multiple choice exams academic success program professor suzanne schmitz professor alice...

Multiple Choice Exams

Academic Success ProgramProfessor Suzanne Schmitz

Professor Alice Noble-Allgire

Where Do You Start?

Natural order – from start to finishAlternative – 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

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.

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 factsRe-read the basic fact pattern for

subsequent questionsWatch for new assumptions that change

the fact patternDon’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