| [ | |
| { | |
| "question": "Defendant, a w orker in a metal working shop, had long been teasing Vincent. a young colleague. by calling him insulting names and ridiculing him. One dav'Vincent responded to the teasing by picking tip a metal bar and attacking Defendant. Defendant could have escaped from the shop. He parriied the blow with his left arm, and with his right hand struck Vincent a blow on his jaw from which the Young man died.", | |
| "input": "Answer the following multiple-choice question with 4 possible answers (marked by A, B, C, D) and provide your response in the format:\n\n\n Reasoning: [Step-by-step reasoning supporting your answer.]\n Answer: [A, B, C, or D] \n\n\n Ensure that your output contains only these two lines, with no extra text or commentary. You must provide an answer in either A, B, C, or D.\n\nQuestion and Possible Answers:\nSelect from the choices (A-D) the most serious offense of which the defendant could be properly convicted.\nDefendant, a w orker in a metal working shop, had long been teasing Vincent. a young colleague. by calling him insulting names and ridiculing him. One dav'Vincent responded to the teasing by picking tip a metal bar and attacking Defendant. Defendant could have escaped from the shop. He parriied the blow with his left arm, and with his right hand struck Vincent a blow on his jaw from which the Young man died.\n\n (A) Involuntary manslaughter\n (B) Voluntary manslaughter\n (C) Murder\n (D) None of the above\n\nReasoning:\n\nAnswer:\n\n", | |
| "output": [ | |
| "D", | |
| "None of the above" | |
| ], | |
| "id": "mbe_131", | |
| "retrieved_docs": "" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "question": "Despondent over losing his job, Wilmont drank all night at a bar. While driving home, he noticed a car following him and, in his intoxicated state, concluded he was being followed by robbers. In fact, a police car was following him on suspicion of drunk driving. In his effort to get away, Wilmont sped through a stop sign and struck and killed a pedestrian. He was arrested by the police. Wilmont is prosecuted for manslaughter. He should be", | |
| "input": "Answer the following multiple-choice question with 4 possible answers (marked by A, B, C, D) and provide your response in the format:\n\n\n Reasoning: [Step-by-step reasoning supporting your answer.]\n Answer: [A, B, C, or D] \n\n\n Ensure that your output contains only these two lines, with no extra text or commentary. You must provide an answer in either A, B, C, or D.\n\nQuestion and Possible Answers:\nDespondent over losing his job, Wilmont drank all night at a bar. While driving home, he noticed a car following him and, in his intoxicated state, concluded he was being followed by robbers. In fact, a police car was following him on suspicion of drunk driving. In his effort to get away, Wilmont sped through a stop sign and struck and killed a pedestrian. He was arrested by the police. Wilmont is prosecuted for manslaughter. He should be\n\n (A) acquitted, because he honestly believed he faced an imminent threat of death or severe bodily injury.\n (B) acquitted, because his intoxication prevented him from appreciating the risk he created.\n (C) convicted, because he acted recklessly and in fact was in no danger.\n (D) convicted, because he acted recklessly and his apprehension of danger was not reasonable.\n\nReasoning:\n\nAnswer:\n\n", | |
| "output": [ | |
| "D", | |
| "convicted, because he acted recklessly and his apprehension of danger was not reasonable." | |
| ], | |
| "id": "mbe_885", | |
| "retrieved_docs": "" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "question": "Andres conveyed Applewood Farm \"to Bogatz, her heirs and assigns, so long as the premises are used for residential and farm purposes, then to Cohen and his heirs.\" The common law Rule Against Perpetuities, unmodified by statute, is part of the law of the jurisdiction in which Applewood Farm is located. As a consequence of the conveyance, Cohen's interest in Applewood Farm is", | |
| "input": "Answer the following multiple-choice question with 4 possible answers (marked by A, B, C, D) and provide your response in the format:\n\n\n Reasoning: [Step-by-step reasoning supporting your answer.]\n Answer: [A, B, C, or D] \n\n\n Ensure that your output contains only these two lines, with no extra text or commentary. You must provide an answer in either A, B, C, or D.\n\nQuestion and Possible Answers:\nAndres conveyed Applewood Farm \"to Bogatz, her heirs and assigns, so long as the premises are used for residential and farm purposes, then to Cohen and his heirs.\" The common law Rule Against Perpetuities, unmodified by statute, is part of the law of the jurisdiction in which Applewood Farm is located. As a consequence of the conveyance, Cohen's interest in Applewood Farm is\n\n (A) nothing.\n (B) a valid executory interest.\n (C) a possibility of reverter.\n (D) a right of entry for condition broken.\n\nReasoning:\n\nAnswer:\n\n", | |
| "output": [ | |
| "A", | |
| "nothing." | |
| ], | |
| "id": "mbe_965", | |
| "retrieved_docs": "" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "question": "Supermarket is in a section of town where there are sometimes street fights and where pedestrians are occasionally the victims of pickpockets and muggers. In recognition of the unusual number of robberies in the area, the supermarket posted signs in the store and in its parking lot that read: Warning: There are pickpockets and muggers at work in this part of the city. Supermarket is not responsible for the acts of criminals. One evening, Lorner drove to Supermarket to see about a special on turkeys that Supermarket was advertising. She decided that the turkeys were too large and left the store without purchasing anything. In the parking lot, she was attacked by an unknown man who raped her and then ran away. If Lorner sues Supermarket, the result should be for the", | |
| "input": "Answer the following multiple-choice question with 4 possible answers (marked by A, B, C, D) and provide your response in the format:\n\n\n Reasoning: [Step-by-step reasoning supporting your answer.]\n Answer: [A, B, C, or D] \n\n\n Ensure that your output contains only these two lines, with no extra text or commentary. You must provide an answer in either A, B, C, or D.\n\nQuestion and Possible Answers:\nSupermarket is in a section of town where there are sometimes street fights and where pedestrians are occasionally the victims of pickpockets and muggers. In recognition of the unusual number of robberies in the area, the supermarket posted signs in the store and in its parking lot that read: Warning: There are pickpockets and muggers at work in this part of the city. Supermarket is not responsible for the acts of criminals. One evening, Lorner drove to Supermarket to see about a special on turkeys that Supermarket was advertising. She decided that the turkeys were too large and left the store without purchasing anything. In the parking lot, she was attacked by an unknown man who raped her and then ran away. If Lorner sues Supermarket, the result should be for the\n\n (A) plaintiff, if Supermarket failed to take reasonable steps to protect customers against criminal attack in its parking lot.\n (B) plaintiff, because Supermarket is liable for harm to business invitees on its premises.\n (C) defendant, if the warning signs were plainly visible to Lorner.\n (D) defendant, because the rapist was the proximate cause of Lorner's injuries.\n\nReasoning:\n\nAnswer:\n\n", | |
| "output": [ | |
| "A", | |
| "plaintiff, if Supermarket failed to take reasonable steps to protect customers against criminal attack in its parking lot." | |
| ], | |
| "id": "mbe_768", | |
| "retrieved_docs": "" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "question": "In preparation for a mountain-climbing expedition, Alper purchased the necessary climbing equipment from Outfitters, Inc., a retail dealer in sporting goods. A week later, Alper fell from a rock face when a safety device he had purchased from Outfitters malfunctioned because of a defect in its manufacture. Thereafter, Rollins was severely injured when he tried to reach and give assistance to Alper on the ledge to which Alper had fallen. Rollins's injury was not caused by any fault on his own part. If Rollins brings an action against Outfitters, Inc., to recover damages for his injuries, will Rollins prevail?", | |
| "input": "Answer the following multiple-choice question with 4 possible answers (marked by A, B, C, D) and provide your response in the format:\n\n\n Reasoning: [Step-by-step reasoning supporting your answer.]\n Answer: [A, B, C, or D] \n\n\n Ensure that your output contains only these two lines, with no extra text or commentary. You must provide an answer in either A, B, C, or D.\n\nQuestion and Possible Answers:\nIn preparation for a mountain-climbing expedition, Alper purchased the necessary climbing equipment from Outfitters, Inc., a retail dealer in sporting goods. A week later, Alper fell from a rock face when a safety device he had purchased from Outfitters malfunctioned because of a defect in its manufacture. Thereafter, Rollins was severely injured when he tried to reach and give assistance to Alper on the ledge to which Alper had fallen. Rollins's injury was not caused by any fault on his own part. If Rollins brings an action against Outfitters, Inc., to recover damages for his injuries, will Rollins prevail?\n\n (A) No, unless Outfitters could have discovered the defect by a reasonable inspection of the safety device.\n (B) No, because Rollins did not rely on the representation of safety implied from the sale of the safety device by Outfitters.\n (C) Yes, unless Alper was negligent in failing to test the safety device.\n (D) Yes, because injury to a person in Rollins's position was foreseeable if the safety device failed.\n\nReasoning:\n\nAnswer:\n\n", | |
| "output": [ | |
| "D", | |
| "Yes, because injury to a person in Rollins's position was foreseeable if the safety device failed." | |
| ], | |
| "id": "mbe_656", | |
| "retrieved_docs": "" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "question": "If the Attorney General signs the indictment, the strongest argument Green could urge as a defense is that", | |
| "input": "Answer the following multiple-choice question with 4 possible answers (marked by A, B, C, D) and provide your response in the format:\n\n\n Reasoning: [Step-by-step reasoning supporting your answer.]\n Answer: [A, B, C, or D] \n\n\n Ensure that your output contains only these two lines, with no extra text or commentary. You must provide an answer in either A, B, C, or D.\n\nQuestion and Possible Answers:\nGreen is cited for contempt of the House of Representatives after she refused to answer certain questions posed by a House Committee concerning her acts while serving as a United States Ambassador. A federal statute authorizes the Attorney General to prosecute contempts of Congress. Pursuant to this law, the House directs the Attorney General to begin criminal proceedings against Green. A federal grand jury indicts Green, but the Attorney General refuses to sign the indictment.\nIf the Attorney General signs the indictment, the strongest argument Green could urge as a defense is that\n\n (A) Green may refuse to answer the questions if she can demonstrate that they are unrelated to matters upon which Congress may legislate\n (B) the House may question Green only on matters pertaining to the expenditure of funds appropriated by Congress\n (C) only the Senate may question Green on matters that relate to the performance of her duties\n (D) Congress may not ask questions relating to the performance of duties executed by an officer of the executive branch\n\nReasoning:\n\nAnswer:\n\n", | |
| "output": [ | |
| "A", | |
| "Green may refuse to answer the questions if she can demonstrate that they are unrelated to matters upon which Congress may legislate" | |
| ], | |
| "id": "mbe_200", | |
| "retrieved_docs": "" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "question": "Assume for this question only that the court denied the motion to suppress the jewelry. Yancey moves to suppress the use of the statement Yancey made to his parents. The that best argument for excluding it would be", | |
| "input": "Answer the following multiple-choice question with 4 possible answers (marked by A, B, C, D) and provide your response in the format:\n\n\n Reasoning: [Step-by-step reasoning supporting your answer.]\n Answer: [A, B, C, or D] \n\n\n Ensure that your output contains only these two lines, with no extra text or commentary. You must provide an answer in either A, B, C, or D.\n\nQuestion and Possible Answers:\nThe police suspected that Yancey, a 16-year-old high school student, had committed a series of burglaries. Two officers went to Yancey's high school and asked the principal to call Yancey out of class and to search his backpack. While the officers waited, the principal took Yancey into the hall where she asked to look in his backpack. When Yancey refused, the principal grabbed it from him, injuring Yancey's shoulder in the process. In the backpack, she found jewelry that she turned over to the officers. The officers believed that the jewelry had been taken in one of the burglaries. They arrested Yancey, took him to the station, and gave him Miranda warnings. Yancey asked to see a lawyer. The police called Yancey's parents to the station. When Yancey's parents arrived, the police asked them to speak with Yancey. They put them in a room and secretly recorded their conversation with a concealed electronic device. Yancey broke down and confessed to his parents that he had committed the burglaries. Yancey was charged with the burglaries.\nAssume for this question only that the court denied the motion to suppress the jewelry. Yancey moves to suppress the use of the statement Yancey made to his parents. The that best argument for excluding it would be\n\n (A) Yancey was in custody at the time the statement was recorded.\n (B) the police did not comply with Yancey's request for a lawyer.\n (C) once Yancey had invoked his right to counsel, it was improper for the police to listen to any of his private conversations.\n (D) the meeting between Yancey and his parents was arranged by the police to obtain an incriminating statement.\n\nReasoning:\n\nAnswer:\n\n", | |
| "output": [ | |
| "D", | |
| "the meeting between Yancey and his parents was arranged by the police to obtain an incriminating statement." | |
| ], | |
| "id": "mbe_892", | |
| "retrieved_docs": "" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "question": "A federal statute with inseverable provisions established a new five-member National Prosperity Board with broad regulatory powers over the operation of the securities, banking, and commodities industries, including the power to issue rules with the force of law. The statute provides for three of the board members to be appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate. They serve seven-year terms and are removable only for good cause. The other two members of the board were designated in the statute to be the respective general counsel of the Senate and House of Representatives Committees on Government Operations. The statute stipulated that they were to serve on the board for as long as they continued in those positions. Following all required administrative procedures, the board issued an elaborate set of rules regulating the operations of all banks, securities dealers, and commodities brokers. The Green Light Securities Company, which was subject to the board's rules, sought a declaratory judgment that the rules were invalid because the statute establishing the board was unconstitutional. In this case, the court should rule that the statute establishing the National Prosperity Board is", | |
| "input": "Answer the following multiple-choice question with 4 possible answers (marked by A, B, C, D) and provide your response in the format:\n\n\n Reasoning: [Step-by-step reasoning supporting your answer.]\n Answer: [A, B, C, or D] \n\n\n Ensure that your output contains only these two lines, with no extra text or commentary. You must provide an answer in either A, B, C, or D.\n\nQuestion and Possible Answers:\nA federal statute with inseverable provisions established a new five-member National Prosperity Board with broad regulatory powers over the operation of the securities, banking, and commodities industries, including the power to issue rules with the force of law. The statute provides for three of the board members to be appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate. They serve seven-year terms and are removable only for good cause. The other two members of the board were designated in the statute to be the respective general counsel of the Senate and House of Representatives Committees on Government Operations. The statute stipulated that they were to serve on the board for as long as they continued in those positions. Following all required administrative procedures, the board issued an elaborate set of rules regulating the operations of all banks, securities dealers, and commodities brokers. The Green Light Securities Company, which was subject to the board's rules, sought a declaratory judgment that the rules were invalid because the statute establishing the board was unconstitutional. In this case, the court should rule that the statute establishing the National Prosperity Board is\n\n (A) unconstitutional, because all members of federal boards having broad powers that are quasi-legislative in nature, such as rulemaking, must be appointed by Congress.\n (B) unconstitutional, because all members of federal boards exercising executive powers must be appointed by the President or in a manner otherwise consistent with the appointments clause of Article II.\n (C) constitutional, because the necessary and proper clause authorizes Congress to determine the means by which members are appointed to boards created by Congress under its power to regulate commerce among the states.\n (D) constitutional, because there is a substantial nexus between the power of Congress to legislate for the general welfare and the means specified by Congress in this statute for the appointment of board members.\n\nReasoning:\n\nAnswer:\n\n", | |
| "output": [ | |
| "B", | |
| "unconstitutional, because all members of federal boards exercising executive powers must be appointed by the President or in a manner otherwise consistent with the appointments clause of Article II." | |
| ], | |
| "id": "mbe_1078", | |
| "retrieved_docs": "" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "question": "According to a statute of the state of Kiowa, a candidate for state office may have his name placed on the official election ballot only if he files with the appropriate state official a petition containing a specified number of voter signatures. Roderick failed to get his name placed on the state ballot as an independent candidate for governor because he failed to file a petition with the number of voter signatures required by state statute. In a suit against the appropriate state officials in federal district court, Roderick sought an injunction against the petition signature requirement on the ground that it was unconstitutional. Which of the following, if established, constitutes the strongest argument for Roderick?", | |
| "input": "Answer the following multiple-choice question with 4 possible answers (marked by A, B, C, D) and provide your response in the format:\n\n\n Reasoning: [Step-by-step reasoning supporting your answer.]\n Answer: [A, B, C, or D] \n\n\n Ensure that your output contains only these two lines, with no extra text or commentary. You must provide an answer in either A, B, C, or D.\n\nQuestion and Possible Answers:\nAccording to a statute of the state of Kiowa, a candidate for state office may have his name placed on the official election ballot only if he files with the appropriate state official a petition containing a specified number of voter signatures. Roderick failed to get his name placed on the state ballot as an independent candidate for governor because he failed to file a petition with the number of voter signatures required by state statute. In a suit against the appropriate state officials in federal district court, Roderick sought an injunction against the petition signature requirement on the ground that it was unconstitutional. Which of the following, if established, constitutes the strongest argument for Roderick?\n\n (A) Compliance with the petition signature requirement is burdensome.\n (B) The objectives of the statute could be satisfactorily achieved by less burdensome means.\n (C) Because of the petition signature requirement, very few independent candidates have ever succeeded in getting on the ballot.\n (D) The motivation for the statute was a desire to keep candidates off the ballot if they did not have strong support among voters.\n\nReasoning:\n\nAnswer:\n\n", | |
| "output": [ | |
| "B", | |
| "The objectives of the statute could be satisfactorily achieved by less burdensome means." | |
| ], | |
| "id": "mbe_973", | |
| "retrieved_docs": "" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "question": "Dart is charged with the statutory offense of \"knowingly violating a regulation of the State Alcoholic Beverage Control Board\" and specifically that he knowingly violated regulation number 345-90 issued by the State Alcoholic Beverage Control Board. That regulation prohibits the sale of alcoholic beverages to any person under the age of 18 and also prohibits the sale of any alcoholic beverage to a person over the age of 17 and under the age of 22 without the presentation of such person's driver's license or other identification showing the age of the purchaser to be 18 or older. The evidence showed that Dart was a bartender in a tavern and sold a bottle of beer to a person who was 17 years old and that Dart did not ask for or see the purchaser's driver's license or any other identification. Which of the following, if found by the jury, would be of the most help to Dart?", | |
| "input": "Answer the following multiple-choice question with 4 possible answers (marked by A, B, C, D) and provide your response in the format:\n\n\n Reasoning: [Step-by-step reasoning supporting your answer.]\n Answer: [A, B, C, or D] \n\n\n Ensure that your output contains only these two lines, with no extra text or commentary. You must provide an answer in either A, B, C, or D.\n\nQuestion and Possible Answers:\nDart is charged with the statutory offense of \"knowingly violating a regulation of the State Alcoholic Beverage Control Board\" and specifically that he knowingly violated regulation number 345-90 issued by the State Alcoholic Beverage Control Board. That regulation prohibits the sale of alcoholic beverages to any person under the age of 18 and also prohibits the sale of any alcoholic beverage to a person over the age of 17 and under the age of 22 without the presentation of such person's driver's license or other identification showing the age of the purchaser to be 18 or older. The evidence showed that Dart was a bartender in a tavern and sold a bottle of beer to a person who was 17 years old and that Dart did not ask for or see the purchaser's driver's license or any other identification. Which of the following, if found by the jury, would be of the most help to Dart?\n\n (A) The purchaser had a driver's license that falsely showed his age to be 21.\n (B) Dart had never been told he was supposed to check identification of persons over 17 and under 22 before selling them alcohol.\n (C) Dart did not know that the regulations classified beer as an alcoholic beverage.\n (D) Dart mistakenly believed the purchaser to be 24 years old.\n\nReasoning:\n\nAnswer:\n\n", | |
| "output": [ | |
| "D", | |
| "Dart mistakenly believed the purchaser to be 24 years old." | |
| ], | |
| "id": "mbe_799", | |
| "retrieved_docs": "" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "question": "Loomis, the owner and operator of a small business, encourages \"wellness\" on the part of his employees and supports various physicalfitness programs to that end. Learning that one of his employees, Graceful, was a dedicated jogger, Loomis promised to pay her a special award of $100 if she could and would run one mile in less than six minutes on the following Saturday. Graceful thanked him, and did in fact run a mile in less than six minutes on the day specified. Shortly thereafter, however, Loomis discovered that for more than a year Graceful had been running at least one mile in less than six minutes every day as a part of her personal fitness program. He refused to pay the $100. In an action by Graceful against Loomis for breach of contract, which of the following best summarizes the probable decision of the court?", | |
| "input": "Answer the following multiple-choice question with 4 possible answers (marked by A, B, C, D) and provide your response in the format:\n\n\n Reasoning: [Step-by-step reasoning supporting your answer.]\n Answer: [A, B, C, or D] \n\n\n Ensure that your output contains only these two lines, with no extra text or commentary. You must provide an answer in either A, B, C, or D.\n\nQuestion and Possible Answers:\nLoomis, the owner and operator of a small business, encourages \"wellness\" on the part of his employees and supports various physicalfitness programs to that end. Learning that one of his employees, Graceful, was a dedicated jogger, Loomis promised to pay her a special award of $100 if she could and would run one mile in less than six minutes on the following Saturday. Graceful thanked him, and did in fact run a mile in less than six minutes on the day specified. Shortly thereafter, however, Loomis discovered that for more than a year Graceful had been running at least one mile in less than six minutes every day as a part of her personal fitness program. He refused to pay the $100. In an action by Graceful against Loomis for breach of contract, which of the following best summarizes the probable decision of the court?\n\n (A) Loomis wins, because it is a compelling inference that Loomis's promise did not induce Graceful to run the specified mile.\n (B) Loomis wins, because Graceful's running of the specified mile was beneficial, not detrimental, to her in any event.\n (C) Graceful wins, because running a mile in less than six minutes is a significantly demanding enterprise.\n (D) Graceful wins, because she ran the specified mile as requested, and her motives for doing so are irrelevant.\n\nReasoning:\n\nAnswer:\n\n", | |
| "output": [ | |
| "D", | |
| "Graceful wins, because she ran the specified mile as requested, and her motives for doing so are irrelevant." | |
| ], | |
| "id": "mbe_778", | |
| "retrieved_docs": "" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "question": "Was the escrow agreement a valid modification?", | |
| "input": "Answer the following multiple-choice question with 4 possible answers (marked by A, B, C, D) and provide your response in the format:\n\n\n Reasoning: [Step-by-step reasoning supporting your answer.]\n Answer: [A, B, C, or D] \n\n\n Ensure that your output contains only these two lines, with no extra text or commentary. You must provide an answer in either A, B, C, or D.\n\nQuestion and Possible Answers:\nOn March 1, Computer Programs, Inc. (CP) orally agreed with Holiday Department Store (HDS) to write a set of programs for HDS's computer and to coordinate the programs with HDS's billing methods. A subsequent memo, signed by both parties, provided in its entirety: HDS will pay CP $20,000 in two equal installments within one month of completion if CP is successful in shortening by one-half the processing time for the financial transactions now handled on HDS's Zenon 747 computer; CP to complete by July 1. This agreement may be amended only by a signed writing. On June 6, CP demanded $10,000, saying the job was one-half done. After HDS denied liability, the parties orally agreed that HDS should deposit $20,000 in escrow, pending completion to the satisfaction of HDS's computer systems manager. The escrow deposit was thereupon made. On July 5, CP completed the programs, having used an amount of time in which it could have earned $18,000 had it devoted that time to other jobs. Tests by CP and HDS's computer systems manager then showed that the computer programs, not being perfectly coordinated with HDS's billing methods, cut processing time by only 47%. They would, however, save HDS $12,000 a year. Further, if HDS would spend $5,000 to change its invoice preparation methods, as recommended by CP, the programs would cut processing time by a total of 58%, saving HDS another $8,000 a year. HDS's computer systems manager refused in good faith to certify satisfactory completion. HDS requested the escrow agent to return the $20,000 and asserted that nothing was owed to CP even though HDS continued to use the programs.\nWas the escrow agreement a valid modification?\n\n (A) Yes, because it was the compromise of an honest dispute.\n (B) Yes, because the Statute of Frauds does not apply to subsequent oral modifications.\n (C) No, because it was oral.\n (D) No, because it was not supported by consideration.\n\nReasoning:\n\nAnswer:\n\n", | |
| "output": [ | |
| "A", | |
| "Yes, because it was the compromise of an honest dispute." | |
| ], | |
| "id": "mbe_233", | |
| "retrieved_docs": "" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "question": "Tess occupied an apartment in a building owned by Len. She paid rent of $125 in advance each month. During the second month of occupancy, Tess organized the tenants in the building as a tenants' association and the association made demands of Len concerning certain repairs and improvements the tenants wanted. When Tess tendered rent for the third month, Len notified her that rent for the fourth and subsequent months would be $200 per month. Tess protested and pointed out that all other tenants paid rent of $125 per month. Thereupon, Len gave the required statutory notice that the tenancy was being terminated at the end of the third month. By an appropriate proceeding, Tess contests Len's right to terminate. If Tess succeeds, it will be because", | |
| "input": "Answer the following multiple-choice question with 4 possible answers (marked by A, B, C, D) and provide your response in the format:\n\n\n Reasoning: [Step-by-step reasoning supporting your answer.]\n Answer: [A, B, C, or D] \n\n\n Ensure that your output contains only these two lines, with no extra text or commentary. You must provide an answer in either A, B, C, or D.\n\nQuestion and Possible Answers:\nTess occupied an apartment in a building owned by Len. She paid rent of $125 in advance each month. During the second month of occupancy, Tess organized the tenants in the building as a tenants' association and the association made demands of Len concerning certain repairs and improvements the tenants wanted. When Tess tendered rent for the third month, Len notified her that rent for the fourth and subsequent months would be $200 per month. Tess protested and pointed out that all other tenants paid rent of $125 per month. Thereupon, Len gave the required statutory notice that the tenancy was being terminated at the end of the third month. By an appropriate proceeding, Tess contests Len's right to terminate. If Tess succeeds, it will be because\n\n (A) a periodic tenancy was created by implication\n (B) the doctrine prohibiting retaliatory eviction is part of the law of the jurisdiction\n (C) the $200 rent demanded violates the agreement implied by the rate charged to other tenants\n (D) the law implies a term of one year in the absence of any express agreement\n\nReasoning:\n\nAnswer:\n\n", | |
| "output": [ | |
| "B", | |
| "the doctrine prohibiting retaliatory eviction is part of the law of the jurisdiction" | |
| ], | |
| "id": "mbe_284", | |
| "retrieved_docs": "" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "question": "The National Ecological Balance Act prohibits the destruction or removal of any wild animals located on lands owned by the United States without express permission from the Federal Bureau of Land Management. Violators are subject to fines of up to $1,000 per offense. After substantial property damage was inflicted on residents of the state of Arkota by hungry coyotes, the state legislature passed the Coyote Bounty Bill, which offers $25 for each coyote killed or captured within the state. The Kota National Forest, owned by the federal government, is located entirely within the state of Arkota. Many coyotes live in the Kota National Forest. Without seeking permission from the Bureau of Land Management, Hunter shot several coyotes in the Kota National Forest and collected the bounty from the state of Arkota. As a result, he was subsequently tried in federal district court, convicted, and fined $1,000 for violating the National Ecological Balance Act. Hunter appealed his conviction to the United States Court of Appeals. On appeal, the Court of Appeals should hold the National Ecological Balance Act, as applied to Hunter, to be", | |
| "input": "Answer the following multiple-choice question with 4 possible answers (marked by A, B, C, D) and provide your response in the format:\n\n\n Reasoning: [Step-by-step reasoning supporting your answer.]\n Answer: [A, B, C, or D] \n\n\n Ensure that your output contains only these two lines, with no extra text or commentary. You must provide an answer in either A, B, C, or D.\n\nQuestion and Possible Answers:\nThe National Ecological Balance Act prohibits the destruction or removal of any wild animals located on lands owned by the United States without express permission from the Federal Bureau of Land Management. Violators are subject to fines of up to $1,000 per offense. After substantial property damage was inflicted on residents of the state of Arkota by hungry coyotes, the state legislature passed the Coyote Bounty Bill, which offers $25 for each coyote killed or captured within the state. The Kota National Forest, owned by the federal government, is located entirely within the state of Arkota. Many coyotes live in the Kota National Forest. Without seeking permission from the Bureau of Land Management, Hunter shot several coyotes in the Kota National Forest and collected the bounty from the state of Arkota. As a result, he was subsequently tried in federal district court, convicted, and fined $1,000 for violating the National Ecological Balance Act. Hunter appealed his conviction to the United States Court of Appeals. On appeal, the Court of Appeals should hold the National Ecological Balance Act, as applied to Hunter, to be\n\n (A) constitutional, because the property clause of Article IV, Section 3, of the Constitution authorizes such federal statutory controls and sanctions.\n (B) constitutional, because Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution authorizes Congress to enact all laws necessary and proper to advance the general welfare.\n (C) unconstitutional, because Congress may not use its delegated powers to override the Tenth Amendment right of the state of Arkota to legislate in areas of traditional state governmental functions, such as the protection of the property of its residents.\n (D) unconstitutional, because Congress violates the full faith and credit clause of Article IV when it punishes conduct that has been authorized by state action.\n\nReasoning:\n\nAnswer:\n\n", | |
| "output": [ | |
| "A", | |
| "constitutional, because the property clause of Article IV, Section 3, of the Constitution authorizes such federal statutory controls and sanctions." | |
| ], | |
| "id": "mbe_828", | |
| "retrieved_docs": "" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "question": "Pedersen's counsel wants to introduce testimony from Sheriff concerning a discussion between Sheriff and Passerby at the police station after the accident, when Passerby excitedly exclaimed, \"Pedersen ran out in the street and was not in the crosswalk!\" Sheriff duly recorded the statement in an official police report. The trial judge should rule Sheriff's oral testimony", | |
| "input": "Answer the following multiple-choice question with 4 possible answers (marked by A, B, C, D) and provide your response in the format:\n\n\n Reasoning: [Step-by-step reasoning supporting your answer.]\n Answer: [A, B, C, or D] \n\n\n Ensure that your output contains only these two lines, with no extra text or commentary. You must provide an answer in either A, B, C, or D.\n\nQuestion and Possible Answers:\nCarr ran into and injured Pedersen, a pedestrian. With Carr in his car were Wanda and Walter Passenger. Passerby saw the accident and called the police department, which sent Sheriff to investigate. All of these people are available as potential witnesses in the case of Pedersen v. Carr. Pedersen alleges that Carr, while drunk, struck Pedersen who was in a duly marked crosswalk.\nPedersen's counsel wants to introduce testimony from Sheriff concerning a discussion between Sheriff and Passerby at the police station after the accident, when Passerby excitedly exclaimed, \"Pedersen ran out in the street and was not in the crosswalk!\" Sheriff duly recorded the statement in an official police report. The trial judge should rule Sheriff's oral testimony\n\n (A) admissible as a spontaneous utterance\n (B) admissible as based on past recollection recorded\n (C) inadmissible because Passerby has not been shown unavailable as a witness\n (D) inadmissible under the excited utterance exception because it can be a product of reflection and deliberation\n\nReasoning:\n\nAnswer:\n\n", | |
| "output": [ | |
| "D", | |
| "inadmissible under the excited utterance exception because it can be a product of reflection and deliberation" | |
| ], | |
| "id": "mbe_377", | |
| "retrieved_docs": "" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "question": "Dobbs, while intoxicated, drove his car through a playground crowded with children just to watch the children run to try to get out of his way. His car struck one of the children, killing her instantly. Which of the following is the best theory for finding Dobbs guilty of murder?", | |
| "input": "Answer the following multiple-choice question with 4 possible answers (marked by A, B, C, D) and provide your response in the format:\n\n\n Reasoning: [Step-by-step reasoning supporting your answer.]\n Answer: [A, B, C, or D] \n\n\n Ensure that your output contains only these two lines, with no extra text or commentary. You must provide an answer in either A, B, C, or D.\n\nQuestion and Possible Answers:\nDobbs, while intoxicated, drove his car through a playground crowded with children just to watch the children run to try to get out of his way. His car struck one of the children, killing her instantly. Which of the following is the best theory for finding Dobbs guilty of murder?\n\n (A) Transferred intent\n (B) Felony murder, with assault with a deadly weapon as the underlying felony\n (C) Intentional killing, since he knew that the children were there and he deliberately drove his car at them\n (D) Commission of an act highly dangerous to life, without an intent to kill but with disregard of the consequences\n\nReasoning:\n\nAnswer:\n\n", | |
| "output": [ | |
| "D", | |
| "Commission of an act highly dangerous to life, without an intent to kill but with disregard of the consequences" | |
| ], | |
| "id": "mbe_472", | |
| "retrieved_docs": "" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "question": "In order to provide funds for a system of new major airports near the ten largest cities in the United States, Congress levies a tax of $25 on each airline ticket issued in the United States. The tax applies to every airline ticket, even those for travel that does not originate in, terminate at, or pass through any of those ten large cities. As applied to the issuance in the United States of an airline ticket for travel between two cities that will not be served by any of the new airports, this tax is", | |
| "input": "Answer the following multiple-choice question with 4 possible answers (marked by A, B, C, D) and provide your response in the format:\n\n\n Reasoning: [Step-by-step reasoning supporting your answer.]\n Answer: [A, B, C, or D] \n\n\n Ensure that your output contains only these two lines, with no extra text or commentary. You must provide an answer in either A, B, C, or D.\n\nQuestion and Possible Answers:\nIn order to provide funds for a system of new major airports near the ten largest cities in the United States, Congress levies a tax of $25 on each airline ticket issued in the United States. The tax applies to every airline ticket, even those for travel that does not originate in, terminate at, or pass through any of those ten large cities. As applied to the issuance in the United States of an airline ticket for travel between two cities that will not be served by any of the new airports, this tax is\n\n (A) constitutional, because Congress has broad discretion in choosing the subjects of its taxation and may impose taxes on subjects that have no relation to the purpose for which those tax funds will be expended.\n (B) constitutional, because an exemption for the issuance of tickets for travel between cities that will not be served by the new airports would deny the purchasers of all other tickets the equal protection of the laws.\n (C) unconstitutional, because the burden of the tax outweighs its benefits for passengers whose travel does not originate in, terminate at, or pass through any of the ten largest cities.\n (D) unconstitutional, because the tax adversely affects the fundamental right to travel.\n\nReasoning:\n\nAnswer:\n\n", | |
| "output": [ | |
| "A", | |
| "constitutional, because Congress has broad discretion in choosing the subjects of its taxation and may impose taxes on subjects that have no relation to the purpose for which those tax funds will be expended." | |
| ], | |
| "id": "mbe_675", | |
| "retrieved_docs": "" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "question": "Passenger departed on an ocean liner knowing that it would be a rough voyage due to predicted storms. The ocean liner was not equipped with the type of lifeboats required by the applicable statute. Passenger was swept overboard and drowned in a storm so heavy that even a lifeboat that conformed to the statute could not have been launched. In an action against the operator of the ocean liner brought by Passenger's representative, will Passenger's representative prevail?", | |
| "input": "Answer the following multiple-choice question with 4 possible answers (marked by A, B, C, D) and provide your response in the format:\n\n\n Reasoning: [Step-by-step reasoning supporting your answer.]\n Answer: [A, B, C, or D] \n\n\n Ensure that your output contains only these two lines, with no extra text or commentary. You must provide an answer in either A, B, C, or D.\n\nQuestion and Possible Answers:\nPassenger departed on an ocean liner knowing that it would be a rough voyage due to predicted storms. The ocean liner was not equipped with the type of lifeboats required by the applicable statute. Passenger was swept overboard and drowned in a storm so heavy that even a lifeboat that conformed to the statute could not have been launched. In an action against the operator of the ocean liner brought by Passenger's representative, will Passenger's representative prevail?\n\n (A) Yes, because the ocean liner was not equipped with the statutorily required lifeboats.\n (B) Yes, because in these circumstances common carriers are strictly liable.\n (C) No, because the storm was so severe that it would have been impossible to launch a statutorily required lifeboat.\n (D) No, because Passenger assumed the risk by boarding the ocean liner knowing that it would be a rough voyage.\n\nReasoning:\n\nAnswer:\n\n", | |
| "output": [ | |
| "C", | |
| "No, because the storm was so severe that it would have been impossible to launch a statutorily required lifeboat." | |
| ], | |
| "id": "mbe_1133", | |
| "retrieved_docs": "" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "question": "The President of the United States recognizes the country of Ruritania and undertakes diplomatic relations with its government through the Secretary of State. Ruritania is governed by a repressive totalitarian government. In an appropriate federal court, Dunn brings a suit against the President and Secretary of State to set aside this action on the ground that it is inconsistent with the principles of our constitutional form of government. Dunn has a lucrative contract with the United States Department of Commerce to provide commercial information about Ruritania. The contract expressly terminates, however, \"when the President recognizes the country of Ruritania and undertakes diplomatic relations with its government.\" Which of the following is the most proper disposition of the Dunn suit by the federal court?", | |
| "input": "Answer the following multiple-choice question with 4 possible answers (marked by A, B, C, D) and provide your response in the format:\n\n\n Reasoning: [Step-by-step reasoning supporting your answer.]\n Answer: [A, B, C, or D] \n\n\n Ensure that your output contains only these two lines, with no extra text or commentary. You must provide an answer in either A, B, C, or D.\n\nQuestion and Possible Answers:\nThe President of the United States recognizes the country of Ruritania and undertakes diplomatic relations with its government through the Secretary of State. Ruritania is governed by a repressive totalitarian government. In an appropriate federal court, Dunn brings a suit against the President and Secretary of State to set aside this action on the ground that it is inconsistent with the principles of our constitutional form of government. Dunn has a lucrative contract with the United States Department of Commerce to provide commercial information about Ruritania. The contract expressly terminates, however, \"when the President recognizes the country of Ruritania and undertakes diplomatic relations with its government.\" Which of the following is the most proper disposition of the Dunn suit by the federal court?\n\n (A) Suit dismissed, because Dunn does not have standing to bring this action.\n (B) Suit dismissed, because there is no adversity between Dunn and the defendants.\n (C) Suit dismissed, because it presents a nonjustifiable political question.\n (D) Suit decided on the merits.\n\nReasoning:\n\nAnswer:\n\n", | |
| "output": [ | |
| "C", | |
| "Suit dismissed, because it presents a nonjustifiable political question." | |
| ], | |
| "id": "mbe_962", | |
| "retrieved_docs": "" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "question": "Damson was short of money. He decided to go into Winston's house to take Winston's silverware and then to sell it. That night, while Winston was away, Damson entered by picking the lock on the front door. He picked up a chest of silverware from the dining room and went out the front door of the house to his car. As he was putting the chest of silverware into the trunk, he had second thoughts and decided that he did not wish to become a thief. He reentered the house and replaced the chest of silverware where he had found it. As he came out of the house the second time, he was arrested by the police, who had been called by a neighbor. Damson is", | |
| "input": "Answer the following multiple-choice question with 4 possible answers (marked by A, B, C, D) and provide your response in the format:\n\n\n Reasoning: [Step-by-step reasoning supporting your answer.]\n Answer: [A, B, C, or D] \n\n\n Ensure that your output contains only these two lines, with no extra text or commentary. You must provide an answer in either A, B, C, or D.\n\nQuestion and Possible Answers:\nDamson was short of money. He decided to go into Winston's house to take Winston's silverware and then to sell it. That night, while Winston was away, Damson entered by picking the lock on the front door. He picked up a chest of silverware from the dining room and went out the front door of the house to his car. As he was putting the chest of silverware into the trunk, he had second thoughts and decided that he did not wish to become a thief. He reentered the house and replaced the chest of silverware where he had found it. As he came out of the house the second time, he was arrested by the police, who had been called by a neighbor. Damson is\n\n (A) guilty of burglary and larceny.\n (B) guilty of burglary and attempted larceny.\n (C) guilty of burglary but not guilty of any larceny offense.\n (D) not guilty of burglary or any larceny offense.\n\nReasoning:\n\nAnswer:\n\n", | |
| "output": [ | |
| "A", | |
| "guilty of burglary and larceny." | |
| ], | |
| "id": "mbe_968", | |
| "retrieved_docs": "" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "question": "Deeb was charged with stealing furs from a van. At trial, Wallace testified she saw Deeb take the furs. The jurisdiction in which Deeb is being tried does not allow in evidence lie detector results. On cross-examination by Deeb's attorney, Wallace was asked, \"The light was too dim to identify Deeb, wasn't it?\" She responded, \"I'm sure enough that it was Deeb that I passed a lie detector test administered by the police.\" Deeb's attorney immediately objects and moves to strike. The trial court should", | |
| "input": "Answer the following multiple-choice question with 4 possible answers (marked by A, B, C, D) and provide your response in the format:\n\n\n Reasoning: [Step-by-step reasoning supporting your answer.]\n Answer: [A, B, C, or D] \n\n\n Ensure that your output contains only these two lines, with no extra text or commentary. You must provide an answer in either A, B, C, or D.\n\nQuestion and Possible Answers:\nDeeb was charged with stealing furs from a van. At trial, Wallace testified she saw Deeb take the furs. The jurisdiction in which Deeb is being tried does not allow in evidence lie detector results. On cross-examination by Deeb's attorney, Wallace was asked, \"The light was too dim to identify Deeb, wasn't it?\" She responded, \"I'm sure enough that it was Deeb that I passed a lie detector test administered by the police.\" Deeb's attorney immediately objects and moves to strike. The trial court should\n\n (A) grant the motion, because the question was leading.\n (B) grant the motion, because the probative value of the unresponsive testimony is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.\n (C) deny the motion, because it is proper rehabilitation of an impeached witness.\n (D) deny the motion, because Deeb's attorney \"opened the door\" by asking the question.\n\nReasoning:\n\nAnswer:\n\n", | |
| "output": [ | |
| "B", | |
| "grant the motion, because the probative value of the unresponsive testimony is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice." | |
| ], | |
| "id": "mbe_584", | |
| "retrieved_docs": "" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "question": "Dan entered the police station and announced that he wanted to confess to a murder. The police advised Dan of the Miranda warnings, and Dan signed a written waiver. Dan described the murder in detail and pinpointed the location where a murder victim had been found a few weeks before. Later, a courtappointed psychiatrist determined that Dan was suffering from a serious mental illness that interfered with his ability to make rational choices and to understand his rights and that the psychosis had induced his confession. Dan's confession is", | |
| "input": "Answer the following multiple-choice question with 4 possible answers (marked by A, B, C, D) and provide your response in the format:\n\n\n Reasoning: [Step-by-step reasoning supporting your answer.]\n Answer: [A, B, C, or D] \n\n\n Ensure that your output contains only these two lines, with no extra text or commentary. You must provide an answer in either A, B, C, or D.\n\nQuestion and Possible Answers:\nDan entered the police station and announced that he wanted to confess to a murder. The police advised Dan of the Miranda warnings, and Dan signed a written waiver. Dan described the murder in detail and pinpointed the location where a murder victim had been found a few weeks before. Later, a courtappointed psychiatrist determined that Dan was suffering from a serious mental illness that interfered with his ability to make rational choices and to understand his rights and that the psychosis had induced his confession. Dan's confession is\n\n (A) admissible, because there was no coercive police conduct in obtaining Dan's statement.\n (B) admissible, because Dan was not in custody.\n (C) inadmissible, because Dan's confession was a product of his mental illness and was therefore involuntary.\n (D) inadmissible, because under these circumstances, there was no valid waiver of Miranda warnings.\n\nReasoning:\n\nAnswer:\n\n", | |
| "output": [ | |
| "A", | |
| "admissible, because there was no coercive police conduct in obtaining Dan's statement." | |
| ], | |
| "id": "mbe_632", | |
| "retrieved_docs": "" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "question": "Desmond fell while attempting to climb a mountain, and lay unconscious and critically injured on a ledge that was difficult to reach. Pearson, an experienced mountain climber, was himself seriously injured while trying to rescue Desmond. Pearson's rescue attempt failed, and Desmond died of his injuries before he could be reached. Pearson brought an action against Desmond's estate for compensation for his injuries. In this jurisdiction, the traditional common-law rules relating to contributory negligence and assumption of risk remain in effect. Will Pearson prevail in his action against Desmond's estate?", | |
| "input": "Answer the following multiple-choice question with 4 possible answers (marked by A, B, C, D) and provide your response in the format:\n\n\n Reasoning: [Step-by-step reasoning supporting your answer.]\n Answer: [A, B, C, or D] \n\n\n Ensure that your output contains only these two lines, with no extra text or commentary. You must provide an answer in either A, B, C, or D.\n\nQuestion and Possible Answers:\nDesmond fell while attempting to climb a mountain, and lay unconscious and critically injured on a ledge that was difficult to reach. Pearson, an experienced mountain climber, was himself seriously injured while trying to rescue Desmond. Pearson's rescue attempt failed, and Desmond died of his injuries before he could be reached. Pearson brought an action against Desmond's estate for compensation for his injuries. In this jurisdiction, the traditional common-law rules relating to contributory negligence and assumption of risk remain in effect. Will Pearson prevail in his action against Desmond's estate?\n\n (A) Yes, if his rescue attempt was reasonable.\n (B) Yes, because the law should not discourage attempts to assist persons in helpless peril.\n (C) No, unless Desmond's peril arose from his own failure to exercise reasonable care.\n (D) No, because Pearson's rescue attempt failed and therefore did not benefit Desmond.\n\nReasoning:\n\nAnswer:\n\n", | |
| "output": [ | |
| "C", | |
| "No, unless Desmond's peril arose from his own failure to exercise reasonable care." | |
| ], | |
| "id": "mbe_652", | |
| "retrieved_docs": "" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "question": "Dan, an eight-year-old, rode his bicycle down his driveway into a busy highway and Driver had to stop her car suddenly to avoid colliding with the bike. Because of the sudden stop, Driver's two-year-old son, Peter, who was sitting on the seat without any restraint, was thrown into the dashboard and injured. Had Peter been properly restrained in a baby car seat, as required by a state safety statute of which his mother was aware, he would not have been injured. In an action brought on Peter's behalf against Dan's parents to recover for Peter's injuries, Peter will", | |
| "input": "Answer the following multiple-choice question with 4 possible answers (marked by A, B, C, D) and provide your response in the format:\n\n\n Reasoning: [Step-by-step reasoning supporting your answer.]\n Answer: [A, B, C, or D] \n\n\n Ensure that your output contains only these two lines, with no extra text or commentary. You must provide an answer in either A, B, C, or D.\n\nQuestion and Possible Answers:\nDan, an eight-year-old, rode his bicycle down his driveway into a busy highway and Driver had to stop her car suddenly to avoid colliding with the bike. Because of the sudden stop, Driver's two-year-old son, Peter, who was sitting on the seat without any restraint, was thrown into the dashboard and injured. Had Peter been properly restrained in a baby car seat, as required by a state safety statute of which his mother was aware, he would not have been injured. In an action brought on Peter's behalf against Dan's parents to recover for Peter's injuries, Peter will\n\n (A) not prevail, because parents are not vicariously liable for the negligent acts of their children.\n (B) not prevail, because Peter's injury was attributable to his mother's knowing violation of a safety statute.\n (C) prevail, if Dan's parents knew that he sometimes drove into the highway, and they took no steps to prevent it.\n (D) prevail, if Dan's riding into the highway was negligent and the proximate cause of Peter's injuries.\n\nReasoning:\n\nAnswer:\n\n", | |
| "output": [ | |
| "C", | |
| "prevail, if Dan's parents knew that he sometimes drove into the highway, and they took no steps to prevent it." | |
| ], | |
| "id": "mbe_791", | |
| "retrieved_docs": "" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "question": "On the evening of the day of the accident, Walter Passenger wrote a letter to his sister in which he described the accident. When Walter says he cannot remember some details of the accident, Pedersen's counsel seeks to show him the letter to assist him in his testimony on direct examination. The trial judge should rule this", | |
| "input": "Answer the following multiple-choice question with 4 possible answers (marked by A, B, C, D) and provide your response in the format:\n\n\n Reasoning: [Step-by-step reasoning supporting your answer.]\n Answer: [A, B, C, or D] \n\n\n Ensure that your output contains only these two lines, with no extra text or commentary. You must provide an answer in either A, B, C, or D.\n\nQuestion and Possible Answers:\nCarr ran into and injured Pedersen, a pedestrian. With Carr in his car were Wanda and Walter Passenger. Passerby saw the accident and called the police department, which sent Sheriff to investigate. All of these people are available as potential witnesses in the case of Pedersen v. Carr. Pedersen alleges that Carr, while drunk, struck Pedersen who was in a duly marked crosswalk.\nOn the evening of the day of the accident, Walter Passenger wrote a letter to his sister in which he described the accident. When Walter says he cannot remember some details of the accident, Pedersen's counsel seeks to show him the letter to assist him in his testimony on direct examination. The trial judge should rule this\n\n (A) permissible under the doctrine of present recollection refreshed\n (B) permissible under the doctrine of past recollection recorded\n (C) objectionable because the letter was not a spontaneous utterance\n (D) objectionable because the letter is a self-serving declaration in so far as the witness, Walter, is concerned\n\nReasoning:\n\nAnswer:\n\n", | |
| "output": [ | |
| "A", | |
| "permissible under the doctrine of present recollection refreshed" | |
| ], | |
| "id": "mbe_381", | |
| "retrieved_docs": "" | |
| } | |
| ] |