PwC deductive reasoning test: 3 worked examples

A deductive reasoning test gives you a small set of constraints and asks which conclusion those constraints force. There is no cleverness to it and no outside knowledge involved: the answer is already contained in the clues, and your job is to extract it without adding anything of your own. A PwC deductive reasoning test is not a separate paper either. PwC's description of its cognitive test names deductive reasoning alongside numerical and inductive, so the word is worth pinning down before you sit one.

Most preparation material does not use the word at all. It folds deductive into a general "logical reasoning" bucket and then shows you an answer key. That is the least useful part. What follows is three constraint problems worked all the way through, with the order the clues should be taken in, the elimination written out, and one named wrong turn for each.

What does deductive reasoning actually mean in an ability test?

Deductive reasoning goes from general rules to a specific conclusion. You are handed a set of statements that are true within the question, and a conclusion is correct only if it cannot fail to follow from them. Inductive reasoning runs the other way: you see particular cases, usually shapes or patterns, and infer the rule behind them. Inductive conclusions are probable. Deductive conclusions are forced. The main guide sets out all three reasoning types side by side if you want the contrast in one place.

The practical consequence is that almost every mistake in a deductive question comes from importing something. A candidate assumes a working week is full because working weeks usually are, or that a manager sits at the end of the row because managers usually do, or that a clue about one person implies something about another because that would be a sensible arrangement in a real office. None of that is in the question.

Where the deductive reasoning test sits in the PwC online assessment

PwC's own careers site describes the first assessed stage as a set of online activities hosted on the SHL platform, containing an untimed behavioural profile and a cognitive test. It describes that cognitive test as an ability test including numerical, inductive and deductive reasoning, and says it is timed.

That is the whole of what PwC publishes about the cognitive test. It does not state how many deductive questions there are, how long you get, or whether questions are multiple choice or interactive. Preparation sites state all three anyway, and they contradict each other on every one. Treat any specific number or format you see for PwC as a guess.

On this site, deductive questions are answered by arranging things rather than by picking a letter: dragging people into rooms, ordering a list, or selecting days on a calendar. That is a description of our practice material, not a claim about PwC's format. We are independent and not affiliated with PwC or SHL. For the assessment as a whole, the PwC online assessment guide covers the stages and what is unverified.

Worked example 1: an ordering problem

Five audit files were submitted one after another. Positions run from 1, the earliest, to 5, the latest.

1. Dalia's file was submitted immediately before Femi's.
2. Exactly two files were submitted between Aziz's and Dalia's.
3. Chen's file was neither first nor last.
4. Femi's file was not last.
5. Grace's file was submitted before Chen's.

Start with the distance clue, not the first one printed

Start with clue 2, not clue 1. Clue 1 describes a relationship that can slide anywhere along the row, while clue 2 fixes a distance, and distance clues near the ends of a row eliminate faster. If exactly two files sit between Aziz's and Dalia's, the two of them are three positions apart, which allows only four placements: Aziz 1 with Dalia 4, Aziz 2 with Dalia 5, Aziz 4 with Dalia 1, and Aziz 5 with Dalia 2.

Now bring in clue 1. Dalia is immediately followed by Femi, so Dalia cannot be fifth. Aziz 2 with Dalia 5 is gone. Three placements remain.

If Aziz is first and Dalia fourth, Femi is fifth, and clue 4 forbids that. If Aziz is fourth and Dalia first, Femi is second and positions 3 and 5 are left for Chen and Grace. Clue 3 keeps Chen off position 5, so Chen is third and Grace fifth. That arrangement satisfies clues 1 to 4 completely, which is precisely why clue 5 is in the question: Grace fifth comes after Chen third, and clue 5 says Grace comes before Chen. It fails at the last hurdle.

One branch is left. Aziz is fifth and Dalia second, so Femi is third, leaving positions 1 and 4 for Chen and Grace. Chen cannot be first, so Chen takes 4 and Grace takes 1, which also puts Grace before Chen as clue 5 requires.

The wrong turn: two files between is three positions apart

Reading "exactly two files between" as "two positions apart". Two files between means three positions apart, because the two files occupy the gap. Under the wrong reading you get a different set of four placements, none of which survives, and you conclude the question is broken.

Worked example 2: a weekly schedule

Four consultants each lead exactly one client session, on four different weekdays between Monday and Friday. One weekday has no session at all; the clues call it the clear day.

1. Omar leads on Friday.
2. The clear day falls immediately after Bea's session.
3. Bea does not lead on Monday.
4. Idris leads earlier in the week than Nell.
5. Nell leads later in the week than Bea.

Start with the only unconditional clue

Clue 1 first, because it is the only one that ties a person to a named day with no conditions. Omar is on Friday, and Friday is therefore not the clear day.

Clue 2 next, read against clue 1 rather than on its own. If the clear day comes immediately after Bea's session, Bea cannot lead on Friday, since nothing follows it inside the week, and she cannot lead on Thursday either, because the day after Thursday is Friday and Omar is already on it. Clue 3 removes Monday. Bea is on Tuesday or Wednesday, and nothing so far chooses between them.

Carry both branches. If Bea is on Tuesday, Wednesday is clear and Monday and Thursday are open, so clue 4 puts Idris on Monday and Nell on Thursday. If Bea is on Wednesday, Thursday is clear and Monday and Tuesday are open, so clue 4 puts Idris on Monday and Nell on Tuesday. Clue 5 separates them: Nell must fall later in the week than Bea, which holds for Thursday against Tuesday and fails for Tuesday against Wednesday.

The wrong turn: testing clue 2 in isolation

Leaving Thursday open for Bea. Clue 2 by itself permits it; clue 1 does not, because the clear day would then have to be Friday, which already has Omar on it. A clue that survives on its own can still die when held against one you have already used, and the habit of re-checking each placement against every clue already applied is most of what separates fast candidates from slow ones.

Worked example 3: who sits where

Five people sit at five desks in a single row, numbered 1 to 5, with desk 1 nearest the door.

1. Sofia sits at desk 3.
2. Priya sits directly next to Quinn, and Quinn is nearer the door than Priya.
3. Rashid sits at an end desk.
4. Rashid sits further from the door than Tomas.

Start with Rashid, not with the adjacent pair

Clues 3 and 4 together are the most restrictive pair here, so start there rather than with the outright placement. Rashid is at an end desk, and someone sits nearer the door than he does, which is impossible at desk 1. Rashid is at desk 5, before the other clues have been read at all.

Clue 1 puts Sofia at desk 3. That leaves desks 1, 2 and 4 for Priya, Quinn and Tomas, and among those only 1 and 2 are adjacent, because desks 3 and 5 are now taken and cannot bridge anything.

Clue 2 finishes it without a branch. Quinn and Priya take that adjacent pair, and Quinn is nearer the door, so Quinn is at desk 1 and Priya at desk 2. Tomas takes the desk left over, 4, which satisfies clue 4, since desk 5 is further from the door than desk 4. Taking the most restrictive clue first is not a stylistic preference; here it removes the branching entirely.

The wrong turn: listing pairs from an empty row

Listing the adjacent pairs from the empty row instead of the row you already have. If you write down 1-2, 2-3, 3-4 and 4-5 before placing Rashid and Sofia, three of those four pairs are already dead and you end up branching through arrangements that cannot close. Every placement you make narrows the clues that come after it, so re-read each clue against the grid as it currently stands.

Why "cannot say" is an answer, not a trick

Some ability tests ask you to judge a statement as true, false, or cannot say. PwC does not publish the answer format used in its cognitive test, and our own deductive questions are answered by arranging things rather than by choosing one of three verdicts. The distinction is still worth learning, because it is the clearest way to see how far a set of clues actually goes.

The third option unnerves people, who read it as a trap laid by the test writer. It is not. It is an accurate report of how far the evidence reaches.

Take the ordering problem above, but stop after clue 4. At that point two arrangements are still alive, and one of them puts Chen third while the other puts Chen fourth. The statement "Chen's file was third" is not true, because an allowed arrangement contradicts it. It is not false, because an allowed arrangement contains it. It is unsettled, and cannot say is the only honest verdict. Clue 5 exists to close that gap, and once it is applied Chen is fourth and the same statement becomes false.

Three statements judged against the first example will fix the idea. "Femi's file came after Dalia's" is true, because clue 1 forces it in every arrangement the clues allow. "Aziz's file was first" is false, because no allowed arrangement puts it there. And at the point where only clue 5 was still to be applied, "Grace's file was last" was cannot say, because one of the two surviving arrangements had it fifth and the other had it first.

The commonest source of a wrong "true" is the converse error. Given "every file signed off by the senior manager was reviewed by the quality team", it follows that a file the quality team never reviewed was not signed off by the senior manager. It does not follow that every file the quality team reviewed was signed off by the senior manager. The rule runs one way only, and reversing it feels natural because in a real firm the two usually travel together.

How to practise deductive reasoning properly

• Draw the grid before you read the clues a second time. Positions, days or desks along one axis, names along the other. Holding an arrangement in your head is what makes these questions feel hard.
• Take the most restrictive clue first, not the first one printed. A clue that fixes a distance or names a specific slot eliminates more than a clue that only says one thing precedes another.
• Write your negatives down. "Chen not 1, not 5" is information, and it is the information people forget between one clue and the next.
• When two branches survive, carry both rather than picking the one that looks tidier. A deductive question with a single correct answer always has a clue that kills the other branch, and it is usually the clue you have not used yet.
• Stop the moment you hit a contradiction. Finishing a dead branch out of politeness is where the time goes.
• Time yourself once you have the method. PwC's cognitive test is timed, and accuracy you can only reach slowly is not much use.

Our five practice tests include forty deductive items of this kind, built as schedules, calendars, rankings and office layouts, each with the reasoning written out rather than an answer letter. Working through the chain is the part you cannot get from a key, and it is the part that transfers whatever format you eventually meet.