction, some jurisdictions make the distinction.
From the fact that many jurisdictions make the distinction, it
cannot be inferred that many do not make the distinction.
Therefore, Response A is incorrect.
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 (a trucking company
hired by a shipper under a specific contract) is only
responsible for cargo damage as spelled out in the contract.
A Claus Inc. tractortrailer, acting under common carrier
authority, was in a 5-vehicle accident that damaged its cargo.
A Nichols Inc. tractor-trailer, acting under contract carrier
authority, was involved in the same accident, and its cargo
was also damaged. - Correct Answers ✅A) If Claus Inc. is
liable, then it can show that it was not negligent
B) If Claus Inc. cannot show that it was not negligent, then it
is not liable
C) If Claus Inc. can show that it was not negligent, then it is
not liable
,Customs Border protection Questions
with Complete Solutions (Latest 2025)
D) If Nichols Inc. is liable, then it cannot show that it is
negligent
E) If Nichols Inc. can show that it is not negligent, then it is
not liable
Answer: C - The second sentence states the liability rule for
common carriers: all common carriers are liable for cargo
damage unless they can show that they are not negligent; if
they can show that they are not negligent, then they are not
liable for cargo damage. Claus Inc. is a common carrier, and
accordingly this rule applies to it. From this rule it follows that
if Claus Inc. can show it was not negligent, then it is not
liable, Response C. Response A contradicts this rule by
claiming that when Claus Inc. is liable it can show that it was
not negligent. Response B contradicts this rule by claiming
that Claus Inc. is not liable even when it cannot show that it is
not negligent. Responses D and E concern Nichols Inc., a
contract carrier. However, the terms of the Nichols Inc.
contract were not disclosed in the paragraph, so neither
response is supported.
A rapidly changing technical environment in government is
promoting greater reliance on electronic mail (e-mail)
systems. As this usage grows, there are increasing chances of
conflict between the users? expectations of privacy and
public access rights. In some investigations, access to all e-
mail, including those messages stored in archival files and
messages outside the scope of the investigation, has been
, Customs Border protection Questions
with Complete Solutions (Latest 2025)
sought and granted. In spite of this, some people send
messages through e-mail that would never be said face-to-
face or written formally. - Correct Answers ✅A) Some e-
mail messages that have been requested as part of
investigations have contained messages that would never be
said face-to-face
B) Some messages that people would never say face-to-face
are sent in e-mail messages
C) Some e-mail messages have been requested as part of
investigations
D) E-mail messages have not been exempted from
investigations
E) Some e-mail messages contain information that would be
omitted from formal writing
Answer: A - This is an example of a test question with a
negative lead-in statement. It asks for the conclusion that is
NOT supported by the paragraph. That means that four of the
statements are valid conclusions from the paragraph while
one is not. Response B (some messages that people would
never say face-to-face are sent in e-mail messages) is a valid
conclusion because it restates a fact given in the last
sentence of the paragraph. Response E (some e-mail
with Complete Solutions (Latest 2025)
Often, crimes are characterized as either malum in se-
inherently evil-or malum prohibitum- criminal because they
are declared as offenses by a legislature. Murder is an
example of the former. Failing to file a tax return illustrates
the latter. Some jurisdictions no longer distinguish between
crimes malum in se and malum prohibitum, although many
still do - Correct Answers ✅A) Many jurisdictions no longer
distinguish between crimes malum in se and malum
prohibitum
B) Some jurisdictions still distinguish between crimes malum
in se and malum prohibitum
C) Some crimes characterized as malum in se are not
inherently evil
D) Some crimes characterized as malum prohibitum are not
declared by a legislature to be an offense
E) Sometimes failing to file a tax return is characterized as
malum in se
Answer: B - This question is concerned with classification of
crimes into sets-that is, with the classification of crimes as
either malum in se or malum prohibitum. The last phrase in
the last sentence tells us that many jurisdictions make the
distinction between these two categories of crimes. Response
,Customs Border protection Questions
with Complete Solutions (Latest 2025)
B follows from that sentence, because if many jurisdictions
make the distinction, some jurisdictions make the distinction.
From the fact that many jurisdictions make the distinction, it
cannot be inferred that many do not make the distinction.
Therefore, Response A is incorrect.
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 (a trucking company
hired by a shipper under a specific contract) is only
responsible for cargo damage as spelled out in the contract.
A Claus Inc. tractortrailer, acting under common carrier
authority, was in a 5-vehicle accident that damaged its cargo.
A Nichols Inc. tractor-trailer, acting under contract carrier
authority, was involved in the same accident, and its cargo
was also damaged. - Correct Answers ✅A) If Claus Inc. is
liable, then it can show that it was not negligent
B) If Claus Inc. cannot show that it was not negligent, then it
is not liable
C) If Claus Inc. can show that it was not negligent, then it is
not liable
,Customs Border protection Questions
with Complete Solutions (Latest 2025)
D) If Nichols Inc. is liable, then it cannot show that it is
negligent
E) If Nichols Inc. can show that it is not negligent, then it is
not liable
Answer: C - The second sentence states the liability rule for
common carriers: all common carriers are liable for cargo
damage unless they can show that they are not negligent; if
they can show that they are not negligent, then they are not
liable for cargo damage. Claus Inc. is a common carrier, and
accordingly this rule applies to it. From this rule it follows that
if Claus Inc. can show it was not negligent, then it is not
liable, Response C. Response A contradicts this rule by
claiming that when Claus Inc. is liable it can show that it was
not negligent. Response B contradicts this rule by claiming
that Claus Inc. is not liable even when it cannot show that it is
not negligent. Responses D and E concern Nichols Inc., a
contract carrier. However, the terms of the Nichols Inc.
contract were not disclosed in the paragraph, so neither
response is supported.
A rapidly changing technical environment in government is
promoting greater reliance on electronic mail (e-mail)
systems. As this usage grows, there are increasing chances of
conflict between the users? expectations of privacy and
public access rights. In some investigations, access to all e-
mail, including those messages stored in archival files and
messages outside the scope of the investigation, has been
, Customs Border protection Questions
with Complete Solutions (Latest 2025)
sought and granted. In spite of this, some people send
messages through e-mail that would never be said face-to-
face or written formally. - Correct Answers ✅A) Some e-
mail messages that have been requested as part of
investigations have contained messages that would never be
said face-to-face
B) Some messages that people would never say face-to-face
are sent in e-mail messages
C) Some e-mail messages have been requested as part of
investigations
D) E-mail messages have not been exempted from
investigations
E) Some e-mail messages contain information that would be
omitted from formal writing
Answer: A - This is an example of a test question with a
negative lead-in statement. It asks for the conclusion that is
NOT supported by the paragraph. That means that four of the
statements are valid conclusions from the paragraph while
one is not. Response B (some messages that people would
never say face-to-face are sent in e-mail messages) is a valid
conclusion because it restates a fact given in the last
sentence of the paragraph. Response E (some e-mail
