Transcript Multiple Choice Exams

Multiple Choice Exams
Academic Success Program
Professor Suzanne Schmitz
Professor Alice Noble-Allgire
Where Do You Start?
Natural order – from start to finish
Alternative – Start with the “call” or “stem”
Donor was dying of cancer. She called her
friend, Emily, to her house and, in the presence
of two witnesses, pointed to a locked chest in
the bedroom and said: "Emily, I want you to
have my chest and the diamond jewelry inside
it." Donor died a few hours later. At the time of
Donor’s death, the chest was still in Donor’s
bedroom and Emily had done nothing to try to
retrieve the chest or its contents. Under
traditional common law principles, the gifts are:
A. Invalid because there was no delivery.
B. Invalid because there was no acceptance.
C. Valid because acceptance is presumed for gifts of
value to the donee.
D. Valid because gifts causa mortis do not require delivery
or acceptance.
Donor was dying of cancer. She called her
friend, Emily, to her house and, in the presence
of two witnesses, pointed to a locked chest in
the bedroom and said: "Emily, I want you to
have my chest and the diamond jewelry inside
it." Donor died a few hours later. At the time of
Donor’s death, the chest was still in Donor’s
bedroom and Emily had done nothing to try to
retrieve the chest or its contents. Under
traditional common law principles, the gifts are:
A. Invalid because there was no delivery.
B. Invalid because there was no acceptance.
C. Valid because acceptance is presumed for gifts of
value to the donee.
D. Valid because gifts causa mortis do not require delivery
or acceptance.
How to Analyze the Question
Traditional IRAC approach
What is the issue?
What is the rule of law about gifts?
• List elements of rule in margin
Apply each element to the facts given in the problem
Reach a conclusion
Review the choices
True/False approach
IRAC Analysis
Donor was dying of cancer. She called her
friend, Emily, to her house and, in the
presence of two witnesses, pointed to a
locked chest in the bedroom and said:
"Emily, I want you to have my chest and the
diamond jewelry inside it." Donor died a few
hours later. At the time of Donor’s death, the
chest was still in Donor’s bedroom and Emily
had done nothing to try to retrieve the chest
or its contents. Under traditional common
law principles, the gifts are:
True/False Analysis
A.
B.
C.
D.
Donor was dying of cancer. She called her friend,
Emily, to her house and, in the presence of two
witnesses, pointed to a locked chest in the bedroom
and said: "Emily, I want you to have my chest and
the diamond jewelry inside it." Donor died a few
hours later. At the time of Donor’s death, the chest
was still in Donor’s bedroom and Emily had done
nothing to try to retrieve the chest or its contents.
Under traditional common law principles, the gifts
are:
Invalid because there was no delivery.
Invalid because there was no acceptance.
Valid because acceptance is presumed for gifts of value
to the donee.
Valid because gifts causa mortis do not require delivery
or acceptance.
Another Example
Sam Studious is a first-year law student. He
signed a one-year lease, beginning August 1
and ending the following July 31, at the
Westpoint Arms apartment complex. After he
moved in, Sam discovered that the majority of
tenants in the apartment complex were
undergraduate students who held loud parties
almost every night. Although Sam frequently
called the police, the parties inevitably
resumed a short time after the police left the
scene. Sam wants to find another place to live.
...
Now read the call. Who is the
focus of the question?
Sam Studious is a first-year law student. He
signed a one-year lease, beginning August 1
and ending the following July 31, at the
Westpoint Arms apartment complex. After he
moved in, Sam discovered that the majority of
tenants in the apartment complex were
undergraduate students who held loud parties
almost every night. Although Sam frequently
called the police, the parties inevitably
resumed a short time after the police left the
scene. Sam wants to find another place to live.
Which of the following statements correctly
describes the landlord’s rights if Sam
abandons the premises?
Well-Drafted Distractors Probe the
Depth of Your Knowledge
A. The landlord may accept a surrender, which
extinguishes Sam’s liability for future rent but may
subject him (in some states) to damages for
anticipatory breach.
B. The landlord may accept a surrender and re-let the
premises, collecting the full rent from both Sam and
the new tenant.
C. The landlord must mitigate damages by re-letting
the premises, which would release Sam from any
further liability.
D. All of the above.
The Importance of Qualifiers
 Look for qualifiers in the call of the question:
“Most likely to”
Probably
Under common law rules
In most jurisdiction
 Look for qualifiers in the responses
Because, since, as, for the reason that
If, only if, but only if
Provided that
Unless
 Look for AND, OR, BUT
Example
Q: . . . Does Tom have a claim for battery?
Yes, because of X (misstatement of the rule of law)
Yes, provided that the court follows Y (correct, but
irrelevant statement of an exception to the general rule).
No, unless Z (an additional fact) is true
No, because of W (misstatement of item in the fact pattern)
Example:
Lenny had a vacant cabin on some hunting
property he owned. Lenny’s friend, Tom, was in
the process of obtaining a divorce and needed a
place to stay. On January 1, Lenny gave Tom
the keys to the cabin and said: “Why don’t you
stay at my cabin for a while?” Although Lenny
did not ask for rent, Tom gave Lenny $300 at the
beginning of every month. Lenny died on June
15. Lenny’s widow, who inherited Lenny’s entire
estate, told Tom to vacate the property
immediately. Under these facts, a court is most
likely to find:
Example:
Lenny had a vacant cabin on some hunting
property he owned. Lenny’s friend, Tom, was in
the process of obtaining a divorce and needed a
place to stay. On January 1, Lenny gave Tom
the keys to the cabin and said: “Why don’t you
stay at my cabin for a while?” Although Lenny
did not ask for rent, Tom gave Lenny $300 at the
beginning of every month. Lenny died on June
15. Lenny’s widow, who inherited Lenny’s entire
estate, told Tom to vacate the property
immediately. Under these facts, a court is most
likely to find:
Example
A. That Tom does not have to vacate the
premises because Lenny gave him a life
estate, which lasts until Tom’s death.
B. That Tom must vacate the premises
immediately, because he had a tenancy at
will.
C. That Tom must vacate the premises by July
31, because he had a periodic tenancy.
D. That Tom does not have to vacate the
premises until his divorce is finalized.
Multi-Question Fact Patterns
Diagram the facts
Re-read the basic fact pattern for
subsequent questions
Watch for new assumptions that change
the fact pattern
Don’t assume facts not there
Reading carefully
Assume nothing not in fact pattern.
E.g., Q: The prosecutor proves that John shot
Mary and that Mary died an hour later. Is John
guilty of murder?
Yes or No
Reading carefully
Assume nothing not in fact pattern
E.g., Q: The prosecutor proves that John shot
Mary and that Mary died an hour later. Is John
guilty of murder?
Yes or No
A: No because the prosecutor must also prove
that John’s bullet caused Mary’s death.
Don’t ignore facts
Suppose you have been taught in class
that an intoxicated person is not capable
of driving her car in a reasonable manner.
Q: After drinking two quarts of whiskey,
Mary was driving in a reasonable manner
when she collided with Paul’s car. Was
Mary negligent?
Don’t ignore facts
Suppose you have been taught in class
that an intoxicated person is not capable
of driving her car in a reasonable manner.
Q: After drinking two quarts of whiskey,
Mary was driving in a reasonable manner
when she collided with Paul’s car. Was
Mary negligent?
No because negligence requires
unreasonable conduct and the facts say
that she was driving reasonably.
Don’t add in facts
Under common law, murder was the
unjustified killing of a human being.
Is this a good definition of murder, under
common law?
Don’t add in facts
Under common law, murder was the
unjustified killing of a human being.
Is this a good definition of murder, under
common law?
No – murder was the unjustified killing of a
human being with malice aforethought.
Final tips
1. Know the law well.
Don’t expect to be able to do well because the
law is there and you just have to find it.
2. Watch your time.
Allot equal time to each question and move on.
Watch for exam instructions to be posted in
advance and you may be able to calculate time.
3. Answer questions in order; don’t skip.
More Final tips
4. Read carefully.
Read call first.
Then maybe the choices.
Then the facts very carefully.
Pay attention to details.
Diagram if needed.
Look for qualifiers: but, until, although, unless.
When several questions on same fact pattern,
re-read facts after two questions.
Still More Final tips
5. Analyze the question and the choice.
Using IRAC.
Using T/F.
Be sure of role: judge, attorney, etc.
Eliminate those that are false or based on
incorrect law or facts.
Choose best answer.
Often most complete or precise statement of law.
Real Final tips
6. Stay calm.
Choose and move on.
Don’t second guess.
Don’t overanalyze and create issues and facts
not there.
Trust instincts.
Stay in order to avoid messing up the scan
card.
If told to circle on exam as well, do so.
How can I remember all these tips
and learn the law as well?
Practice, practice, practice.
CALI exercises.
Study aids.
Study reasons for answers, right or wrong.
Look for pattern as to why you miss
questions.
thanks
Thanks
Alice Noble-Allgire
Herb Ramy
Michael Josepheson
Vernellia Randall
Suzanne Darrow-Kleinhaus
Amy Jarmon