One of the most common ways in which answer choices both on the MBE and on most other standardized tests are wrong is that they are overbroad. When one answer makes a blanket statement and then another comes in and supplies a missing caveat, the latter answer is the better one. And it's Standardized Test Question Writing 101 for a sucker choice to sound great and provide a lot of correct information, while the correct answer is more plain and simple but corrects the flaw present in the sucker choice.5ky wrote:I don't have it in front of me, but I vaguely remember the question. I don't have an issue accepting Barbri on those types of questions, because if you're looking for the "best" answer, the answer saying "The statute is constitutional because of XYZ" is always going to be a better answer than "The statute is constitutional unless it is unconstitutional." The latter is obviously a correct statement, but it's not really applicable to the facts of the question.
If you start playing that game, then it wouldn't even be true. What I mean is if you start looking for possible conflicts not in the facts of the question, you couldn't really say it would necessarily be constitutional unless it violated federal civil rights law. Once you open the door to saying unnamed federal laws might present a problem, then simply ruling out one of these (civil rights) doesn't automatically make it constitutional; there are still innumerable possible reasons why it could be unconstitutional. That's how I think of it, anyway.
You're right that a one-paragraph prompt can't possibly give you every single relevant fact regarding a situation. If no answer choice brought up the Supremacy Clause issue, I'd think A was fine, particularly since it seems unlikely that there would be a federal law that contradicted the state law presented in the prompt. As soon as another answer choice brings that up, though, it's relevant to the analysis.