imone/ARB huggingface dataset:
Question: Torgeson, a prosperous widower, owned Fruitacre, a large tract of land located near Sunbelt City. Fruitacre was primarily used for extensive citrus orchards, but Torgeson was sure that rapidly growing Sunbelt City would expand toward Fruitacre, and that Fruitacre would be a prime tract for a residential subdivision within 20 years. Torgeson wanted to see his three grandchildren, Hubert (age 22), Dubert (age 17), and Luberta (age 15), benefit from the large price that he was sure Fruitacre would bring, but he was also concerned that the grandchildren be of sufficient maturity. Torgeson suggested to his only child, Diana, that he give her a life interest in Fruitacre, and that Diana's children take Fruitacre upon her death. Diana told Torgeson that she did not need the income from Fruitacre and would prefer that Torgeson give the land directly to Hubert, Dubert, and Luberta. Torgeson arrived at what he felt was a reasonable compromise, using his good friend, Fran (age 55), as the person to whom he conveyed the land. Torgeson's conveyance read, in pertinent part, as follows: "I convey Fruitacre to Fran for life, remainder to all of my grandchildren who ever attain the age of 25 , and if none of them attains such age, to the Sisters of Charity." 44. The grandchildren's interest can best be described as: (A) A contingent remainder. (B) A vested remainder. (C) An executory interest. (D) Nothing. Which of the following is the strongest argument in favor of the constitutionality of free distribution of textbooks to the students at Stone School?

Options:
A. Private religious schools, like public nonsectarian schools, fulfill an important educational function.
B. Religious instruction in private schools is not constitutionally objectionable.
C. The purpose and effect of the free distribution of these textbooks is secular and does not entangle church and state.
D. The Free Exercise Clause requires identical treatment by the state of students in public and private schools. 
Answer: C
Question: Jaywalking (crossing a street outside of a crosswalk or not at an intersection) is punishable by a fine in Metropolis. Bert, who had lived in Metropolis all of his 67 years, was out windowshopping with his wife, Ruth, also 67 , when he saw a friend across the street at a diner they both frequented. Telling Ruth that he would be right back, he saw that there were no cars nearby and so strode briskly across the street in the middle of the block. As he reached the other sidewalk, a police officer who had been checking parked cars for parking violations stepped up to Bert and said, "Hold it buddy, let's see your driver's license," and then reached for her citation book. Bert, a city dweller from birth, had always walked or used public transportation, had never learned to drive, and did not have a driver's license. When he told the officer that he did not have a driver's license, she said, "All right, I'm taking you in," and seized his wrist, twisting it up and behind him in a personnel control lock. A black belt in judo, Bert easily slipped the officer's grasp. "You asked for it," she then growled, and pulled her baton from her belt. When she attempted to strike Bert, he moved swiftly to the side, chopped at her arm, and caused the baton to fall from her grasp to the pavement. At that point two other officers arrived on the scene and arrested Bert. Ruth watched the entire episode from across the street and became greatly distressed. 34. Bert brings an action against the first officer for battery. What will be the probable outcome of this litigation? (A) He will lose, because he struck the officer. (B) He will lose, because the offense was committed in the officer's presence. (C) He will win, unless he is found guilty of jaywalking. (D) He will win, because the officer was not privileged to arrest him. Ruth also sues the officer, alleging intentional infliction of emotional distress. Will she recover?

Options:
A. No, unless the officer knew that Ruth and Bert were husband and wife.
B. No, if the officer did not know that Ruth was watching from across the street.
C. Yes, because the officer's conduct regarding Bert was extreme and outrageous.
D. Yes, because the officer's conduct caused Ruth to be severely emotionally disturbed.
Answer: B
Question: Seller and Buyer executed an agreement for the sale of real property. Assume for this question only that Buyer dies before closing, there being no breach of the agreement by either party. Which of the following is appropriate in most jurisdictions?

Options:
A. Buyer's heir may specifically enforce the agreement.
B. Seller has the right to return the down payment and cancel the contract.
C. Death terminates the agreement.
D. Any title acquired would be unmarketable by reason of Buyer's death. 
Answer: A
Question: Although by all appearances Herb and Edna, an elderly couple, were destitute, they had, in fact, substantial cash in the bank. Their new neighbors, the Smiths, feeling sorry for them on Thanksgiving, bought a month's supply of food and gave it to Herb and Edna. Later, Edna confided in the Smiths that she and Herb had money and told them that, because they had been so kind, she was leaving them money in her will. All of Herb's and Edna's bank accounts were held in joint tenancy. When Edna died, at the Smiths' request Herb gave the Smiths the following signed instrument: "In consideration of my wife's promise to the Smiths, and their agreement not to sue her estate, I agree to pay them the sum of $ 5,000$." When Herb died of a heart attack several days later, the Smiths asked the administrator of his estate to pay them the $ 5,000$. The administrator refused on the ground that there was no consideration for the agreement. Besides the consideration stated in Herb's written instrument, what other fact would strengthen the Smiths' claim?

Options:
A. They would have never given the food if they had known Herb and Edna had money.
B. They believed they could sue Edna's estate.
C. The majority of the funds in the bank were left to Edna by her parents.
D. Edna's promise to them was in writing.
Answer: B
Question: Congress provides by statute that any state that fails to prohibit automobile speeds of over 55 miles per hour on highways within the state shall be denied federal highway construction funding. The state of Atlantic, one of the richest and most highway-oriented states in the country, refuses to enact such a statute. The best argument that can be made in support of the constitutionality of this federal statute is that:

Options:
A. The states conceded their authority over highways to the national government when the states accepted federal grants to help finance the highways.
B. The federal government can regulate the use of state highways without limitation because the federal government paid for most of their construction costs.
C. Reasonable legislators could believe that the 55 mile-per-hour speed limit will ensure that the federal money spent on highways results in greater benefit than harm to the public.
D. A recent public opinion survey demonstrates that $90 \%$ of the people in this country support a 55 mile-perhour speed limit.
Answer: C
Question: The state of Yuma provides by statute, "No person may be awarded any state construction contract without agreeing to employ only citizens of the state and of the United States in performance of the contract." If the Yuma statute is attacked as violating the Commerce Clause, which of the following defenses is the weakest?

Options:
A. The statute will help protect the workers of the state of Yuma from competition by foreign workers.
B. The statute will help ensure that workers with jobs directly affecting the performance of public contracts are dedicated to their jobs.
C. The statute will help ensure a continuously available and stable work force for the execution of public contracts.
D. The statute will help ensure that only the most qualified individuals work on public contracts.
Answer: A
Question: After several days of negotiations, Ohner wrote to Plummer: "Will pay you $ 3,000$ if you will install new plumbing in my office building according to the specifications I have sent you. I must have your reply by March 30 ." Plummer replied by a letter that Ohner received on March 15: "Will not do it for less than $ 3,500$." On March 20, Plummer wrote to Ohner: "Have changed my mind. I will do the work for $ 3,000$. Unless I hear from you to the contrary, I will begin work on April 5." Ohner received this letter on March 22 but did not reply to it. Plummer, without Ohner's knowledge, began the work on April 5. Which of the following best characterizes the legal relationship between Ohner and Plummer as of April 5?

Options:
A. A contract was formed on March 20 when Plummer posted his letter.
B. A contract was formed on March 22 when Ohner received Plummer's letter.
C. A contract was formed on April 5 when Plummer began work.
D. There was no contract between the parties as of April 5.
Answer: D
Question: An ordinance of City makes it unlawful to park a motor vehicle on a City street within 10 feet of a fire hydrant. At 1:55 p.m., Parker, realizing he must be in Bank before it closed at 2 p.m. and finding no other space available, parked his automobile in front of a fire hydrant on a City street. Parker then hurried into the bank, leaving his aged neighbor, Ned, as a passenger in the rear seat of the car. About five minutes later, and while Parker was still in Bank, Driver was driving down the street. Driver swerved to avoid what he mistakenly thought was a hole in the street and sideswiped Parker's car. Parker's car was turned over on top of the hydrant, breaking the hydrant and causing a small flood of water. Parker's car was severely damaged and Ned was badly injured. There is no applicable guest statute and the jurisdiction follows traditional contributory negligence rules. If Ned asserts a claim against Parker, the most likely result is that Ned will:

Options:
A. Recover, because Parker's action was negligence per se.
B. Recover, because Parker's action was a continuing wrong that contributed to Ned's injuries.
C. Not recover, because a reasonably prudent person could not foresee injury to Ned as a result of Parker's action.
D. Not recover, because a violation of a city ordinance does not give rise to a civil cause of action.
Answer: C
Question: A federal statute set up a program of dental education. The statute provided that the Secretary of Health and Human Services "shall, on a current basis, spend all of the money appropriated for this purpose" and "shall distribute the appropriated funds" by a specified formula to state health departments that agree to participate in the program. In the current year Congress appropriated $100$ million for expenditure on this program. To ensure a budget surplus in the current fiscal year, the President issued an executive order directing the various Cabinet Secretaries to cut expenditures in this year by $10 \%$ in all categories. He also ordered certain programs to be cut more drastically because he believed that "they are not as important to the general welfare as other programs." The President identified the dental education program as such a program and ordered it to be cut by $50 \%$. Assume that no other federal statutes are relevant. To satisfy constitutional requirements, how much money must the Secretary of Health and Human Services distribute for the dental education program this year?

Options:
A. $50 million, because the President could reasonably determine that this program is not as important to the general welfare as other programs.
B. $50 million, because as chief executive the President has the constitutional authority to control the actions of all of his subordinates by executive order.
C. $ 90$ million, because any more drastic cut for the program would be a denial of equal protection to beneficiaries of this program as compared to beneficiaries of other programs.
D. $100 million, because the President may not unilaterally suspend the effect of a valid federal statute imposing a duty to spend appropriated monies. 
Answer: D
Question: In which of the following situations is Defendant most likely to be guilty of the crime charged?

Options:
A. Without the permission of Owner, Defendant takes Owner's car with the intention of driving it three miles to a grocery store and back. Defendant is charged with larceny.
B. Defendant gets permission to borrow Owner's car for the evening by falsely promising to return it, although he does not intend to do so. Two days later, he changes his mind and returns the car. Defendant is charged with larceny by trick.
C. Defendant gets permission to borrow Owner's car for the evening by misrepresenting his identity and falsely claiming he has a valid driver's license. He returns the car the next day. Defendant is charged with obtaining property by false pretenses.
D. With permission, Defendant, promising to return it by 9 p.m., borrows Owner's car. Later in the evening, Defendant decides to keep the car until the next morning and does so. Defendant is charged with embezzlement. 
Answer: B
Question: The industrial city of Tunbridge suffered from battles over gang turf and a rash of drive-by shootings. Most street gangs were affiliated with one of the two loose gang confederations that fought for dominance, the Assassins and the Ghouls. To "issue a warning" to the Ghouls, a carload of Assassins, armed with Uzi submachine guns, sped into the Ghouls' neighborhood. It was late at night when the car passed a corner store, around which the Ghouls were known to congregate during daylight hours. The Assassins knew that the store closed at 6 p.m. and that the Ghouls went elsewhere after nightfall. As the Assassins drove by, they sprayed the store with submachine gunfire, smashing the windows and pocking the brick exteriors. One of the bullets struck and killed Jamie, a six-yearold girl who was asleep in an apartment located on the second floor, above the corner store. A few days later, the police arrested Dennison, who admitted to being a member of the Assassins and to having been in the car when the Assassins shot up the store. Dennison was placed on trial for the murder of Jamie. If Dennison takes the stand in his own defense, and the jury believes Dennison's testimony, which of the following assertions by Dennison would be his best defense to the murder charge?

Options:
A. "I was the driver of the car and did not actually shoot into the building."
B. "I took a lot of drugs that night, and I was so high that I don't even remember the incident; I was certainly in no condition to form an intent to kill somebody."
C. "Another member of my gang pointed a gun at me. I was really scared that if I didn't shoot into the building I would be seriously injured or killed myself."
D. "I believed that the building was abandoned and had no idea that there would be people inside it."
Answer: D
Question: A statute authorizes a specified federal administrative agency to issue rules governing the distribution of federal grant funds for scientific research. The statute provides that, in issuing those rules, the agency must follow procedures and substantive standards contained in the statute. In a severable provision, the statute also provides that otherwise valid rules issued by the agency under authority delegated to it by this statute may be set aside by a majority vote of a designated standing joint committee of Congress. The provision of this statute relating to the power of the designated standing joint committee of Congress is:

Options:
A. Constitutional, because it is a necessary and proper means of ensuring that the rules issued by this agency are actually consistent with the will of Congress.
B. Constitutional, because discretionary money grants authorized by statute are privileges, not rights, and, therefore, Congress has greater freedom to intervene in their administration than it has to intervene in the administration of regulatory laws. 
C. Unconstitutional, because it denies equal protection of the laws to members of Congress who are not appointed to the joint legislative committee authorized to set aside rules of this agency.
D. Unconstitutional, because it authorizes a congressional change of legal rights and obligations by means other than those specified in the Constitution for the enactment of laws.
Answer: D
Question: The town of Hometown had a municipal auditorium that all groups were permitted to use. Lately, Bhagwan Bigbucks has begun to hold recruiting seminars for his religious cult at the auditorium. Sensing the displeasure of the voting public and fearing that the auditorium would become a mecca of fringe religious groups, the Hometown Town Council adopted the following ordinance: "Effective immediately, no religious groups will be permitted to use the Municipal Auditorium for meetings, speeches, or other public gatherings." Bigbucks, who was having great success recruiting followers in Hometown, challenged the constitutionality of the ordinance in federal court. His suit should:

Options:
A. Fail, because the ordinance treats all religions equally.
B. Fail, because continuing to allow religious groups to use the auditorium would violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
C. Succeed, because "religious groups" is an unconstitutionally vague term.
D. Succeed, unless Hometown can show that the ordinance serves a compelling government interest.
Answer: D
Question: Eureka, Inc., inventor of the LBVC, a laserbeam vegetable chopper, ran a television ad that described the chopper and said, "The LBVC is yours for only $ 49.99$ if you send your check or money order to Box 007, Greenville. Not available in stores." Gourmet, who owned a retail specialty shop, wrote Eureka, "What's your best, firm price for two dozen LBVCs?" Eureka sent a written reply that said in its entirety, "We quote you for prompt acceptance $ 39.99$ per unit for 24 LBVCs." Gourmet subsequently mailed a check to Eureka in the appropriate amount, with a memo enclosed saying, "I accept your offer for 24 LBVCs." Assume for this question only that Seller dies before closing and his will leaves his personal property to Perry and his real property to Rose. There being no breach of the agreement by either party, which of the following is correct?

Options:
A. Death, an eventuality for which the parties could have provided, terminates the agreement if they did not so provide. 
B. Rose is entitled to the proceeds of the sale when it closes, because the doctrine of equitable conversion does not apply to these circumstances.
C. Perry is entitled to the proceeds of the sale when it closes.
D. Title was rendered unmarketable by Seller's death.
Answer: C
Question: Orris had title to Brownacre in fee simple. Without Orris's knowledge, Hull entered Brownacre in 1950 and constructed an earthen dam across a watercourse. The earthen dam trapped water that Hull used to water a herd of cattle he owned. After 12 years of possession of Brownacre, Hull gave possession of Brownacre to Burns. At the same time, Hull also purported to transfer his cattle and all his interests in the dam and water to Burns by a document that was sufficient as a bill of sale to transfer personal property but was insufficient as a deed to transfer real property. One year later, Burns entered into a lease with Orris to lease Brownacre for a period of five years. After the end of the five-year term of the lease, Burns remained on Brownacre for an additional three years and then left Brownacre. At that time Orris conveyed Brownacre by a quitclaim deed to Powell. The period of time to acquire title by adverse possession in the jurisdiction is 10 years. Besides the consideration stated in Herb's written instrument, what other fact would strengthen the Smiths' claim?

Options:
A. They would have never given the food if they had known Herb and Edna had money.
B. They believed they could sue Edna's estate.
C. The majority of the funds in the bank were left to Edna by her parents.
D. Edna's promise to them was in writing.
Answer: B
Question: Congress enacts a statute punishing "each and every conspiracy entered into by any two or more persons for the purpose of denying black persons housing, employment, or education, solely because of their race." Under which of the following constitutional provisions is the authority of Congress to pass such a statute most clearly and easily justifiable?

Options:
A. The Obligation of Contracts Clause.
B. The General Welfare Clause of Article I, Section 8. 
Answer: C
Question: A state statute makes fraud for personal financial gain a crime. Jones was convicted of violating this statute on three separate occasions. Following his most recent conviction, he professed to have undergone a religious conversion and proclaimed himself to be the divine minister of "St. Rockport," an alleged messiah who would shortly be making his appearance on earth. Jones solicited cash donations from the public to support his efforts to spread the word of St. Rockport and his coming appearance on earth. Following complaints by several contributors who claimed he defrauded them, Jones was again charged with fraud under this state statute. The charge was that Jones "should have known that his representations about St. Rockport were false and, therefore, that he made them solely to collect cash donations for his personal gain." A witness for the prosecution in Jones's trial stated that Jones had admitted that, at times, he had doubts about the existence of St. Rockport. Jones was the only religious minister prosecuted for fraud under this state statute. The strongest constitutional defense that Jones could assert would be that this prosecution:

Options:
A. Deprived him of the equal protection of the laws because other religious ministers have not been charged under this statute.
B. Denied him procedural due process because it placed upon Jones the burden of rebutting evidence, submitted by the state, of his bad faith in raising this money.
C. Denied him rights conferred by the Obligation of Contracts Clause by preventing him from taking money from persons who wished to contract with him to spread the word of St. Rockport.
D. Denied him the free exercise of religion in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments because it required the state to determine the truth or falsity of the content of his religious beliefs. 
Answer: D
Question: Ann leased commercial property to Brenda for a period of 10 years. The lease contained the following provision: "No subleasing or assignment will be permitted unless with the written consent of the lessor." One year later, Brenda assigned all interest in the lease to Carolyn, who assumed and agreed to perform the lessee's obligations under the terms of the lease. Ann learned of the assignment and wrote to Brenda that she had no objection to the assignment to Carolyn and agreed to accept rent from Carolyn instead of Brenda. Thereafter, Carolyn paid rent to Ann for a period of five years. Carolyn then defaulted and went into bankruptcy. In an appropriate action, Ann sued Brenda for rent due. If Ann loses, it will be because there was:

Options:
A. Laches.
B. An accord and satisfaction.
C. A novation.
D. An attornment.
Answer: C
Question: Ellis, an electrical engineer, designed an electronic game known as Zappo. Ellis entered into a licensing agreement with Toyco under which Toyco agreed to manufacture Zappo according to Ellis's specifications and to market it and pay a royalty to Ellis. Carla, whose parents had purchased a Zappo game for her, was injured while playing with the game. Carla recovered a judgment against Toyco on the basis of a finding that the Zappo game was defective because of Ellis's improper design. In a claim for indemnity against Ellis, will Toyco prevail?

Options:
A. Yes, because as between Ellis and Toyco, Ellis was responsible for the design of Zappo.
B. Yes, because Toyco and Ellis were joint tortfeasors.
C. No, because Toyco, as the manufacturer, was strictly liable to Carla.
D. No, if Toyco, by a reasonable inspection, could have discovered the defect in the design of Zappo. 
Answer: A