Logical reasoning PrepTest 139 · Section 1 · Question 1

Incorrect. There's no indication that experience would allow an officer to better handle their alcohol, so this answer doesn't provide an explanation for the exception.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Facts

Question Type:
Paradox

Stimulus Summary:
Rule - Officers can't drink on the job
Exception - Officers doing undercover work at nightclubs can drink in moderation

Answer Anticipation:
There must be something unique about going undercover at a nightclub that justifies drinking. It could be that these officers are undercover, and thus they'd need to fit in to maintain that cover.

Answer Explanation:
This answer provides a reason for the exception—if an undercover cop would be spotted out for not drinking, then drinking is a necessary part of maintaining their cover and thus completing their investigation. This answer justifies the exception.

Key Takeaway:
Exceptions are, in effect, differences from the norm. As such, an explanation for that exception should highlight a relevant difference.

Incorrect. The number of officers undercover wouldn't justify letting them drink on those investigations.

Incorrect. First, what the officers themselves believe doesn't impact what's good policy in this case—we'd need to know that drinking doesn't cause significant problems for this answer to be relevant, not just that officers don't believe it to cause problems. Second, even if drinking doesn't cause problems, that's not a reason to allow it.

Incorrect. The public's awareness of this policy is out of scope because it doesn't provide information that helps to proactively identify officers—after all, most people at a nightclub are drinking, so someone aware that cops can drink while undercover won't think that most people at the club are cops.