ncoop57/mmmlu huggingface dataset:
Suffering from painful and terminal cancer, Willa persuaded Harold, her husband, to kill her to end her misery. As they reminisced about their life together and reaffirmed their love for each other, Harold tried to discourage Willa from giving up. Willa insisted, however, and finally Harold held a gun to her head and killed her. The most serious degree of criminal homicide of which Harold can be legally convicted is 
A. no degree of criminal homicide.
B. involuntary manslaughter.
C. voluntary manslaughter.
D. murder.
Answer: D
Peterson sued Dylan for libel. After Peterson testified that Dylan wrote to Peterson's employer that Peterson was a thief, Dylan offers evidence that Peterson once stole money from a former employer. The evidence of Peterson's prior theft is 
A. admissible, as substantive evidence to prove that Peterson is a thief. 
B. admissible, but only to impeach Peterson's credibility. 
C. inadmissible, because character may not be shown by specific instances of conduct. 
D. inadmissible, because such evidence is more unfairly prejudicial than probative. 
Answer: A
The Federal Computer Abuse Act establishes the Federal Computer Abuse Commission, authorizes the Commission to issue licenses for the possession of computers on terms that are consistent with the purposes of the act, and makes the unlicensed possession of a computer a crime. The provisions of the Federal Computer Abuse Act are inseverable. User applied to the Federal Computer Abuse Commission for a license to possess a computer. The Commission held, and User participated in, a trial-type proceeding on User's license application. In that proceeding it was demonstrated that User repeatedly and intentionally used computers to introduce secret destructive computer programs (computer viruses) into electronic data banks without the consent of their owners. As a result, the Commission denied User's application for a license. The license denial was based on a Commission rule authorized by the Computer Abuse Act that prohibited the issuance of computer licenses to persons who had engaged in such conduct. Nevertheless, User retained and continued to use his computer. He was subsequently convicted of the crime of unlicensed possession of a computer. On appeal, he challenges the constitutionality of the licensing provision of constitutionality of the licensing provision of the Federal Computer Abuse Act. In this case, the reviewing court would probably hold that act to be 
A. constitutional, because the Constitution generally authorizes Congress to enact all laws that are necessary and proper to advance the general welfare, and Congress could reasonably believe that possession of computers by people like User constitutes a threat to the general welfare. 
B. constitutional, because Congress may use the authority vested in it by the commerce clause to regulate the possession of computers and the provisions of this act do not violate any prohibitory provision of the Constitution. 
C. unconstitutional, because Congress may not impose a criminal penalty on action that is improper only because it is inconsistent with an agency rule. 
D. unconstitutional, because the mere possession of a computer is a wholly possession of a computer is a wholly local matter that is beyond the regulatory authority of Congress. 
Answer: B
Defendant left her car parked on the side of a hill. Two minutes later, the car rolled down the hill and struck and injured Plaintiff. In Plaintiff's negligence action against Defendant, Plaintiff introduced into evidence the facts stated above, which are undisputed. Defendant testified that, when she parked her car, she turned the front wheels into the curb and put on her emergency brakes, which were in good working order. She also introduced evidence that, in the weeks before this incident, juveniles had been seen tampering with cars in the neighborhood. The jury returned a verdict in favor of Defendant, and Plaintiff moved for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict. Plaintiff's motion should be 
A. granted, because it is more likely than not that Defendant's negligent conduct was the legal cause of Plaintiff's injuries. 
B. granted, because the evidence does not support the verdict. 
C. denied, because, given Defendant's evidence, the jury was not required to draw an inference of negligence from the circumstances of the accident. 
D. denied, if Defendant was in no better position than Plaintiff to explain the accident. 
Answer: C
Able conveyed Blackacre to Baker by a warranty deed. Baker recorded the deed four days later. After the conveyance but prior to Baker's recording of the deed, Smollett properly filed a judgment against Able. The two pertinent statutes in the jurisdiction provide the following: 1) any judgment properly filed shall, for ten years from filing, be a lien on the real property then owned or be a lien on the real property then owned or subsequently acquired by any person against whom the judgment is rendered, and 2) no conveyance or mortgage of real property shall be good against subsequent purchasers for value and without notice unless the same be recorded according to law. The recording act has no provision for a grace period. Smollett joined both Able and Baker in an appropriate action to foreclose the judgment lien against Blackacre. If Smollett is unsuccessful, it will be because 
A. Able's warranty of title to Baker defeats Smollett's claim.
B. Smollett is not a purchaser for value.
C. any deed is superior to a judgment lien.
D. four days is not an unreasonable delay in recording a deed.
Answer: B
The United States Department of Energy regularly transports nuclear materials through Centerville on the way to a nuclear weapons processing plant it operates in a nearby state. The city of Centerville recently adopted an ordinance prohibiting the transportation of any nuclear materials in or through the city. The ordinance declares that its purpose is to protect the health and safety of the residents of that city. May the Department of Energy continue to transport these nuclear materials through the city of Centerville?
A. No, because the ordinance is rationally related to the public health and safety of Centerville residents. 
B. No, because the Tenth Amendment reserves to the states certain unenumerated sovereign powers. 
C. Yes, because the Department of Energy is a federal agency engaged in a lawful federal function and, therefore, its activities may not be regulated by a local government without the consent of Congress. 
D. Yes, because the ordinance enacted by Centerville is invalid because it denies persons transporting such materials the equal protection of the laws. 
Answer: C
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 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? 
A. The purchaser had a driver's license that falsely showed his age to be 21.
B. Dart had never been told he was supposed to check identification of persons over 17 and under 22 before selling them alcohol.
C. Dart did not know that the regulations classified beer as an alcoholic beverage.
D. Dart mistakenly believed the purchaser to be 24 years old.
Answer: D
In a writing signed by both parties on December 1, Kranc agreed to buy from Schaff a gasoline engine for $1,000, delivery to be made on the following for $1,000, delivery to be made on the following February 1. Through a secretarial error, the writing called for delivery on March 1, but neither party noticed the error until February 1. Before signing the agreement, Kranc and Schaff orally agreed that the contract of sale would be effective only if Kranc should notify Schaff in writing not later than January 2 that Kranc had arranged to resell the engine to a third person. Otherwise, they agreed orally, "There is no deal." On December 15, Kranc entered into a contract with Trimota to resell the engine to Trimota at a profit. For this question only, assume the following facts. Kranc did not give Schaff notice of the resale until January 25, and Schaff received it by mail on January 26. Meantime, the value of the engine had unexpectedly increased about 75% since December 1, and Schaff renounced the agreement. If Kranc sues Schaff on February 2 for breach of contract, which of the following is Schaff's best defense? 
A. The secretarial error in the written delivery-term was a mutual mistake concerning a basic fact, and the concerning a basic fact, and the agreement is voidable by either party. 
B. Kranc's not giving written notice by January 2 of his resale was a failure of a condition precedent to the existence of a contract.
C. In view of the unexpected 75% increase in value of the engine after December 1, Schaff's performance is excused by the doctrine of commercial frustration. 
D. The agreement, if any, is unenforceable because a material term was not included in the writing. 
Answer: B
In a writing signed by both parties on December 1, Kranc agreed to buy from Schaff a gasoline engine for $1,000, delivery to be made on the following for $1,000, delivery to be made on the following February 1. Through a secretarial error, the writing called for delivery on March 1, but neither party noticed the error until February 1. Before signing the agreement, Kranc and Schaff orally agreed that the contract of sale would be effective only if Kranc should notify Schaff in writing not later than January 2 that Kranc had arranged to resell the engine to a third person. Otherwise, they agreed orally, "There is no deal." On December 15, Kranc entered into a contract with Trimota to resell the engine to Trimota at a profit. For this question only, assume the following facts. On December 16, Kranc notified Schaff by telephone of Kranc's resale agreement with Trimota, and explained that a written notice was unfeasible because Kranc's secretary was ill. Schaff replied, "That's okay. I'll get the engine to you on February 1, as we agreed." Having learned, however, that the engine had increased in value about 75% since December 1, Schaff renounced the agreement on February 1. February 1. If Kranc sues Schaff on February 2 for breach of contract, which of the following concepts best supports Kranc's claim? 
A. Substantial performance.
B. Nonoccurrence of a condition subsequent.
C. Waiver of condition.
D. Novation of buyers.
Answer: C
David owned a shotgun that he used for hunting. David knew that his old friend, Mark, had become involved with a violent gang that recently had a shoot-out with a rival gang. David, who was going to a farm to hunt quail, placed his loaded shotgun on the back seat of his car. On his way to the farm, David picked up Mark to give him a ride to a friend's house. up Mark to give him a ride to a friend's house. After dropping off Mark at the friend's house, David proceeded to the farm, where he discovered that his shotgun was missing from his car. Mark had taken the shotgun and, later in the day, Mark used it to shoot Paul, a member of the rival gang. Paul was severely injured. Paul recovered a judgment for his damages against David, as well as Mark, on the ground that David was negligent in allowing Mark to obtain possession of the gun, and was therefore liable jointly and severally with Mark for Paul's damages. The jurisdiction has a statute that allows contribution based upon proportionate fault and adheres to the traditional common-law rules on indemnity. If David fully satisfies the judgment, David then will have a right to recover from Mark 
A. indemnity for the full amount of the judgment, because Mark was an intentional tortfeasor. 
B. contribution only, based on comparative fault, because David himself was negligent. 
C. one-half of the amount of the judgment.
D. nothing, because David's negligence was a substantial proximate cause of the shooting. 
Answer: A
The legislature of the state of Chetopah enacted a statute requiring that all law enforcement officers in that state be citizens of the United States. Alien, lawfully admitted to permanent residency five years before the enactment of this statute, sought employment as a forensic pathologist in the Chetopah coroner's office. He was denied such a job solely because he was not a citizen. Alien thereupon brought suit in federal district court against appropriate Chetopah officials seeking to invalidate this citizenship requirement on federal constitutional grounds. The strongest ground upon which to attack this citizenship requirement is that it 
A. constitutes an ex post facto law as to previously admitted aliens.
B. deprives an alien of a fundamental right to employment without the due process of law guaranteed by the Fourteenth of law guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment.
C. denies an alien a right to employment in violation of the privileges and immunities clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
D. denies an alien the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment.
Answer: D
Olwen owned 80 acres of land, fronting on a town road. Two years ago, Olwen sold to Buck the back 40 acres. The 40 acres sold to Buck did not adjoin any public road. Olwen's deed to Buck expressly granted a right-of-way over a specified strip of Olwen's retained 40 acres, so Buck could reach the town road. The deed was promptly and properly recorded. Last year, Buck conveyed the back 40 acres to Sam. They had discussed the right-of-way over Olwen's land to the road, but Buck's deed to Sam made no mention of it. Sam began to use the right-of-way as Buck had, but Olwen use the right-of-way as Buck had, but Olwen sued to enjoin such use by Sam. The court should decide for 
A. Sam, because he has an easement by implication. 
B. Sam, because the easement appurtenant passed to him as a result of Buck's deed to him. 
C. Olwen, because Buck's easement in gross was not transferable. 
D. Olwen, because Buck's deed failed expressly to transfer the right-of-way to Sam. 
Answer: B
Dickinson was charged with possession of cocaine. At Dickinson's trial, the prosecution established that, when approached by police on a suburban residential street corner, Dickinson dropped a plastic bag and ran, and that when the police returned to the corner a few minutes later after catching Dickinson, they found a plastic bag containing white powder. Dickinson objects to introduction of this bag (the contents of which would later be established to be cocaine), citing lack of adequate identification. The objection should be 
A. overruled, because there is sufficient evidence to find that the bag was the one Dickinson dropped. 
B. overruled, because the objection should have been made on the basis of incomplete chain of custody. 
C. sustained, because Dickinson did not have possession of the bag at the time he was arrested. 
D. sustained, unless the judge makes a finding by a preponderance of the evidence that the bag was the one dropped by Dickinson. 
Answer: A
Chemco manufactured a liquid chemical product known as XRX. Some XRX leaked from a storage tank on Chemco's property, seeped into the groundwater, flowed to Farmer's adjacent property, and polluted Farmer's well. Several of Farmer's cows drank the polluted well water and died. If Farmer brings an action against Chemco to recover the value of the cows that died, Farmer will 
A. prevail, because a manufacturer is strictly liable for harm caused by its products. 
B. prevail, because the XRX escaped from Chemco's premises. 
C. not prevail, unless Farmer can establish that the storage tank was defective. 
D. not prevail, unless Chemco failed to exercise reasonable care in storing the XRX. 
Answer: B
A threatening telephone call that purports to be from Defendant to Witness is most likely to be admitted against Defendant if
A. the caller identified himself as Defendant.
B. Witness had previously given damaging testimony against Defendant in another lawsuit.
C. Witness had given his unlisted number only to Defendant and a few other persons.
D. Witness believes that Defendant is capable of making such threats.
Answer: C
The open-air amphitheater in the city park of Rightville has been utilized for concerts and other entertainment programs. Until this year, each of the groups performing in that city facility was allowed to make its own arrangements for sound equipment and sound technicians. After recurring complaints from occupants of residential buildings adjacent to the city park about intrusive noise from some performances held in the amphitheater, the Rightville City held in the amphitheater, the Rightville City Council passed an ordinance establishing city control over all sound amplification at all programs held there. The ordinance provided that Rightville's Department of Parks would be the sole provider in the amphitheater of sound amplification equipment and of the technicians to operate the equipment "to ensure a proper balance between the quality of the sound at such performances and respect for the privacy of nearby residential neighbors." Which of the following standards should a court use to determine the constitutionality on its face of this content neutral ordinance? 
A. The ordinance is narrowly tailored to serve a substantial government interest, and does not unreasonably limit alternative avenues of expression. 
B. The ordinance is rationally related to a legitimate government interest, and does not unreasonably limit alternative avenues of expression. 
C. The ordinance is rationally related to a legitimate government interest and restricts the expressive rights involved no more than is reasonable under the no more than is reasonable under the circumstances.
D. The ordinance is substantially related to a legitimate governmental interest and restricts the expressive rights involved no more than is reasonable in light of the surrounding circumstances.
Answer: A
Smith and Penn were charged with murder. Each gave a confession to the police that implicated both of them. Smith later retracted her confession, claiming that it was coerced. Smith and Penn were tried together. The prosecutor offered both confessions into evidence. Smith and Penn objected. After a hearing, the trial judge found that both confessions were voluntary and admitted both into evidence. Smith testified at trial. She denied any involvement in the crime and claimed that her confession was false and the result of coercion. Both defendants were convicted. On appeal, Smith contends her conviction should be reversed because of the admission into evidence of Penn's confession. Smith's contention is 
A. correct, unless Penn testified at trial. 
B. correct, whether or not Penn testified at trial. 
C. incorrect, because Smith testified in her own behalf. 
D. incorrect, because Smith's own confession was properly admitted into evidence. 
Answer: A
The state of Orrington wanted to prevent its only major league baseball team, the privately owned and operated Orrington Opossums, from moving to the rival state of Atrium. After a heated political debate in the legislature, a heated political debate in the legislature, Orrington enacted legislation providing for a one-time grant of $10 million in state funds to the Opossums to cover part of the projected income losses the team would suffer during the next five years if it remained in that state. The legislation required that the team remain in the state for at least ten years if it accepted the grant. After accepting the grant, the owners of the Opossums decided to build a new $150 million stadium in Orrington. As plans for the construction of the new stadium proceeded, it became evident that all of the contractors and subcontractors would be white males, and that they had been chosen by the owners of the Opossums without any public bids because these contractors and subcontractors had successfully built the only other new baseball stadium in the region. Several contractors who were females or members of minority racial groups filed suit against the owners of the Opossums in federal district court to compel public solicitation of bids for the construction of its new stadium on an equal opportunity basis, and to enjoin construction of the stadium until compliance was ensured. Their only claim was that the contracting practices of the owners of the Opossums denied them the equal protection of the laws in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. In this suit, the court will probably rule that 
A. the nexus between the actions of the owners of the Opossums and the onetime grant of monies to them by the state is sufficiently substantial to subject their actions to the limitations of the Fourteenth Amendment.
B. the intense public preoccupation with the activities of major league baseball teams coupled with the fact that baseball is considered to be our national pastime is sufficient to justify application of the Fourteenth Amendment to the activities of major league teams.
C. in the absence of additional evidence of state involvement in the operations or decisions of the owners of the Opossums, a onetime grant of state Opossums, a onetime grant of state monies to them is insufficient to warrant treating their actions as subject to the limitations of the Fourteenth Amendment. 
D. the issues presented by this case are nonjusticiable political questions because there is a lack of judicially manageable standards to resolve them and they are likely to be deeply involved in partisan politics.
Answer: C
Walker, who knew nothing about horses, inherited Aberlone, a thoroughbred colt whose disagreeable behavior made him a pest around the barn. Walker sold the colt for $1,500 to Sherwood, an experienced racehorse-trainer who knew of Walker's ignorance about horses. At the time of sale, Walker said to Sherwood, "I hate to say it, but this horse is said to Sherwood, "I hate to say it, but this horse is bad-tempered and nothing special." For this question only, assume that soon after the sale, Aberlone won three races and earned $400,000 for Sherwood. Which of the following additional facts, if established by Walker, would best support his chance of obtaining rescission of the sale to Sherwood? 
A. Walker did not know until after the sale that Sherwood was an experienced racehorse-trainer.
B. At a pre-sale exercise session of which Sherwood knew that Walker was not aware, Sherwood clocked Aberlone in record-setting time, far surpassing any previous performance. 
C. Aberlone was the only thoroughbred that Walker owned, and Walker did not know how to evaluate young and untested racehorses. 
D. At the time of the sale, Walker was angry and upset over an incident in which Aberlone had reared and thrown a rider. 
Answer: B