imone/ARB huggingface dataset:
Question: Olivia and Scarlet were roommates who both attended a prestigious fashion design school. When Olivia had received her acceptance letter from the school, she splurged and purchased a new Scandervan 2001 sewing machine for $ 1,000$ so that she would be more than adequately equipped for her design assignments. One day when Olivia was at class, Scarlet loaned Olivia's sewing machine to Violet, whose own machine lacked the fancy options of the Scandervan 2001. Scarlet had loaned Olivia's Scandervan 2001 to other design students on several prior occasions. Unfortunately, Violet, who was not familiar with the delicate Scandervan 2001, caused extensive damage to the machine when she tried to create a cutting edge design by sewing silverware on a dress. It would cost $ 400$ to repair the sewing machine. If Olivia sues Scarlet for the damage Violet caused to the sewing machine, what will be the result?

Options:
A. Olivia will recover $ 1,000$.
B. Olivia will recover the fair market value of the sewing machine.
C. Olivia will recover $ 400$.
D. Olivia will recover nothing, because Scarlet did not damage the machine and Violet's conduct was not intentional. 
Answer: B
Question: Astro developed a new synthetic liquid that could safely double the output of electrical power plants. He built a manufacturing plant unlike any other in the world capable of producing this liquid. A byproduct of the production of the liquid was a hazardous chemical that was not biodegradable in the environment. Astro buried the waste chemical in a depression on his land. Before doing so, Astro secured expert opinion, based on soil analysis, that led him reasonably to believe that the earth beneath the disposal site was impermeable, and that there was no danger of contaminating the underground waters. The chemical, nonetheless, seeped through the underlying soil strata, and was carried by the flow of percolating water to a well used by Herder to water his sheep, which he raised on an adjacent property. The chemical rendered the water in the well unfit for consumption by sheep. If Herder's sheep were harmed by drinking from the contaminated well, and Herder asserts a claim against Astro for damages to the sheep, which of the following facts, if established, would best aid Astro's case? Assume that the jurisdiction follows traditional contributory negligence rules.

Options:
A. Many companies converted their power plants so that they could utilize the synthetic liquid developed by Astro.
B. Herder did not do what a reasonable person would have done to prevent harm to his sheep after he learned that the well was contaminated. 
C. If he had exercised ordinary care, Herder would have discovered the contamination before his sheep were harmed.
D. Astro's plant was in place and in operation before Herder purchased his property.
Answer: B
Question: A statute in the state of Lemon forbids employers from discriminating on the basis of religion; however, an exception provides that established religions that employ persons to engage in nonprofit activities may be exempted from this rule. A new religion sprang up called the Church of the Sunrise. It espoused a number of nontraditional views, among which was the belief that the sun is really a temple that is moved across the sky by a powerful race of aliens. When the Church gained enough members to open a meeting place, it advertised for clerical and maintenance workers. Patricia applied for a position and was told that she would be hired if she converted to the Church of the Sunrise religion. Patricia refused to do so and complained to the state of Lemon human relations board. After investigating, the board concluded that the Church was not an established religion and its beliefs were not plausible. It ruled that the religious exemption would not be applicable and ordered the Church to hire Patricia. Church officials filed an action in federal district court challenging the board's refusal to apply the exemption. How is the court likely to rule?

Options:
A. The board may not refuse to apply the exemption unless it can prove scientifically that the Church's beliefs are false.
B. The board may not refuse to apply the exemption because it does not have compelling grounds for favoring other religions over this one.
C. The entire exemption scheme is unconstitutional because it does not have a secular purpose and has a primary effect of advancing religion.
D. The board may refuse to apply the exemption because the state has the power to deny any religion the right to discriminate in its hiring. 
Answer: B
Question: Howard was supposed to be out of town on a three-day business trip. Because he completed his business more quickly than expected, he flew home on Wednesday night instead of Thursday afternoon. Howard arrived home and let himself into the house. He heard noises from the bedroom and, upon investigation, Howard was shocked to find his wife, Chastity, in bed with Nick, a good friend of Howard, who lived four blocks away. Nick dressed quickly and took off out the back door. Howard screamed a number of epithets at Chastity and then told her, "Nick's going to pay for this! Get me a drink! It will give me the steadiness to do what I have to do to avenge my honor." A frightened Chastity brought Howard a bourbon and water. Howard drank it quickly and demanded yet another drink. After consuming several more drinks, Howard unlocked the closet, pulled out a rifle, and loaded it. He then set off for Nick's house. Howard arrived at Nick's about 10 minutes later. Nick had neglected to lock his front door, so Howard walked in. He found a trembling Nick in the living room, and Howard pointed the gun at him. Nick immediately began apologizing, blaming the affair on Chastity, and pleading for his life. Howard stood silently listening to Nick, but he kept the gun trained on his erstwhile friend. Suddenly, Nick pulled a switchblade knife from his pocket. As the metal flashed, Howard fired a single shot at Nick. The bullet struck him in the middle of the forehead and Nick died instantly. Howard set the gun down, fell to his knees, and began crying. A neighbor who heard the shot reported it to the police. They arrived a few minutes later and found a distraught Howard muttering about losing a friend and a marriage in one night. Howard can be convicted of:

Options:
A. Murder.
B. Manslaughter, because Howard was still distraught over finding Nick in bed with Chastity.
C. Manslaughter, because his intoxication prevented Howard from having the requisite intent for murder.
D. No homicide crime, because Nick was about to attack him with a knife. 
Answer: A
Question: Victor was desperately ill with a particularly virulent and painful form of cancer. He was permanently hospitalized and quite helpless as the killer disease tore at his vitals. Victor's daughter, Dana, was devoted to her dad. She visited him every evening in the hospital and spent many hours with him on the weekends. For over two months, Victor pleaded with Dana, "Please kill me and put me out of my misery. I'm in such terrible pain. The pangs of Hell couldn't be any worse than this!" Every day or evening that Dana visited, Victor would renew his plea to be killed. The staff doctors and nurses had often heard Victor's plaint. One Saturday afternoon, Dana paid her usual visit to Victor. His pleading was as heartrending as ever. With a tender expression on her face, Dana pulled a small revolver from her purse. She fired a shot at Victor, killing him instantly. Dana immediately broke into tears and repeatedly kissed the face of her dead father. Hospital authorities called the police, and Dana was charged with Victor's death. What is the most serious offense of which Dana can be convicted?

Options:
A. First degree murder, defined by the jurisdiction as premeditated and deliberate killing of another human being.
B. Second degree murder, defined as any murder not classified as first degree murder.
C. Voluntary manslaughter.
D. No crime. 
Answer: A
Question: Alert police officers noticed that a late-model "Belchfire 500" automobile was being driven at an excessive rate of speed. The car, driven by Doofus, was pulled over to the curb. As Officer Smith issued a speeding citation to Doofus, her partner, Jones, fed the license plate numbers into the police computer. It turned out that the Belchfire had been very recently reported as stolen. Doofus was unable to produce satisfactory registration papers and was arrested for car theft. At the police station, Smith gave Doofus the standard Miranda warnings, and Doofus agreed to answer Smith's questions regarding a local "chop-shop" network, which arranged for the theft of expensive automobiles so that they could be cut up for parts. After a while, Jones suggested, "Let's break for lunch." He and Smith escorted Doofus to a nearby cafeteria. During the course of their lunch, which lasted about an hour, Smith noticed that Doofus, who was otherwise rather shabbily dressed, was wearing an obviously expensive "Xelor" watch. Upon their return to the station, and without giving any new Miranda warnings, Smith resumed interrogation of Doofus. She asked Doofus about a recent home invasion in the swank "Notting Hill" neighborhood, where a quantity of valuable jewelry, including a "Xelor" watch, was taken. Doofus thereupon confessed to the home invasion, and was indicted on the home invasion charge, a felony under the jurisdiction's modern criminal code. If Doofus files an appropriate motion to prevent the confession from being admitted at his trial, Doofus will probably:

Options:
A. Succeed, because the police did not repeat the Miranda warnings before questioning Doofus about another crime.
B. Succeed, because the police acted in a custodial setting.
C. Fail, because Doofus was not in custody on a home invasion charge.
D. Fail, because the original Miranda warnings given Doofus were sufficient under the circumstances. 
Answer: D
Question: With the busy summer beach season fast approaching, Trendee of Bayonne, a retail women's wear store, ordered 100 women's swimsuits at $ 10$ each, as advertised in the catalog of Stingray, a manufacturer of swimwear. Stingray shipped Trendee 40 swimsuits, along with a letter, stating in relevant part: "We have shipped you 40 swimsuits at $ 10$ each as per your recent order. Please remit $ 400$ to Stingray. Be informed that we will be unable to ship the additional 60 suits you requested at this time or at any time during this year's beach season." Trendee took the 40 suits, put them on their salesracks, and began to sell them. Trendee immediately sought an alternate supplier of swimsuits. The best price it could obtain was $ 11$ per suit from Flying Fish Industries. Trendee ordered, received, accepted, and paid for 60 suits at $ 11$ each from Flying Fish. Trendee has refused to pay Stingray. If Stingray sues Trendee, Stingray is entitled to:

Options:
A. $ 400$, the contract price for the 40 suits delivered by Stingray and accepted by Trendee.
B. $340, the contract price for the 40 suits, less Trendee's cover damages.
C. The fair market value of the 40 suits, less the $ 60$ cover damages.
D. Nothing, because it failed to fully perform the contract.
Answer: A
Question: Johnson, a small business owner, filed a treble damages civil antitrust suit against Greed Industries. While Greed's director of marketing, Mimms, was on the stand, Greed's attorney produced a "synopsis of sales," a document generated by Greed's marketing division. Johnson's attorney objected that the record is hearsay. Greed's attorney responded, "Your Honor, this is a business record and, as such, can be admitted into evidence as an exception to the hearsay rule." Johnson's attorney complained, "Your Honor, this so-called 'synopsis of sales' is some selfserving writing concocted for this litigation. The hearsay exception requires that business records be made in the ordinary course of business. I demand a hearing to determine whether this qualifies as a business record." Which of the following is the most appropriate way for the issue to be decided?

Options:
A. The issue should be decided by the judge after hearing evidence from Greed's attorney and Johnson's attorney outside the presence of the jury.
B. The issue should be decided by the judge after hearing evidence from Greed's attorney and Johnson's attorney and may be conducted in the presence of the jury.
C. The issue should be decided by the jury after hearing evidence from both sides.
D. The issue should be decided by the judge after hearing evidence from both sides outside the presence of the jury, but if the document is admitted by the judge, Johnson may present evidence challenging that finding while presenting his case, and the ultimate decision rests with the jury. 
Answer: B
Question: Debra's car struck Peter, a pedestrian, and sped away from the scene of the accident. The car was linked to Debra, but she denies that she was driving the car when Peter was hit and injured. Peter sued Debra for his injuries. The only eyewitness, other than Peter, was Willie, a six-year-old child. During the trial, Peter put Willie on the stand, and Willie testified that he saw Debra driving the car that hit Peter. The defense elected not to cross-examine Willie. The plaintiff's next witness was Schrinkov, a child psychologist. Schrinkov, who had never met Willie before, was prepared to testify that, based on his observations of Willie on the witness stand, it was highly probable that Willie was telling the truth. Schrinkov was qualified as an expert witness with many years of experience dealing with children. However, the defense objected to any questions regarding the veracity of Willie. Should Schrinkov be allowed to testify about Willie?

Options:
A. Yes, because parties may put witnesses on the stand to reinforce or challenge the veracity of other witnesses.
B. Yes, because an expert may be needed to explain how children testify in order to avoid confusing the jury.
C. No, experts may not testify regarding veracity.
D. No, because Willie's veracity has not yet been questioned.
Answer: D
Question: An act of Congress provides for the payment of Social Security benefits to the disabled children of deceased workers. A complex set of regulations carefully defines the meaning of the term "disabled." The benefits are payable even after the child reaches his or her age of majority, but terminate automatically when the recipient marries, unless the recipient marries a person who is also disabled, in which case the Social Security payments continue. Dorit has been disabled since birth, and her father died in a coal mine cave-in when Dorit was 14 years of age. She has received Social Security benefits since her father's death. However, at age 25, Dorit married Jack, who is not disabled, and her Social Security benefits were summarily terminated. She files suit in federal district court, seeking to compel the government to restore her benefits. She asserts, among other things, that there is no logical reason why she should be deprived of benefits when unmarried disabled persons and disabled persons who marry other disabled persons continue to receive them. Which of the following provides the strongest constitutional basis for Dorit's suit?

Options:
A. The privileges and immunities of national citizenship protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.
B. The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
C. The Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
D. The prohibitions against bills of attainder.
Answer: C
Question: Popeye owned a large fleet of buses. He was fortunate enough to have won the contract to bus all the schoolchildren in a large midwestern city and most of its surrounding suburbs. He purchased a number of new vehicles to expand his fleet. Popeye had farmed out the maintenance of the buses to a number of different repair shops, but he now desired the consistent results obtainable from dealing with one repair and maintenance operation. He therefore contracted in writing with Bluto that all general maintenance and extraordinary repairs required for Popeye's buses would be performed by Bluto, who owned and operated "Bluto's Bus and Truck Center." A schedule of fees for most standard repairs was included in the contract. It happened that Popeye's wife, Olive, owned and operated a small advertising agency. Popeye wanted Olive's business to succeed, and so he included a clause in his agreement with Bluto that Bluto would place all his ads for his repair shop through Olive's agency during the oneyear term of the agreement. Assume for purposes of this question only that for six months Bluto dutifully placed all his ads through Olive's agency and informed her of his agreement with Popeye. During that time, Olive turned down work from two prospective clients because of the time that she would have to devote to designing and disseminating ads from Bluto. Bluto then discovered that Popeye was having some of his buses repaired and maintained by other shops. Bluto immediately ceased placing ads through Olive and employed another agency. Can Olive successfully bring suit against Bluto to enforce the agreement?

Options:
A. Yes, because she partially performed by placing ads for Bluto during the first six months of the agreement.
B. Yes, because she detrimentally relied on Bluto's promise to place ads when she refused other clients.
C. No, because Olive provided no consideration for the agreement between Popeye and Bluto.
D. No, because Popeye's exclusive use of Bluto's repair shop was a condition for Bluto's duty to purchase ads through Olive, and Popeye's actions excused Bluto's duty to Olive.
Answer: A
Question: After a bomb explosion in an airport locker, Detective Jones received some information from Carlos, an informant who had given him reliable information several times in the past, that Karl was a member of a radical group that took credit for the bombing. Carlos told Jones that, three months before, he had been in Karl's apartment and on that occasion had seen what appeared to be some sticks of dynamite. Reasonably believing that Carlos's information established probable cause, Jones prepared an affidavit for a search warrant. After the warrant was issued, Jones and a group of police raided Karl's apartment. No evidence connecting Karl with the bombing was discovered, but in the search of his apartment the police discovered several grams of cocaine. At his trial for possession of narcotics, Karl's motion to suppress the evidence would probably be:

Options:
A. Denied, because Carlos was a reliable informant and Jones reasonably believed that Carlos's information was accurate and that the warrant was properly issued.
B. Granted, because in fact the police did not discover any evidence linking Karl to the bombings and, therefore, the seizure of the cocaine was fruit of the poisonous tree.
C. Granted, if the court determines that the information supplied by Carlos to Jones concerned information too remote in time to justify a claim of probable cause at the time Jones requested the search warrant.
D. Granted, because the search warrant was not issued for the purpose of searching Karl's apartment for illegal drugs.
Answer: A
Question: Filmont designed and constructed a playground for children. Shortly thereafter, Filmont dedicated the property to the city of Oakville, to be used as a public park. Ken, a 10-year-old resident of Oakville, was playing at the park when he fell off the monkey bars, breaking his leg. On his behalf, Ken's parents filed suit against Filmont and Oakville, on the grounds of negligence in the design of the monkey bars. At the trial, Filmont was granted a directed verdict, because Oakville now owns the park. Ken's parents appealed the granting of the directed verdict as to Filmont. The appellate court will most likely hold that:

Options:
A. The decision to grant the directed verdict should be upheld, because Filmont was relieved of liability when he dedicated the park to Oakville.
B. The decision to grant the directed verdict should be upheld, because Filmont designed and constructed the park in the public interest.
C. The decision to grant the directed verdict should be overturned if plaintiffs introduced evidence that Filmont dedicated the park to Oakville in an effort to avoid liability for the park's negligent design.
D. The decision to grant the directed verdict should be overturned, because Filmont's liability for negligence was not affected by the dedication of the park to Oakville.
Answer: D
Question: The city of West Rabbit's Foot, which lies astride a major interstate highway, recently passed a referendum declaring itself to be a "nuclear free zone." The referendum included a provision making criminal any importation of specified nuclear materials into the city limits. The law was immediately challenged in federal court by an interstate trucking firm which regularly transported prohibited nuclear materials through West Rabbit's Foot on the highway. The case ultimately reached the United States Supreme Court, which held in a 5-4 decision that the challenged ordinance was constitutional because the city had a rational basis for concluding that the citizens of West Rabbit's Foot would be safer if the prohibited materials were kept outside of town, and because the ordinance did not unduly burden interstate commerce. Many other towns and cities throughout the nation considered similar enactments after the Supreme Court decision was announced. You are a lobbyist hired by the trucking industry to persuade Congress that a federal statute prohibiting the state regulation of interstate transportation of nuclear materials must immediately be enacted. Congress member Bluster has tentatively agreed to sponsor such legislation, but wants to know whether such a federal statute would pass constitutional muster. You should advise Bluster that the proposed statute would probably be held:

Options:
A. Unconstitutional, since the Supreme Court has already ruled that local governments may prohibit specified nuclear materials from crossing their borders.
B. Unconstitutional, because the disparate treatment of interstate versus intrastate carriers of nuclear materials would violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
C. Constitutional, because Congress has plenary power to regulate interstate commerce.
D. Constitutional, because the Supremacy Clause requires that state enactments bow to conflicting federal legislation.
Answer: C