Customs and Border Protection (CBP) 2025 – Study Guide & Agency
Overview
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 answer
✔✔ 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 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 answer ✔✔ 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
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 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
answer ✔✔ 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 messages
contain information that would be omitted from formal writing) is valid because it restates the
other fact in the last sentence of the paragraph.
The next-to-last sentence in the paragraph is the source of both response C (some e-mail
messages have been requested as part of investigations) and response D (e-mail messages have
not been exempted from investigations). Both of these choices restate information in that
sentence, based on the fact that access to e-mail messages was sought and granted. This leaves
only the first option, response A (Some e-mail messages that have been requested as part of
investigations have contained messages that would never be said faceto-face). This is the only
choice that does NOT represent a valid conclusion, because even though we know from the
paragraph that there is a group of e-mail messages that are requested in investigations and also
that there is a group of messages that contai
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. - correct answer ✔✔ A) Was married but without dependents
B) Was not married and had no dependents
C) Was not married but had dependents
D) Was not married but had dependents
E) Had never been married
Answer: B - This question concerns an either/or situation. The paragraph states that benefits
under the Federal Employees Compensation Act are awarded at one level (3/4 of salary) if a
beneficiary is married or has dependents when injured and at another level (2/3 of salary) if this
is not true. Phyllis T. is eligible for benefits under the Act. The paragraph states that Phyllis T.?s
benefit level was 2/3 of her salary. Given this benefit level, it is clear that Phyllis T. did not meet
either of the conditions for the 3/4 level. Therefore, responses A, C, and D cannot be correct (A
states that she was married, C states that she had dependents, and D states that she both was
married and had dependents). Response E goes beyond the facts given because prior marriages
are not listed as a factor relating to this benefit. The one correct conclusion is that Phyllis T. did
not meet either requirement to qualify for the higher benefit level (3/4 of salary), so response B
is the correct answer to the question.
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. - correct answer ✔✔ A) Most immigrants
were either engineers or nurses
B) It is not the case that some of the nurses were immigrants
Overview
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 answer
✔✔ 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 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 answer ✔✔ 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
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 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
answer ✔✔ 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 messages
contain information that would be omitted from formal writing) is valid because it restates the
other fact in the last sentence of the paragraph.
The next-to-last sentence in the paragraph is the source of both response C (some e-mail
messages have been requested as part of investigations) and response D (e-mail messages have
not been exempted from investigations). Both of these choices restate information in that
sentence, based on the fact that access to e-mail messages was sought and granted. This leaves
only the first option, response A (Some e-mail messages that have been requested as part of
investigations have contained messages that would never be said faceto-face). This is the only
choice that does NOT represent a valid conclusion, because even though we know from the
paragraph that there is a group of e-mail messages that are requested in investigations and also
that there is a group of messages that contai
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. - correct answer ✔✔ A) Was married but without dependents
B) Was not married and had no dependents
C) Was not married but had dependents
D) Was not married but had dependents
E) Had never been married
Answer: B - This question concerns an either/or situation. The paragraph states that benefits
under the Federal Employees Compensation Act are awarded at one level (3/4 of salary) if a
beneficiary is married or has dependents when injured and at another level (2/3 of salary) if this
is not true. Phyllis T. is eligible for benefits under the Act. The paragraph states that Phyllis T.?s
benefit level was 2/3 of her salary. Given this benefit level, it is clear that Phyllis T. did not meet
either of the conditions for the 3/4 level. Therefore, responses A, C, and D cannot be correct (A
states that she was married, C states that she had dependents, and D states that she both was
married and had dependents). Response E goes beyond the facts given because prior marriages
are not listed as a factor relating to this benefit. The one correct conclusion is that Phyllis T. did
not meet either requirement to qualify for the higher benefit level (3/4 of salary), so response B
is the correct answer to the question.
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. - correct answer ✔✔ A) Most immigrants
were either engineers or nurses
B) It is not the case that some of the nurses were immigrants
