CBP Officer Entrance Exam | Questions with 100% Correct Answers |
Updated 2025 | Guaranteed A+
Question 1
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.
From the information given above, it can be validly concluded that:
A) All crimes are considered malum in se in some jurisdictions.
B) No jurisdictions distinguish between crimes malum in se and malum prohibitum.
C) Some jurisdictions still distinguish between crimes malum in se and malum prohibitum.
D) Murder is considered malum prohibitum in all jurisdictions.
E) Failing to file a tax return is inherently evil.
Correct Answer: C) some jurisdictions still distinguish between crimes malum in se
and malum prohibitum.
Rationale: The passage explicitly states, "Some jurisdictions no longer
distinguish...although many still do." This directly supports the conclusion that
some jurisdictions retain the distinction.
Question 2
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. tractor-trailer, 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.
From the information given above, it can be validly concluded that, in reference to the accident:
A) Nichols Inc. is liable for cargo damage because it was in an accident.
B) Claus Inc. is liable for cargo damage regardless of negligence.
C) If Claus Inc. can show that it was not negligent, then it is not liable.
D) Nichols Inc.'s liability is the same as Claus Inc.'s liability.
E) All cargo damage in the accident will be covered by the trucking companies.
Correct Answer: C) if Claus Inc. can show that it was not negligent, then it is not
liable.
Rationale: The passage states, "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."
Claus Inc. was acting as a common carrier, so this condition applies directly to it.
Question 3
A rapidly changing technical environment in government is promoting greater reliance on
electronic mail (email) 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 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:
Updated 2025 | Guaranteed A+
Question 1
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.
From the information given above, it can be validly concluded that:
A) All crimes are considered malum in se in some jurisdictions.
B) No jurisdictions distinguish between crimes malum in se and malum prohibitum.
C) Some jurisdictions still distinguish between crimes malum in se and malum prohibitum.
D) Murder is considered malum prohibitum in all jurisdictions.
E) Failing to file a tax return is inherently evil.
Correct Answer: C) some jurisdictions still distinguish between crimes malum in se
and malum prohibitum.
Rationale: The passage explicitly states, "Some jurisdictions no longer
distinguish...although many still do." This directly supports the conclusion that
some jurisdictions retain the distinction.
Question 2
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. tractor-trailer, 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.
From the information given above, it can be validly concluded that, in reference to the accident:
A) Nichols Inc. is liable for cargo damage because it was in an accident.
B) Claus Inc. is liable for cargo damage regardless of negligence.
C) If Claus Inc. can show that it was not negligent, then it is not liable.
D) Nichols Inc.'s liability is the same as Claus Inc.'s liability.
E) All cargo damage in the accident will be covered by the trucking companies.
Correct Answer: C) if Claus Inc. can show that it was not negligent, then it is not
liable.
Rationale: The passage states, "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."
Claus Inc. was acting as a common carrier, so this condition applies directly to it.
Question 3
A rapidly changing technical environment in government is promoting greater reliance on
electronic mail (email) 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 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:
