ncoop57/mmmlu huggingface dataset:
Davis decided to kill Adams. He set out for Adams's house. Before he got there he saw Brooks, who resembled Adams. Thinking that Brooks was Adams, Davis shot at Brooks. The shot missed Brooks but wounded Case, who was some distance away. Davis had not seen Case. In a prosecution under a statute that proscribes any attempt to commit murder, the district attorney should indicate that the intended victim(s) was/were
A. Adams only.
B. Brooks only.
C. Case only.
D. Adams and Brooks
Answer: B
A state statute requires any person licensed to sell prescription drugs to file with the State Board of Health a report listing the types and amounts of such drugs sold if his or her sales of such drugs exceed $50,000 during a calendar year. The statute makes it a misdemeanor to "knowingly fail to file" such a report. Nelson, who is licensed to sell prescription drugs, sold $63,000 worth of prescription drugs during 1976 but did not file the report. Charged with committing the misdemeanor, Nelson testifies that he did a very poor job of keeping records and did not realize that his sales of prescription drugs had exceeded $50,000. If the jury believes Nelson, he should be found 
A. guilty, because this is a public welfare offense. 
B. guilty, because he cannot be excused on the basis of his own failure to keep proper records. 
C. not guilty, because the statute punishes omissions and he was not given fair warning of his duty to act. 
D. not guilty, because he was not aware of the value of the drugs he had sold
Answer: D
Lender met Borrower on the street, demanded that Borrower pay a debt owed to Lender, and threatened to punch Borrower in the nose. A fight ensued between them. Mann came upon the scene just as Lender was about to kick Borrower in the head. Noting that Lender was getting the better of the fight, Mann pointed a gun at Lender and said, "Stop, or I'll shoot." If Lender asserts a claim against Mann based on assault, will Lender prevail?
A. Yes, because Mann threatened to use deadly force. 
B. Yes, unless Mann was related to Borrower. 
C. No, if it was apparent that Lender was about to inflict serious bodily harm upon Borrower. 
D. No, because Lender was the original aggressor by threatening Borrower with a battery
Answer: C
Peter sued Don for breach of contract. The court admitted testimony by Peter that Don and his wife quarreled frequently, a fact of no consequence to the lawsuit. Don seeks to testify in response that he and his wife never quarreled. The court
A. must permit Don to answer if he had objected to Peter's testimony.
B. may permit Don to answer, whether or not he had objected to Peter's testimony. 
C. may permit Don to answer only if he had objected to Peter's testimony.
D. cannot permit Don to answer, whether or not he had objected to Peter's testimony
Answer: B
Ames had painted Bell's house under a contract which called for payment of $2,000. Bell, contending in good faith that the porch had not been painted properly, refused to pay anything. On June 15, Ames mailed a letter to Bell stating, "I am in serious need of money. Please send the $2,000 to me before July 1." On June 18, Bell replied, "I will settle for $1,800 provided that you agree to repaint the porch." Ames did not reply to this letter. Thereafter Bell mailed a check for $1,800 marked "Payment in full on the Ames-Bell painting contract as per letter dated June 18." Ames received the check on June 30. Because he was badly in need of money, check on June 30. Because he was badly in need of money, Questions Ames cashed the check without objection and spent the proceeds but has refused to repaint the porch.Bell's refusal to pay anything to Ames when he finished painting was a
A. partial breach of contract only if Ames had properly or substantially painted the porch.
B. partial breach of contract whether or not Ames had properly or substantially painted the porch.
C. total breach of contract only if Ames had properly or substantially painted the porch.
D. total breach of contract whether or not Ames had properly or substantially painted the porch
Answer: C
Ames had painted Bell's house under a contract which called for payment of $2,000. Bell, contending in good faith that the porch had not been painted properly, refused to pay anything. On June 15, Ames mailed a letter to Bell stating, "I am in serious need of money. Please send the $2,000 to me before July 1." On June 18, Bell replied, "I will settle for $1,800 provided that you agree to repaint the porch." Ames did not reply to this letter. Thereafter Bell mailed a check for $1,800 marked "Payment in full on the Ames-Bell painting contract as per letter dated June 18." Ames received the check on June 30. Because he was badly in need of money, check on June 30. Because he was badly in need of money, Questions Ames cashed the check without objection and spent the proceeds but has refused to repaint the porch.After cashing the check Ames sued Bell for $200. Ames probably will
A. succeed if he can prove that he had painted the porch according to specifications.
B. succeed, because he cashed the check under economic duress. 
C. not succeed, because he cashed the check without objection. 
D. not succeed, because he is entitled to recover only the reasonable value of his services
Answer: C
Ames had painted Bell's house under a contract which called for payment of $2,000. Bell, contending in good faith that the porch had not been painted properly, refused to pay anything. On June 15, Ames mailed a letter to Bell stating, "I am in serious need of money. Please send the $2,000 to me before July 1." On June 18, Bell replied, "I will settle for $1,800 provided that you agree to repaint the porch." Ames did not reply to this letter. Thereafter Bell mailed a check for $1,800 marked "Payment in full on the Ames-Bell painting contract as per letter dated June 18." Ames received the check on June 30. Because he was badly in need of money, check on June 30. Because he was badly in need of money, Questions Ames cashed the check without objection and spent the proceeds but has refused to repaint the porch.In an action by Bell against Ames for any provable damages Bell sustained because the porch was not repainted, Bell probably will
A. succeed, because by cashing the check Ames impliedly promised to repaint the porch. 
B. succeed, because Ames accepted Bell's offer by not replying to the letter of June 18. 
C. not succeed, because Bell's letter of June 18 was a counteroffer which Ames never accepted. 
D. not succeed, because there is no consideration to support Ames's promise, if any
Answer: A
The State of Aurora requires licenses of persons "who are engaged in the trade of barbering." It will grant such licenses only to those who are graduates of barber schools located in Aurora, who have resided in the state for two years, and who are citizens of the United States. The requirement that candidates for license must be graduates of barber schools in Aurora is probably
A. unconstitutional as an undue burden on interstate commerce.
B. unconstitutional as a violation of the privileges and immunities clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
C. constitutional, because the state does not know the quality of out-of-state barber schools. 
D. constitutional, because barbering is a privilege and not a right
Answer: A
The State of Aurora requires licenses of persons "who are engaged in the trade of barbering." It will grant such licenses only to those who are graduates of barber schools located in Aurora, who have resided in the state for two years, and who are citizens of the United States. The requirement that candidates for licenses must be citizens is
A. constitutional as an effort to ensure that barbers speak English adequately.
B. constitutional as an exercise of the state police power.
C. unconstitutional as a bill of attainder.
D. unconstitutional as a denial of equal protection
Answer: D
The State of Aurora requires licenses of persons "who are engaged in the trade of barbering." It will grant such licenses only to those who are graduates of barber schools located in Aurora, who have resided in the state for two years, and who are citizens of the United States. Assume that a resident of the state of Aurora was denied a license because she graduated from an out-of-state barber school. Her suit in federal court to enjoin denial of the license on this ground would be
A. dismissed, because there is no diversity of citizenship. 
B. dismissed, because of the abstention doctrine. 
C. decided on the merits, because federal jurisdiction extends to controversies between two states. 
D. decided on the merits, because a federal question is involved
Answer: D
The State of Aurora requires licenses of persons "who are engaged in the trade of barbering." It will grant such licenses only to those who are graduates of barber schools located in Aurora, who have resided in the state for two years, and who are citizens of the United States. Which of the following is the strongest ground on which to challenge the requirement that candidates for barber licenses must have been residents of the state for at least two years?
A. The privileges and immunities clause of the Fourteenth Amendment
B. The due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment
C. The equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment
D. The obligation of contracts claus
Answer: C
John was fired from his job. Too proud to apply for unemployment benefits, he used his savings to feed his family. When one of his children became ill, he did not seek medical attention for the child at a state clinic because he did not want to accept what he regarded as charity. Eventually, weakened by malnutrition, the child died as a result of the illness. John has committed
A. murder.
B. involuntary manslaughter.
C. voluntary manslaughter.
D. no form of criminal homicide
Answer: B
Professor Merrill, in a lecture in her psychology course at a private university, described an experiment in which a group of college students in a neighboring city rushed out and washed cars stopped at traffic lights during the rush hour. She described how people reacted differently with shock, joy, and surprise. At the conclusion of her report, she said, "You understand, of course, that you are not to undertake this or any other experiment unless you first clear it with me." Four of Merrill's students decided to try the same experiment but did not clear it with Merrill. One subject of their experiment, Carr, said, "I was shocked. There were two people on each side of the car. At first I thought negatively. I thought they were going to attack me and thought of driving away. Then I quieted down and decided there were too many dirty cars in the city anyway." Charitable immunity has been abolished in the jurisdiction. "If Carr asserts a claim against the students who washed his car, his best theory is 
A. assault.
B. negligence.
C. invasion of privacy.
D. false imprisonment
Answer: A
Professor Merrill, in a lecture in her psychology course at a private university, described an experiment in which a group of college students in a neighboring city rushed out and washed cars stopped at traffic lights during the rush hour. She described how people reacted differently with shock, joy, and surprise. At the conclusion of her report, she said, "You understand, of course, that you are not to undertake this or any other experiment unless you first clear it with me." Four of Merrill's students decided to try the same experiment but did not clear it with Merrill. One subject of their experiment, Carr, said, "I was shocked. There were two people on each side of the car. At first I thought negatively. I thought they were going to attack me and thought of driving away. Then I quieted down and decided there were too many dirty cars in the city anyway." Charitable immunity has been abolished in the jurisdiction. If Carr has a valid claim against the students, will he also prevail against the university?
A. Yes, if the students would not have performed the experiment but for Merrill's lecture. 
B. Yes, if Carr's claim against the students is based on negligence. 
C. No, because the students were not Merrill's employees. 
D. No, because Merrill did not authorize the car wash as a class project
Answer: D
Oxnard owned Goldacre, a tract of land, in fee simple. At a time when Goldacre was in the adverse possession of Amos, Eric obtained the oral permission of Oxnard to use a portion of Goldacre as a road or driveway to reach adjoining land, Twin Pines, which Eric owned in fee simple. Thereafter, during all times relevant to this problem, Eric used this road across Goldacre regularly for ingress and egress between Twin Pines and a public highway. Amos quit possession of Goldacre before acquiring title by adverse possession. Without any further communication between Oxnard and Eric, Eric continued to use the road for a total period, from the time he first began to use it, sufficient to acquire an easement by prescription. Oxnard then blocked the road and refused to permit its continued use. Eric brought suit to determine his right to continue use of the road. Eric should
A. win, because his use was adverse to Amos and once adverse it continued adverse until some affirmative showing of a change. 
B. win, because Eric made no attempt to renew permission after Amos quit possession of Goldacre. 
C. lose, because his use was with permission. 
D. lose, because there is no evidence that he continued adverse use for the required period after Amos quit possession
Answer: C
Mary Webb, a physician called as a witness by the defendant in the case of Parr v. Doan, was asked to testify to statements made by Michael Zadok, her patient, for the purpose of obtaining treatment from Dr. Webb. Which of the following is the best basis for excluding evidence of Zadok's statements in a jurisdiction with a doctor-patient privilege?
A. An objection by Dr. Webb asserting her privilege against disclosure of confidential communications made by a patient.
B. An objection by Parr's attorney on the grounds of the doctor-patient privilege.
C. A finding by the trial judge that Zadok had left the office without actually receiving treatment.
D. The assertion of a privilege by Zadok's attorney, present at the trial as a spectator at Zadok's request, and allowed by the trial judge to speak.
Answer: D
A leading question is LEAST likely to be permitted over objection when
A. asked on cross-examination of an expert witness.
B. asked on direct examination of a young child.
C. asked on direct examination of a disinterested eyewitness.
D. related to preliminary matters such as the name or occupation of the witness
Answer: C
Roofer entered into a written contract with Orissa to repair the roof of Orissa's home, the repairs to be done "in a workmanlike manner." Roofer completed the repairs and took all of his equipment away, with the exception of a 20-foot extension ladder, which was left against the side of the house. He intended to come back and get the ladder the next morning. At that time, Orissa and her family were away on a trip. During the night, a thief, using the ladder to gain access to an upstairs window, entered the house and stole some valuable jewels. Orissa has asserted a claim against Roofer for damages for the loss of the jewels. In her claim against Roofer, Orissa will  
A. prevail, because by leaving the ladder, Roofer became a trespasser on Orissa's property. 
B. prevail, because by leaving the ladder, Roofer created the risk that a person might unlawfully enter the house. 
C. not prevail, because the act of the thief was a superseding cause. 
D. not prevail, because Orissa's claim is limited to damages for breach of contract
Answer: B
Homer and Purcell entered into a valid, enforceable written contract by which Homer agreed to sell and Purcell agreed to purchase Blackacre, which was Homer's residence. One of the contract provisions was that after closing, Homer had the right to remain in residence at Blackacre for up to 30 days before delivering possession to Purcell. The closing took place as scheduled. Title passed to Purcell and Homer remained in possession. Within a few days after the closing, the new house next door which was being constructed for Homer was burned to the ground, and at the end of the 30-day period Homer refused to move out of Blackacre; instead, Homer tendered to Purcell a monthly rental payment in excess of the fair rental value of Blackacre. Purcell rejected the proposal and that day brought an appropriate action to gain  immediate possession of Blackacre. The contract was silent as to the consequences of Homer's failure to give up possession within the 30-day period, and the jurisdiction in which Blackacre is located has no statute dealing directly with this situation, although the landlord-tenant law of the jurisdiction requires a landlord to give a tenant 30 days notice before a tenant may be evicted. Purcell did not give Homer any such 30-day statutory notice. Purcell's best legal argument in support of his action to gain immediate possession is that Homer is a
A. trespasser ab initio.
B. licensee.
C. tenant at sufferance.
D. tenant from month to month
Answer: B
Albert engaged Bertha, an inexperienced actress, to do a small role in a new Broadway play for a period of six months at a salary of $200 a week. Bertha turned down another role in order to accept this engagement. On the third day of the run, Bertha was hospitalized with influenza and Helen was hired to do the part. A week later, Bertha recovered, but Albert refused to accept her services for the remainder of the contract period. Bertha then brought an action against Albert for breach of contract.Which of the following is Bertha's best legal theory?
A. Her acting contract with Albert was legally severable into weekly units.
B. Her performance of the literal terms of the contract was physically impossible.
C. Her reliance on the engagement with Albert by declining another acting role created an estoppel against Albert.
D. Her failure to perform for one week was not a material failure so as to discharge Albert's duty to perfor
Answer: D
Albert engaged Bertha, an inexperienced actress, to do a small role in a new Broadway play for a period of six months at a salary of $200 a week. Bertha turned down another role in order to accept this engagement. On the third day of the run, Bertha was hospitalized with influenza and Helen was hired to do the part. A week later, Bertha recovered, but Albert refused to accept her services for the remainder of the contract period. Bertha then brought an action against Albert for breach of contract.Which of the following, if true, would adversely affect Bertha's rights in her action against Albert?
A. Albert could not find any substitute except Helen, who demanded a contract for a minimum of six months if she was to perform at all. 
B. Helen, by general acclaim, was much better in the role than Bertha had been. 7 
C. Albert had offered Bertha a position as Helen's understudy at a salary of $100 a week, which Bertha declined. 
D. Albert had offered Bertha a secretarial position at a salary of $300 a week, which Bertha declined
Answer: A
Lawyers Abel and Baker are the members of the law partnership of Abel and Baker in a small town that has only one other lawyer in it. Abel and Baker do a substantial amount of personal injury work. Client was severely and permanently injured in an automobile collision when struck by an automobile driven by Motorist. Client employed the Abel and Baker firm to represent her in obtaining damages for her injuries. At the time Client employed Abel and Baker, the statute of limitations had six weeks to run on her claim. The complaint was prepared but not filed. Abel and Baker each thought that the other would file the complaint. The statute of limitations ran on Client's claim against Motorist. Client has filed suit against Abel and Baker for negligence. That case is on trial with a jury in a court of general jurisdiction.""In order to establish a breach of standard of care owed to her by Abel and Baker, Client
A. must have a legal expert from the same locality testify that defendants' conduct was a breach.
B. must have a legal expert from the same state testify that defendants' conduct was a breach.
C. can rely on the application of the jurors' common knowledge as to whether there was a breach.
D. can rely on the judge, as an expert in the law, to advise the jury whether there was a breac
Answer: C
Lawyers Abel and Baker are the members of the law partnership of Abel and Baker in a small town that has only one other lawyer in it. Abel and Baker do a substantial amount of personal injury work. Client was severely and permanently injured in an automobile collision when struck by an automobile driven by Motorist. Client employed the Abel and Baker firm to represent her in obtaining damages for her injuries. At the time Client employed Abel and Baker, the statute of limitations had six weeks to run on her claim. The complaint was prepared but not filed. Abel and Baker each thought that the other would file the complaint. The statute of limitations ran on Client's claim against Motorist. Client has filed suit against Abel and Baker for negligence. That case is on trial with a jury in a court of general jurisdiction."In addition to proving that Abel and Baker were negligent, Client must establish, as a minimum, that she
A. would have, but for her lawyers' negligence, recovered from Motorist. 
B. had a good faith claim against Motorist that was lost by her lawyers' negligence.
C. was severely and permanently injured when struck by Motorist's automobile.
D. did not negligently contribute to the failure to have the complaint filed.
Answer: A
A state statute divides murder into degrees. First-degree murder is defined as murder with premeditation and deliberation or a homicide in the commission of arson, rape, robbery, burglary, or kidnapping. Second-degree murder is all other murder at common law. In which of the following situations is Defendant most likely to be guilty of first-degree murder?
A. Immediately after being insulted by Robert, Defendant takes a knife and stabs and kills Robert. 
B. Angered over having been struck by Sam, Defendant buys rat poison and puts it into Sam's coffee. Sam drinks the coffee and dies as a result. 
C. Intending to injure Fred, Defendant lies in wait and, as Fred comes by, strikes him with a broom handle. As a result of the blow, Fred dies. 
D. Defendant, highly intoxicated, discovers a revolver on a table. He picks it up, points it at Alice, and pulls the trigger. The gun discharges, and Alice is killed. 
Answer: B
On a camping trip in a state park, Rose discovered, near a rubbish heap, metal signs reading, "Natural Wildlife Area No Hunting." She took two of the signs and used them to decorate her room at home. She is charged with violation of a state statute which provides, "Any person who appropriates to his own use property owned by the state shall be guilty of a crime and shall be punished by a fine of not more than $1,000, or by imprisonment for not more than five years, or by both such fine and imprisonment." At trial, Rose admits taking the signs but says she believed they had been thrown away. In fact, the signs had not been abandoned. Rose should be found
A. guilty, because this is a public welfare offense. 
B. guilty, because she should have inquired whether the signs had been abandoned. 
C. not guilty if the jury finds that she honestly believed the signs had been abandoned.
D. not guilty unless the jury finds that the state had taken adequate steps to inform 8 the public that the signs had not been abandoned
Answer: C