Deutsche Bank Situational Judgment Test: Complete Practice Package (2026)

Solution and Explanation:

Primary competencies: Decision making
Secondary competencies: Independence; Working under management; Flexibility and adaptability; Achievement-striving
Best response: 3
Worst response: 2

Explanation: When confronted with a timetable problem, the best way to go about it is to think before you act.

Positive responses will show a certain amount of consideration and planning on your part before choosing to act, while negative responses will be hasty in nature.

In situations such as the one described in the scenario, you need organisational skills to prioritise your tasks and plan your time and actions independently.

Let's consider each response individually:

Response #1: This response displays an ability to plan and prioritise and is therefore a positive choice.

Response #2: There is no indication of prior consideration; rather you decide to take action immediately and postpone both obligations in favour of a seemingly more urgent matter.

This is a negative choice as you do not demonstrate any planning abilities. Moreover, you are hasty in postponing client deadlines, an action that reflects poorly on the company.

Response #3: This response displays an ability to plan and prioritise, and is therefore a positive choice.

You utilise your managers to get all the information you need and don't rely solely on your own common sense (as is the case in response #1).

Moreover, you show flexibility by re-adjusting your timetable to fit the new demands, and you aim to finish all tasks, thus showing achievement-striving. Therefore, this is an excellent response choice.

Response #4: This is not an optimal choice as it does not display the ability to plan and prioritise your tasks.

However, it does suggest a high work ethic and a tendency to be a 'workaholic'.

Choosing too many 'workaholic' responses could indicate either a difficulty to balance workload (decision-making skills), or dishonesty – an attempt to present yourself as a perfect candidate.

Conclusion does not follow.

candidate = C, assertive = A, experienced = E.

According to the premises, C → (A and/or E), and (25 C)*, (15C + E + A)*.

The conclusion states (1-10A + ~E)*

The second premise says nothing about the remaining ten candidates. Each can be experienced but not assertive or assertive but not experienced (they cannot be both assertive and experienced).