Free EDPT Exam Flashcards

Check if consecutive terms share a constant difference (e.g., 3, 7, 11, 15 add 4 each time). If the differences are constant, the next term equals the last term plus that constant.

Check if consecutive terms share a constant ratio (e.g., 3, 6, 12, 24 doubles each time). Divide each term by the one before it; if the ratio is always the same, multiply the last term by that ratio to continue.

95. Each term equals the previous term doubled plus one (2×2+1=5, 5×2+1=11, 11×2+1=23...), so 47×2+1=95.

A sequence where the first differences aren't constant, but the differences BETWEEN those differences are. Example: 1, 2, 5, 10, 17 has differences 1, 3, 5, 7 (itself arithmetic), so the next difference is 9, giving 26.

13. This is a Fibonacci-style sequence: each term is the sum of the two terms before it (5+8=13).

List the odd-position terms and even-position terms separately. If each subset follows its own simple rule (e.g., one increases by 2, the other by 5), the sequence is actually two sequences merged into one list.

17. Positions alternate ×2 and −1: 3×2=6, 6−1=5, 5×2=10, 10−1=9, 9×2=18, 18−1=17.

Their differences (3, 5, 7, 9...) grow by a constant 2 each time, so learners who only check for ONE constant difference can miss the square-number pattern entirely.

Each term adds one more than the previous addition (add 2, then 3, then 4, then 5). Recognizing this differences-increase-by-one pattern instantly flags a triangular-number series.

Test for a geometric (multiplicative) or exponential pattern before checking arithmetic differences — rapid growth almost always signals multiplication, not addition.

25. The amount subtracted itself increases by 5 each step (5, 10, 15, 20, 25), a second-order pattern — 50 minus 25 equals 25.

A rule that fits only the first pair can be a coincidence; confirming it holds across two or more consecutive pairs protects against picking a trap answer that only matches one transition.

Apply the markup percentage to the wholesale (original) cost, not to the final retail price; using retail as the base is a common arithmetic error.

Add their individual rates (jobs per hour), not their times. If Worker A finishes a job in 4 hours (1/4 per hour) and Worker B in 6 hours (1/6 per hour), the combined rate is 1/4+1/6=5/12 job per hour.

Add the two speeds to get the closing speed (100 mph), then divide the distance by that closing speed: 300 ÷ 100 = 3 hours until they meet.

Not zero. Multiply the factors: 1.20 × 0.80 = 0.96, a net 4% decrease, because the second percentage applies to a different (larger, then smaller) base than the first.

Add the ratio parts (2+3=5), divide the total by that sum ($600÷5=$120 per part), then multiply each part's share by $120 (giving $240 and $360).

Total = Group A + Group B minus the overlap (people counted in both groups). Forgetting to subtract the overlap is a classic arithmetic error that produces an inflated total.

Multiply each solution's volume by its concentration, add the results together, then divide by the total combined volume to get the new blended concentration.

Average speed for equal distances is the harmonic mean, not the arithmetic mean, because more TIME is spent traveling at the slower speed. Use total distance divided by total time instead.

4 times. Gear ratio is inverse to tooth count: turns of the small gear equal the large gear's tooth count divided by the small gear's tooth count (40÷10=4).

Convert the percent to a decimal and multiply directly (e.g., 15% of 80 = 0.15 × 80 = 12), or use an equivalent fraction when that is faster. The public Air Force manual does not publish a fixed per-item pace or calculator rule, so follow local materials instructions.

Always divide by the ORIGINAL (starting) value, never the new value: percent change = (new − original) ÷ original × 100.

Because the required gain is calculated on the smaller, already-reduced base. Recovering from a 20% loss actually requires a 25% gain on the discounted price, not 20%.

Subtract the removed member's value from the original total, then divide by the new (smaller) count — don't recompute the whole sum from scratch.

Tool-to-user (or user-to-tool): a professional paired with the instrument they characteristically use. Confirm the answer pair mirrors the same direction (professional-then-tool, or tool-then-professional).

Build one precise sentence bridging the first pair (e.g., 'A stethoscope is the tool a doctor uses'), then test each answer choice in that exact same sentence — the pair that fits without altering the bridge wins.

Synonym pairs share the same core meaning at the same intensity (happy : glad). Degree pairs share a category but differ in intensity (warm : hot). Check whether the second word intensifies the first.

An upcoming contrast or reversal of the idea just stated — the correct inference must account for this shift in direction, not simply continue the initial idea.

Choose only the conclusion the passage's actual wording directly supports — reject options that require outside knowledge or a bigger leap than the text justifies, even if they sound plausible.

Passages rarely support absolute claims. An answer choice with unqualified extreme language usually goes further than the evidence allows and should be eliminated first.

Member-to-class: the first word is a specific instance belonging to the general category named by the second word. Look for the same specific-to-general direction in the answer pair.

Cause-effect pairs show one word triggering or producing the other (spark : fire). Function pairs share a common purpose or use without one causing the other (hammer : wrench — both are tools).

Re-tighten your bridge sentence to be as specific as possible (adding direction, degree, or causation detail) — the more precise bridge usually eliminates one of the two close choices.

Correct answers rely only on information given, or a small direct logical step from it. Any choice needing an assumption the passage never mentions should be ruled out.

A rotation turns a shape around a point while preserving its handedness (a clockwise L stays a clockwise L). A reflection flips the shape across an axis, reversing its handedness (left becomes right).

The shape slides to a new position without turning, flipping, or resizing — only its location on the grid changes, not its orientation or size.

A change in size only (bigger or smaller) with the shape's orientation and form otherwise unchanged — distinguish it from rotation or reflection, which don't alter size.

Check whether the pattern changes consistently across each row, down each column, or both at once (a 'dual rule'). The missing cell must satisfy every row rule and every column rule simultaneously.

In many matrix items, each shape, fill, or color variant appears exactly once per row and once per column — if an answer choice would duplicate an element already used in that row, eliminate it.

Mentally fold the six-square flat pattern along its shared edges and track which faces end up adjacent versus opposite. Faces separated by one square in the net usually become adjacent when folded; faces at the two ends of a straight line of four are usually opposite.

Each figure in the sequence gains exactly one more side than the previous one (triangle, square, pentagon...) — count sides across the sequence to confirm the rule and predict the next figure.

Confirm which features (like a sphere's circular outline) stay identical from every viewing angle versus which features (like a cube's visible corners) change — this quickly rules out impossible answer views.

The number of internal lines or divisions within a shape doubles at each step in the sequence — spot it by counting internal segments across consecutive figures, not just the outer shape.

Compare all the figures against each other to find one differing trait (an extra line, a different fill, a mismatched rotation) rather than searching for what's 'wrong' in isolation — the odd figure breaks a rule the rest all share.

Q must be true. This is the only direct, always-valid way to affirm the consequent from a true conditional paired with a true antecedent.

P must be false. Denying the consequent of a true conditional always lets you validly deny the antecedent.

No. The converse is NOT guaranteed true just because the original conditional is true; confusing the two is a common formal-logic error.

Yes, always. The contrapositive is the only reformulation of a conditional guaranteed to be logically equivalent, making it safe to substitute anywhere in a reasoning chain.

The 'some' portions named in each premise may not overlap with each other at all, so no valid conclusion follows; this is a frequent trap in formal-logic practice.