Barbri mbe practice ?s Forum

[Geist13]

MPQ1 Criminal Set 2 Question 11. The barbri answer explanation says that answer C is incorrect because "it is irrelevant. It implies that if the detective had probable cause, he could have executed the search warrant." Answer C states "This is an invalid warrantless search because the detective lack probable cause."

Barbri's explanation is entirely incorrect here. Saying that the warrantless search is invalid for want of probable cause is NOT the same as saying that if there is probable cause you can conduct a warrantless search. All it means is that probable cause is a necessary condition (though not necessarily sufficient condition) to conduct a warrantless search, which is legally accurate.

Anyone have any other thoughts here?

[bgdddymtty]

MPQ1 Criminal Set 2 Question 11. The barbri answer explanation says that answer C is incorrect because "it is irrelevant. It implies that if the detective had probable cause, he could have executed the search warrant." Answer C states "This is an invalid warrantless search because the detective lack probable cause."

Barbri's explanation is entirely incorrect here. Saying that the warrantless search is invalid for want of probable cause is NOT the same as saying that if there is probable cause you can conduct a warrantless search. All it means is that probable cause is a necessary condition (though not necessarily sufficient condition) to conduct a warrantless search, which is legally accurate.

Anyone have any other thoughts here?

I get where you're coming from, but I think that the explanation is probably in line with how we can expect it to be used on the MBE. Probable cause is a necessary element rather than a sufficient one, but the use of the word "because" indicates that it was the lack of this particular necessary element that caused the search to be invalid, which in turn implies that it was the only missing necessary element.

It's like if I said that I'm not one of the finalists on American Idol (is that still a thing?) is because I exceed the age limit. While being of the correct age is a necessary element, and it's true that I lack that element, it's not fair to say that I'm not on the show because of that. The primary reason is that I'm a horrible singer.

[Geist13]

MPQ1 Criminal Set 2 Question 11. The barbri answer explanation says that answer C is incorrect because "it is irrelevant. It implies that if the detective had probable cause, he could have executed the search warrant." Answer C states "This is an invalid warrantless search because the detective lack probable cause."

Barbri's explanation is entirely incorrect here. Saying that the warrantless search is invalid for want of probable cause is NOT the same as saying that if there is probable cause you can conduct a warrantless search. All it means is that probable cause is a necessary condition (though not necessarily sufficient condition) to conduct a warrantless search, which is legally accurate.

Anyone have any other thoughts here?

I get where you're coming from, but I think that the explanation is probably in line with how we can expect it to be used on the MBE. Probable cause is a necessary element rather than a sufficient one, but the use of the word "because" indicates that it was the lack of this particular necessary element that caused the search to be invalid, which in turn implies that it was the only missing necessary element.

It's like if I said that I'm not one of the finalists on American Idol (is that still a thing?) is because I exceed the age limit. While being of the correct age is a necessary element, and it's true that I lack that element, it's not fair to say that I'm not on the show because of that. The primary reason is that I'm a horrible singer.

But in the factual context of this question, the relationship between the lack of probable cause and the search being invalid is more definite than the connection between your age and not being on american idol. In this question, the officers absolutely lacked probable cause and so the cannot have engaged in a warrantless search. The correct answer states that "this is an invalid warrantless search because the detective did not have a search warrant." But this, really, can never be a truly accurate answer because . . . its a freaking warrantless search, it can be valid without a warrant, that's the entire point of the concept. If you don't have a warrant, you can still search if there is an exception. So it's not completely accurate.

[bgdddymtty]

But in the factual context of this question, the relationship between the lack of probable cause and the search being invalid is more definite than the connection between your age and not being on american idol. In this question, the officers absolutely lacked probable cause and so the cannot have engaged in a warrantless search.

The cop had found the counterfeiting stuff at his home per the other warrant, and his wife said that he was at their cabin. He therefore had every reason to believe that other incriminating evidence was in the cabin where the wife told him the husband would be. That probable cause, however, does not give rise to any exception to the warrant requirement, particularly when the place to be searched is a dwelling.

The correct answer states that "this is an invalid warrantless search because the detective did not have a search warrant." But this, really, can never be a truly accurate answer because . . . its a freaking warrantless search, it can be valid without a warrant, that's the entire point of the concept. If you don't have a warrant, you can still search if there is an exception. So it's not completely accurate.

A correct answer doesn't have to explain every possible angle of an issue; it just has to be free of flaws. While it does sound silly to say that it's an invalid warrantless search because it's warrantless, here that's the only issue.

[usuaggie]

I took the last PRE just now. I took the percentage right for each topic, multiplied it by the amount of questions on that topic in the MBE, and added them up. Came to a 140 raw. Threw that in the MBE calculator on the NY bar website and it spit out 146 for my scaled score. Hope that's close to what I actually get.

[moandersen]

I could use some property help. Set 6, Question 23. Why is the finance company's mortgage not a purchase money mortgage and therefore senior? What am I missing?

[bgdddymtty]

I took the last PRE just now. I took the percentage right for each topic, multiplied it by the amount of questions on that topic in the MBE, and added them up. Came to a 140 raw. Threw that in the MBE calculator on the NY bar website and it spit out 146 for my scaled score. Hope that's close to what I actually get.

According to the July 2011 MBE scale, 140 raw scales to 154.4. The July 2010 one is very similar, although I don't have time to look it up at the moment. So you're rocking it out. Congrats!

[5ky]

I took the last PRE just now. I took the percentage right for each topic, multiplied it by the amount of questions on that topic in the MBE, and added them up. Came to a 140 raw. Threw that in the MBE calculator on the NY bar website and it spit out 146 for my scaled score. Hope that's close to what I actually get.

According to the July 2011 MBE scale, 140 raw scales to 154.4. The July 2010 one is very similar, although I don't have time to look it up at the moment. So you're rocking it out. Congrats!

Doesn't each state scale differently?

[usuaggie]

I took the last PRE just now. I took the percentage right for each topic, multiplied it by the amount of questions on that topic in the MBE, and added them up. Came to a 140 raw. Threw that in the MBE calculator on the NY bar website and it spit out 146 for my scaled score. Hope that's close to what I actually get.

According to the July 2011 MBE scale, 140 raw scales to 154.4. The July 2010 one is very similar, although I don't have time to look it up at the moment. So you're rocking it out. Congrats!

I used the NY calculator website. Glad to see the cali one is higher.

[usuaggie]

I took the last PRE just now. I took the percentage right for each topic, multiplied it by the amount of questions on that topic in the MBE, and added them up. Came to a 140 raw. Threw that in the MBE calculator on the NY bar website and it spit out 146 for my scaled score. Hope that's close to what I actually get.

According to the July 2011 MBE scale, 140 raw scales to 154.4. The July 2010 one is very similar, although I don't have time to look it up at the moment. So you're rocking it out. Congrats!

Doesn't each state scale differently?

I think the method is the same but the result is different because they scale based on the takers in their own state only.

[bgdddymtty]

I took the last PRE just now. I took the percentage right for each topic, multiplied it by the amount of questions on that topic in the MBE, and added them up. Came to a 140 raw. Threw that in the MBE calculator on the NY bar website and it spit out 146 for my scaled score. Hope that's close to what I actually get.

According to the July 2011 MBE scale, 140 raw scales to 154.4. The July 2010 one is very similar, although I don't have time to look it up at the moment. So you're rocking it out. Congrats!

Doesn't each state scale differently?

I think the method is the same but the result is different because they scale based on the takers in their own state only.

I don't think that's right, or else the whole thing of transferring MBE scores between states wouldn't make sense. If anyone finds a definite answer on this, please post it.

[5ky]

I think the method is the same but the result is different because they scale based on the takers in their own state only.

I don't think that's right, or else the whole thing of transferring MBE scores between states wouldn't make sense. If anyone finds a definite answer on this, please post it.[/quote]

A guy runs this whole site devoted to the NY bar, and he has all sorts of calculators to figure out your raw score from your scaled score, because NY never gives out raw scores. If there were a national scale, that wouldn't be necessary I wouldn't think.

I can't find anything definitive, though

e: looking at his numbers, though, there's no way they are right. i'm not sure what the calculator actually does

[usuaggie]

I don't think that's right, or else the whole thing of transferring MBE scores between states wouldn't make sense. If anyone finds a definite answer on this, please post it.

Well I think you're right, but not for the logic you stated. I'm taking the UBE and the mee essays are graded by the individual state but are used for admission in the other 12 UBE jurisdictions. Those are scaled on a state by state level, and I think that is what I had in mind, along with the confusion of the NY bar calculator.

[usuaggie]

Here are some stats from PA bar site. Somebody got a 144 and failed the bar...ouch, had to be close.

http://www.pabarexam.org/pdf/statistics ... /f2013.pdf

And a failed 150 last summer
http://www.pabarexam.org/pdf/statistics/july/j2012.pdf

[bgdddymtty]

As I said, I really have no idea and am operating mostly from intuition, but I can say with confidence that the 146 that site spat out for you is wrong no matter where you take the test. Given that a 190 raw score necessarily scales to 200, and given the general nature of score distribution, the raw-to-scaled bump is always going to be at least ten at every raw score.

[bgdddymtty]

Here are some stats from PA bar site. Somebody got a 144 and failed the bar...ouch, had to be close.

http://www.pabarexam.org/pdf/statistics ... /f2013.pdf

And a failed 150 last summer
http://www.pabarexam.org/pdf/statistics/july/j2012.pdf

These documents convince me that there's one national scale for the MBE. The first page of data compares the mean PA MBE score with the mean score nationally. If PA uses a different scale, comparing these numbers to one another wouldn't make any sense. For that matter, it wouldn't make any sense to compile a number like "national" mean MBE if everyone were using a different scale. That would be like reporting the mean temperature between the U.S. and Canada by averaging our Fahrenheit temperature readings with their Celsius ones.

[usuaggie]

Here are some stats from PA bar site. Somebody got a 144 and failed the bar...ouch, had to be close.

http://www.pabarexam.org/pdf/statistics ... /f2013.pdf

And a failed 150 last summer
http://www.pabarexam.org/pdf/statistics/july/j2012.pdf

These documents convince me that there's one national scale for the MBE. The first page of data compares the mean PA MBE score with the mean score nationally. If PA uses a different scale, comparing these numbers to one another wouldn't make any sense. For that matter, it wouldn't make any sense to compile a number like "national" mean MBE if everyone were using a different scale. That would be like reporting the mean temperature between the U.S. and Canada by averaging our Fahrenheit temperature readings with their Celsius ones.

I said two posts ago that I think it's national and then posted the links lol

[bgdddymtty]

Here are some stats from PA bar site. Somebody got a 144 and failed the bar...ouch, had to be close.

http://www.pabarexam.org/pdf/statistics ... /f2013.pdf

And a failed 150 last summer
http://www.pabarexam.org/pdf/statistics/july/j2012.pdf

These documents convince me that there's one national scale for the MBE. The first page of data compares the mean PA MBE score with the mean score nationally. If PA uses a different scale, comparing these numbers to one another wouldn't make any sense. For that matter, it wouldn't make any sense to compile a number like "national" mean MBE if everyone were using a different scale. That would be like reporting the mean temperature between the U.S. and Canada by averaging our Fahrenheit temperature readings with their Celsius ones.

I said two posts ago that I think it's national and then posted the links lol

You posted the links in a separate post, so I wasn't sure what point you were making other than ouch, sucks for the guy with the 150 MBE and no law license. In any event, I wasn't trying to argue with you. We seemed to still be a bit unsure on the scaling thing, and the info you posted sealed the deal for me.

[usuaggie]

Anyone else find Evidence Set 3 easier than Sets 1 and 2? For 1 and 2, I got 13, and 12 respectively, but just got 16/18 on Set 3. One error was genuine, and I really didn't know the point. The other, I clearly knew yet talked myself out of the right answer.

I got in the 70s on 1-3 but set 4 just destroyed me. 44%.

[nevdash]

50% on Property Set 3, 70% on Property Set 6, both done in the same day. What in the actual fuck.

[BCLS]

50% on Property Set 3, 70% on Property Set 6, both done in the same day. What in the actual fuck.

Something like that happened to me yesterday-- 85% contracts PRE; 56% Set 3.

[Joe Quincy]

Contracts Set 5, question 27 (general partner commits suicide because of gambling debts and limited partner things he's liable for p-ship debts):

The explanation in the book doesn't seem right. How is their a bargained for exchange when the limited partner had no legal detriment or benefit. He was mistaken about the fact that he was liable so he thought he had a detriment but he didn't. Is that enough?

The explanation only addresses why the unsecured creditor's not filing suit was consideration but never considers the other side of the transaction.

[Tangerine Gleam]

50% on Property Set 3, 70% on Property Set 6, both done in the same day. What in the actual fuck.

Good numbers, my friend. Disparity aside, you should feel good about that.

(guy who pulled 44% on both)

[kaiser]

.

[kaiser]

Contracts Set 5, question 27 (general partner commits suicide because of gambling debts and limited partner things he's liable for p-ship debts):

The explanation in the book doesn't seem right. How is their a bargained for exchange when the limited partner had no legal detriment or benefit. He was mistaken about the fact that he was liable so he thought he had a detriment but he didn't. Is that enough?

The explanation only addresses why the unsecured creditor's not filing suit was consideration but never considers the other side of the transaction.

The limited parter got the creditor to hold off on filing an involuntary bankruptcy petition. So he absolutely got a benefit out of the exchange. Sure, it might not seem like a big deal, but we don't care about the adequacy of consideration. And the creditor got a promise from the limited partner that the debt would be paid off. Seems like a bargain-for exchange to me. And once you have that, the answer has to be D.