CBP ENTRANCE EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
Some 480,000 immigrants were living in a certain country in 1999. Although most of
these immigrants were not employed in professional occupations, many of them were.
For instance, many of them were engineers and many of them were nurses. Very few of
these immigrants were librarians, another professional occupation.
From the information given above, it can validly concluded that, in 1999, in the country
described above:
A) Most immigrants were either engineers or nurses
B) It is not the case that some of the nurses were immigrants
C) None of the engineers were immigrants
D) Some of the engineers were immigrants - Answers :D) Some of the engineers were
immigrants
A trucking company can act as a 'common carrier' - for hire to the general public at
published rates. As a common carrier, the trucking company 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 spelled out in the contract. A Claus Inc. tractor-
trailer, acting under common carrier authority, was in a 5-vehivle accident that damaged
its cargo. A Nichlos Inc. tractor-trailer, acting under contract carrier authority, was
involved in the same accident, and its cargo was also damaged.
From the information given above, it can be validly concluded that, in reference to the
accident:
A) If Claus Inc. is liable, then it can show that it was not negligent - Answers :C) If Claus
Inc. can show that it was not negligent, then it is not liable
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
investigation, access to ALL e-mail, including those messages stored in archival files
and messages outside the scope of the investigation, has been 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.
From the information given above, it CANNOT be validly concluded that:
, A) Some e-mails messages that have been requested as part of investigations have
contained messages that would neve 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 m - Answers :A) Some e-mails messages that have been requested as part of
investigations have contained messages that would neve be said face-to-face
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 later. Some
jurisdictions no longer distinguish between crimes "malum in se" and "malum
prohibitum", although many still do.
From the information given above, it can be validly concluded that:
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' - Answers :B)
Some jurisdictions still distinguish between crimes "malum in se" and "malum
prohibitum"
Phyllis T. is a former Federal employee who was entitled to benefits under the Federal
Employee
Compensation Act because of a job-related, disabling injury. When an eligible Federal
employee has such an injury, the benefit is determined by this test: If the beneficiary is
married or has dependents, benefits are 3/4 of the person's salary at the time of the
injury; otherwise, benefits are set at 2/3 of the salary. Phyllis T.'s benefits were 2/3 of
her salary when she was injured.
From the information given above, it can be validly concluded that, when Phyllis T. was
injured, she:
A) Was married but without dependents
Some 480,000 immigrants were living in a certain country in 1999. Although most of
these immigrants were not employed in professional occupations, many of them were.
For instance, many of them were engineers and many of them were nurses. Very few of
these immigrants were librarians, another professional occupation.
From the information given above, it can validly concluded that, in 1999, in the country
described above:
A) Most immigrants were either engineers or nurses
B) It is not the case that some of the nurses were immigrants
C) None of the engineers were immigrants
D) Some of the engineers were immigrants - Answers :D) Some of the engineers were
immigrants
A trucking company can act as a 'common carrier' - for hire to the general public at
published rates. As a common carrier, the trucking company 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 spelled out in the contract. A Claus Inc. tractor-
trailer, acting under common carrier authority, was in a 5-vehivle accident that damaged
its cargo. A Nichlos Inc. tractor-trailer, acting under contract carrier authority, was
involved in the same accident, and its cargo was also damaged.
From the information given above, it can be validly concluded that, in reference to the
accident:
A) If Claus Inc. is liable, then it can show that it was not negligent - Answers :C) If Claus
Inc. can show that it was not negligent, then it is not liable
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
investigation, access to ALL e-mail, including those messages stored in archival files
and messages outside the scope of the investigation, has been 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.
From the information given above, it CANNOT be validly concluded that:
, A) Some e-mails messages that have been requested as part of investigations have
contained messages that would neve 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 m - Answers :A) Some e-mails messages that have been requested as part of
investigations have contained messages that would neve be said face-to-face
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 later. Some
jurisdictions no longer distinguish between crimes "malum in se" and "malum
prohibitum", although many still do.
From the information given above, it can be validly concluded that:
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' - Answers :B)
Some jurisdictions still distinguish between crimes "malum in se" and "malum
prohibitum"
Phyllis T. is a former Federal employee who was entitled to benefits under the Federal
Employee
Compensation Act because of a job-related, disabling injury. When an eligible Federal
employee has such an injury, the benefit is determined by this test: If the beneficiary is
married or has dependents, benefits are 3/4 of the person's salary at the time of the
injury; otherwise, benefits are set at 2/3 of the salary. Phyllis T.'s benefits were 2/3 of
her salary when she was injured.
From the information given above, it can be validly concluded that, when Phyllis T. was
injured, she:
A) Was married but without dependents
