FBI Phase 1 Practice Test: Boost Your Chance to Pass with Free FBI Test Quesions

The answer is C.

According to the passage, an eyewitness is one who testifies about his/her knowledge of a crime as perceived through his or her senses. (In logical formulation: eyewitness ➞ knowledge perceived through senses).

Answer (C) is a transposed negative equivalent of this sentence, stating that if someone is not testifying based on knowledge from his senses then he is not an eyewitness. (In logical formulation: if knowledge is not perceived through senses ➞ not an eyewitness). This is logically equivalent to what the passage states, and is, therefore, the correct answer.

Answer (A): There is no support in the passage for the probability claimed in answer (A), according to which eyewitnesses are more likely than not to identify the perpetrator correctly.

Furthermore, no information is given about the chances of successful recognition. The only probability given is that of identifying the same person in subsequent line-ups.

Answer (B): According to the passage, most of Alice Wonder's identification attempts were false as of now. This does not support the claim in answer (B), that there is at least one identification attempt not likely to be false. Thus, answer (B) is incorrect.

Note that this statement should be read as: "At least most of Alice's identification attempts have been false as of now." This supports the principle understanding that we do not necessarily have information about all of Alice's identification attempts.

Answer (D): Nothing is known about what happens when an eyewitness fails to identify the perpetrator. Thus, the claim in answer (D) is unsupported by the text and is incorrect.

Answer (E): Nothing is known about witnesses who are not eyewitnesses, and thus, answer (E) cannot be inferred from the text.

The correct answer is D.

According to the paragraph, 48.3% of single-bias hate crimes are biased against race. Therefore, 51.7% of single-bias hate crimes are not (100% - 48.3% = 51.7%). From this, it can be concluded that if an offender committed a single-bias hate crime, the probability of them being biased against race is 0.483 (48.3/100), while the chance he is not is 0.517, as is stated in answer (D).

Answer (A): It is true that out of all single-bias hate crimes that are biased towards sexual orientation, 13.9% are biased against lesbians, and therefore 86.1% are not biased against this group (100% - 13.9% = 86.1%). However, there is another group containing bias against lesbians: the mixed group. Offenders of crimes in this group are also biased against other sexual orientations. Thus, answer (A) is incorrect, as the real proportion is 61.7% (100% - 24.4% - 13.9% = 61.7%).

Answer (B): This is an overestimation, as we know from the paragraph that the incidents in which offenders are not biased against race account for 51.7% of single-bias hate crimes, as explained in answer (D).

Answer (C): This is an underestimation, as 51.7% of single-bias hate crimes are not biased against race, as explained in answer (D).

Answer (E): This is not true, as the probability can be calculated and is exactly 0.139 (13.9/100) according to the text.

The answer is E.

According to the passage, many burglars are driven by addiction, looking for a quick buck [in the logical formulation: (burglars + addiction + quick buck)*many]. Thus, it can be inferred from the amount specified that there are some burglars who are driven by this. Also, there is no logical fallacy in the transposing of both sentence parts, i.e., a few people driven by addiction and looking for quick money are actually burglars [in the logical formulation: (addiction + quick buck + burglars)*many].

Answer (A): According to the passage, most burglars that break into homes are out for cash, jewellery, and electronics [in the logical formulation: (burglars + out for cash, jewellery and electronics)*most]. When an amount is specified, the transposed statement cannot be inferred, as in answer (A), which states that most people who are out for cash, jewellery and electronics are burglars (out for cash, jewellery, and electronics + burglars)*most. Thus, answer (A) is incorrect.

Answer (B): According to the passage, a few burglars break into homes with the intention of hurting the residing families [in the logical format: (burglars + hurt)*a few]. Thus, answer (B) cannot be inferred, as it states that a lot of people break into homes with the intention of hurting the residing families [in the logical format: (people + hurt)*a lot]. The amount specified in answer (B) does not fit the premise (only the opposite conclusion can be inferred - see logical principle "many-some").

Answer (C): According to answer (C), some burglars do not actually break into homes, yet are still interested in jewellery [in the logical format: (burglars + not breaking in + jewellery)*some]. While this could be true, this information is not supported in the text, as information is only given about burglars who do break into homes.

Answer (D): Although the passage states noises and lights deter most burglars from breaking in (in the logical format: noises and lights ➞ deter burglars), no information is given of what happens when the lights are out and music is not being played. Thus, the opposite notion presented in answer (D) is not supported (in the logical formulation: no noises and no lights ➞ no deterring of burglars).

Logical principles:

Many ➞ some: According to logic principles, if it is known that there are many (a lot, most etc.), then it can be concluded that there must be some (a few). This principle cannot be reversed for inference from amount type premises: if it is stated that there are some, it cannot be deduced that there are many.

Transposed negative: As demonstrated in answer (D), a generalizing statement is not equivalent to the negative form of the same statement (all A ➞ are B is not logically equivalent to all, not A ➞ are not B). However, a transposed negative form is equivalent: all not B ➞ are not A! E.g., if all police officers on duty wear uniforms, it can be inferred that if one is not wearing a uniform, one is not a police officer on duty.

The answer is E.

Across the rows, each frame is the mirror image of the frame preceding it.

In order to find the answer choice, find the mirror image of the bottom-middle frame.

Alternatively, as you move across the rows and down the columns, the frames switch colors. Blue square change to white squares and vice versa.

Answer choice E is, therefore, the correct answer.

The answer is A.

Identify the image which completes the pattern by examining how the series of shapes change across the rows and down the columns within the matrix. Where you can most easily visualize the relationship will determine the direction in which you examine the question.

In order to solve this matrix, overlap the first and second columns. Notice that where the blue squares in the first frame overlap with the blue squares in the second frame results in blue squares in the third frame. Also, where the blue squares overlap with the yellow squares results in yellow squares in the third frame. Lastly, where the yellow squares overlap with the yellow squares results in blue squares in the third frame.

We can summarize the rules as the following:

Blue + blue= blue
Yellow + yellow= blue
Blue + yellow= yellow

Take a look at the bottom row. By overlapping the left and middle frames, we will receive answer choice A.

The correct answer is B.

Across the rows and down the columns, the "L" shaped figure rotates 45 degrees (1/8 of a circle) and the line with the circle rotates 180 degrees (1/2 of a circle) from frame to frame. The middle row follows the same rules. In order to determine the correct answer, look at the frame in the middle of the bottom row. Rotate the "L" figure in the middle of the bottom row 45 degrees and the line with the circle 180 degrees. You will arrive with answer choice 2 as the correct answer.

Best response: A
Core competency: building and maintaining relationships
Secondary competencies: responsibility for subordinates, integrity and reliability, flexibility and adaptability

This is a question about the chain of command and your relationship with your employees. We are told about a competent, reliable employee who doesn’t manage to finish her task on time due to difficulties in learning her task.

Notice that there are in fact only two options of actions in the answer choices, and every couple of answer choices that suggest the same action, differ in their rationalization. Therefore, when choosing your response, you should take both elements into consideration: action and rationalization.

Response A emphasizes your relationship with your employees: you want your employee to know she can ask for help and can rely on you (responsibility, reliability). Working alongside her is a good opportunity to see what went wrong, where were her difficulties and tutor her. Notice that this answer choice does not suggest that you do her work instead of her, but rather work together in a way that allows you to see what she is doing each step of the way and vice versa. She has a chance to watch and learn how you perform the task. This is the best response.

Response B emphasizes discipline; it reflects worry that Hillary would make it a habit not to finish her own tasks. Since we are told that she is usually independent and competent, you can feel comfortable that she won’t rely too much on your help next time, but rather would learn to inform you when something is not working and to ask for help. Moreover, this response is harmful since it could create the impression of punishment – in fact, Hillary was responsible enough to point out the problem in advance, therefore punishment is harsh and inappropriate.

Response C suggests an appropriate action, but its rationalization is flawed. Helping your employee is valuable for the sake of work progress, employee development and relationship with your employees. In this response, you help your employee for the sake of your ego and the impression you make on your employees. At the beginning of working with you, your employees probably believe you are familiar with their work. When you do notice that your employees feel otherwise, this implies a lack of trust and such a situation requires more thorough treatment.

Response D has a valid rationalization and in some positions, it’s possible that you won’t be able to work alongside your employees. However, since we are told about an exceptional situation and about an employee who is relatively new and still learning her job, leaving her with the problem seems inflexible.

Best response: A
Core competencies: thoroughness, encouraging innovation and leading changes
Secondary competencies: responsibility, supervising and monitoring performance, flexibility and adaptability, encouraging employees' development

In this question, you are asked about your response to a situation in which you are informed that your team has made an error. There is no need for an immediate correction, but does it mean that nothing needs to be done?

In response A, you think ahead and aim to prevent the reoccurrence of such incidents. You don’t assume any reasons for the problem, but rather perform a thorough investigation, lead changes and adapt your regular procedures.

In response B you also seem to aim to prevent the reoccurrence of the problem, but here you assume the reason for it and seem to take advantage of the situation to push forward your goal to hire more help. You seem to blame the lack of staff instead of taking responsibility for the team’s errors.

Response C is very passive – since the current problem has been solved, you don’t see any reason to investigate it or make changes. This is not a responsible approach; you don’t supervise the performance of your team.

Response D is accusative towards your team. You decide to discipline an employee before you check what happened, and you prefer discipline instead of encouraging development.

Best response: B

In this scenario, an employee complains about inequality in the way you treat your employees. In fact, you are asked about the way you handle personal criticism.

Suggesting that the employee’s problem is actually personal and asking him about problems at home (response D) is, first of all, rude. Asking your employees about their personal lives is controversial: some workplaces may consider it appropriate when it’s done emphatically and out of concern, others will frown upon it or forbid it. In this particular situation, however, your response is not emphatic and is disrespectful (respect for employees). In addition, this response lacks any responsibility for your actions and any consideration of the employee’s complaint. This response shows no ability to accept criticism. Therefore, this is not a good response.

Another response that doesn’t assume responsibility or consider the employee’s complaint is response E. You don’t encourage the employee to discuss matters that bother him with you and you send a bad message about your relationship with him. As a supervisor, you should aim to allow your employees the conditions they need to develop. This response, too, shows no ability to accept criticism.

A more positive response is response A – here you encourage your employee by telling him that he is valuable. This response is respectful and positive, yet there is no discussion here of the actual problem the employee is having. In fact, the situation remains the same for him. This response is better than responses D and E as it is more respectful. However, it is not as good as responses C and B as it doesn't attempt to offer any actual solution to the employee's problem.

Response C is more hopeful for the employee – you show him that turning to you was a good decision and agree to make actual changes to solve his problem. This response encourages development and demonstrates responsibility for your employees. However, in this response you agree with the employee’s complaint without checking the facts – you don’t maintain authority. Therefore, this response is not as good as response B.

In response B you open the issue for discussion with the employee with the goal of finding ways to help him solve the situation and develop his skills. This response would have been better if it said that you would check the legitimacy of the employee’s complaint (personal responsibility). However, of the given responses, this is the only one in which you open the matter for discussion and ask to hear more about the problem, which can allow you to make a decision about the legitimacy of the complaint and take action accordingly (change your behavior, teach or tutor the employee). Therefore, this is the best response.

When answering this type of personality questions, it's important to remember that there are no "right" or "wrong" answers, as the goal is to assess your personality traits. However, your responses will help paint a picture of your character, which can influence your suitability for the role of an FBI Special Agent.
Thus, when addressing these questions, it's important that you be honest but also mindful of how your answers align with the traits desired in an FBI Special Agent, such as leadership, problem-solving, and interpersonal skills.

Best response: A
Core competency: building and maintaining relationships
Secondary competencies: responsibility for subordinates, integrity and reliability, flexibility and adaptability

This is a question about the chain of command and your relationship with your employees. We are told about a competent, reliable employee who doesn’t manage to finish her task on time due to difficulties in learning her task.

Notice that there are in fact only two options of actions in the answer choices, and every couple of answer choices that suggest the same action, differ in their rationalization. Therefore, when choosing your response, you should take both elements into consideration: action and rationalization.

Response A emphasizes your relationship with your employees: you want your employee to know she can ask for help and can rely on you (responsibility, reliability). Working alongside her is a good opportunity to see what went wrong, where were her difficulties and tutor her. Notice that this answer choice does not suggest that you do her work instead of her, but rather work together in a way that allows you to see what she is doing each step of the way and vice versa. She has a chance to watch and learn how you perform the task. This is the best response.

Response B emphasizes discipline; it reflects worry that Hillary would make it a habit not to finish her own tasks. Since we are told that she is usually independent and competent, you can feel comfortable that she won’t rely too much on your help next time, but rather would learn to inform you when something is not working and to ask for help. Moreover, this response is harmful since it could create the impression of punishment – in fact, Hillary was responsible enough to point out the problem in advance, therefore punishment is harsh and inappropriate.

Response C suggests an appropriate action, but its rationalization is flawed. Helping your employee is valuable for the sake of work progress, employee development and relationship with your employees. In this response, you help your employee for the sake of your ego and the impression you make on your employees. At the beginning of working with you, your employees probably believe you are familiar with their work. When you do notice that your employees feel otherwise, this implies a lack of trust and such a situation requires more thorough treatment.

Response D has a valid rationalization and in some positions, it’s possible that you won’t be able to work alongside your employees. However, since we are told about an exceptional situation and about an employee who is relatively new and still learning her job, leaving her with the problem seems inflexible.