How representative are these MBE questions?

[JollyGreenGiant]

Can someone explain #17 to me?

[stratocophic]

Can someone explain #17 to me?

last 2 pages of the conviser property review talks about condos and where families w/ children can live, that'll set you straight

it's the only reason i knew that one

[Matteliszt]

Can someone explain #17 to me?

From HUD's website - the FHA prohibits

Refuse to rent or sell housing
Refuse to negotiate for housing
Make housing unavailable
Deny a dwelling
Set different terms, conditions or privileges for sale or rental of a dwelling
Provide different housing services or facilities
Falsely deny that housing is available for inspection, sale, or rental
For profit, persuade owners to sell or rent (blockbusting) or
Deny anyone access to or membership in a facility or service (such as a multiple listing service) related to the sale or rental of housing.

In that question they changed the schema by putting in a covenant that disallows families with children from renting the homes with balconies. Thus (D) is the correct answer because the action is setting different terms or conditions on the families with children.

This is a stupid question to include on a free practice exam

[c3pO4]

also true! boom!

[dixiecupdrinking]

I've heard people say the scaled score from the 100 question NCBE sets is very close to what they got on the real thing. For Themis people it is, sadly, unreliable because we've seen half the questions already.

i hope you are right!

As for conspiracy and accomplice liability, I guess I should conclude that the mens rea is "good faith intent that the crime be committed"? Or in other words, the co-conspirator or accomplice actually desires to help and not hurt the other person

I guess. I think I'm with you, though. Seems like he clearly intended to help his friend commit a crime. After all, the friend did commit a crime — burglary — with guy #1's aid/encouragement. Guy #1's reasons for doing it ought to be immaterial.

i think good faith could lead you to confuse the issue. it's simply - does he intend the crime be committed or not. the situations where this comes up are trying to get someone caught by the cops, working with the cops, or duress. guy #2 is definitely guilty here, unless we're talking about conspiracy in a non-unilateral jurisdiction, but guy #1 is not guilty of anything.

I actually think this might be a withdrawal question.

he intended to have his friend arrested. there was no withdrawal because at no point did he ever intend that his friend would complete the crime. intending someone "attempt and get caught" in a crime is not the specific intent required for conspiracy or accomplice liability. for accomplice, it requires intent or knowledge with substantial certainty that crime will result, for conspiracy it requires an intent to agree and an intent that the crime be committed . it requires "two guilty minds." guy #1 never had a guilty mind.

there are about 9 questions like this throughout barbri with very clear explanations

Aside from all of that, withdrawal doesn't matter for conspiracy anyway, as withdrawal isn't a valid defense for conspiracy. Conspiracy isn't meant to cover the actual crime you enter the conspiracy for, it's for getting other people to join in with your antisocial behavior. You can't withdraw from conspiracy because once its formed, you already agreed to commit the crime with another person and thus engaged in the behavior that they want to deter/punish.

Anyone who actually knows wtf they're doing feel free to correct that but I think it's correct.

You're right, except there's no conspiracy because common law conspiracy doesn't allow for unilateral conspiracy and there was no actual agreement.

[stratocophic]

You're right, except there's no conspiracy because common law conspiracy doesn't allow for unilateral conspiracy and there was no actual agreement.

Oh, I was just addressing the "this is withdrawal Q" thing, thought someone was saying it should have been brought up in the answer choices or something. Guilty of only half-reading what came before my post, ignore me. Glad I was right about the law tho lol

[Reinhardt]

Alternatively you could use process of elimination.

Possible correct answers:
No crime
Burglary and Larceny
Conspiracy, Burglary, and Larceny

Only one of them was actually a choice. Although, I picked Burglary because maybe the dude withdrew between the burglary and the larceny...so whatever

[dixiecupdrinking]

You're right, except there's no conspiracy because common law conspiracy doesn't allow for unilateral conspiracy and there was no actual agreement.

Oh, I was just addressing the "this is withdrawal Q" thing, thought someone was saying it should have been brought up in the answer choices or something. Guilty of only half-reading what came before my post, ignore me. Glad I was right about the law tho lol

Yeah — I was advocating for reading the question as about withdrawal, but from accomplice liability, not conspiracy. But I was wrong, so.

[bahamallamamama]

I come in here to ask a question and people tell me to kill myself? What the fuck?

[irish017]

? is going on with #11?

11. A state law prohibits any barbershop licensed by the state from displaying posters in support of any
current candidate for public office or displaying or distributing any campaign literature in support of such a
candidate. No other kinds of posters or literature are subject to this prohibition, nor are any other types of commercial establishments in the state subject to similar prohibitions.

Is this law constitutional?

(A) No, because it treats barbershops differently from other commercial establishments.

(B) No, because it imposes a restriction on the content or subject matter of speech in the absence of any
evidence that such a restriction is necessary to serve a compelling state interest.

(C) Yes, because it leaves political candidates free to communicate their campaign messages to voters by
other means.

(D) Yes, because the operation of a licensed barbershop is a privilege and, therefore, is subject to any reasonable restriction imposed by the state.








I was assuming that we were to apply intermediate scrutiny to the test above. Why is this problem getting strict scrutiny (correct answer is A, which calls for necessary and compelling)?

[Reinhardt]

Content based (viewpoint neutral, but eh) regulation of private property

[BaiAilian2013]

I come in here to ask a question and people tell me to kill myself? What the fuck?

Well, only by someone who doesn't understand when to use "thy" versus "thine," so chin up.

[kaiser]

? is going on with #11?

11. A state law prohibits any barbershop licensed by the state from displaying posters in support of any
current candidate for public office or displaying or distributing any campaign literature in support of such a
candidate. No other kinds of posters or literature are subject to this prohibition, nor are any other types of commercial establishments in the state subject to similar prohibitions.

Is this law constitutional?

(A) No, because it treats barbershops differently from other commercial establishments.

(B) No, because it imposes a restriction on the content or subject matter of speech in the absence of any
evidence that such a restriction is necessary to serve a compelling state interest.

(C) Yes, because it leaves political candidates free to communicate their campaign messages to voters by
other means.

(D) Yes, because the operation of a licensed barbershop is a privilege and, therefore, is subject to any reasonable restriction imposed by the state.








I was assuming that we were to apply intermediate scrutiny to the test above. Why is this problem getting strict scrutiny (correct answer is A, which calls for necessary and compelling)?

Because it is a blatantly content-based restriction on speech. The hook here is to not get caught up in the fact that barbers are restricted while non-barbers aren't. That doesn't really matter. All that matters is that the state pointed to a group and said "you can't make displays about politics". Needs to meet strict scrutiny when that happens.

"A" essentially says that this is an equal protection problem simply b/c only barbers are affected, but barbers aren't a suspect or protected class. The state is free to make laws pertaining to barbershops only, while excluding all others. The key is that the law is based on a content-based speech restriction. "A" would imply that, anytime you make a law pertaining to barbers only, it is problematic, and that isn't the case.

[irish017]

? is going on with #11?

11. A state law prohibits any barbershop licensed by the state from displaying posters in support of any
current candidate for public office or displaying or distributing any campaign literature in support of such a
candidate. No other kinds of posters or literature are subject to this prohibition, nor are any other types of commercial establishments in the state subject to similar prohibitions.

Is this law constitutional?

(A) No, because it treats barbershops differently from other commercial establishments.

(B) No, because it imposes a restriction on the content or subject matter of speech in the absence of any
evidence that such a restriction is necessary to serve a compelling state interest.

(C) Yes, because it leaves political candidates free to communicate their campaign messages to voters by
other means.

(D) Yes, because the operation of a licensed barbershop is a privilege and, therefore, is subject to any reasonable restriction imposed by the state.








I was assuming that we were to apply intermediate scrutiny to the test above. Why is this problem getting strict scrutiny (correct answer is A, which calls for necessary and compelling)?

Because it is a blatantly content-based restriction on speech. The hook here is to not get caught up in the fact that barbers are restricted while non-barbers aren't. That doesn't really matter. All that matters is that the state pointed to a group and said "you can't make displays about politics". Needs to meet strict scrutiny when that happens.

A would imply some sort of equal protection problem, but barbers aren't a suspect or protected class. The state is free to make laws pertaining to barbershops only, while excluding all others. The key is that the law is based on a content-based speech restriction.

Tx dude!

[Bikeflip]

Wow. 7/18 and then 80/100 on NCBE # 3. Granted, I had seen* a bunch of the questions from Themis, but to go from around 33% to 80%?

*With that said, I noticed that Themis modified the answer choices from their original form. Some of Themis' choices were not available.

[Matteliszt]

Wow. 7/18 and then 80/100 on NCBE # 3. Granted, I had seen a bunch of the questions from Themis, but to go from around 33% to 80%?

Yeah dude I had the same problem when I did these a few weeks ago. I think the free ones are flame to try to get you to buy their exams.

[Bikeflip]

Wow. 7/18 and then 80/100 on NCBE # 3. Granted, I had seen a bunch of the questions from Themis, but to go from around 33% to 80%?

Yeah dude I had the same problem when I did these a few weeks ago. I think the free ones are flame to try to get you to buy their exams.

I'd agree. Sad part is, I was suckered into spending $50. So for me at least, the 18 question set is probably not representative

[Matteliszt]

Wow. 7/18 and then 80/100 on NCBE # 3. Granted, I had seen a bunch of the questions from Themis, but to go from around 33% to 80%?

Yeah dude I had the same problem when I did these a few weeks ago. I think the free ones are flame to try to get you to buy their exams.

I'd agree. Sad part is, I was suckered into spending $50. So for me at least, the 18 question set is probably not representative

Dont feel bad brother, I dropped $125 on all 3. They aren't a bad resource to have. I am redoing one of them now and it's a good confidence booster. We got this.

[DwightSchruteFarms]

? is going on with #11?

11. A state law prohibits any barbershop licensed by the state from displaying posters in support of any
current candidate for public office or displaying or distributing any campaign literature in support of such a
candidate. No other kinds of posters or literature are subject to this prohibition, nor are any other types of commercial establishments in the state subject to similar prohibitions.

Is this law constitutional?

(A) No, because it treats barbershops differently from other commercial establishments.

(B) No, because it imposes a restriction on the content or subject matter of speech in the absence of any
evidence that such a restriction is necessary to serve a compelling state interest.

(C) Yes, because it leaves political candidates free to communicate their campaign messages to voters by
other means.

(D) Yes, because the operation of a licensed barbershop is a privilege and, therefore, is subject to any reasonable restriction imposed by the state.

I was assuming that we were to apply intermediate scrutiny to the test above. Why is this problem getting strict scrutiny (correct answer is A, which calls for necessary and compelling)?

Because it is a blatantly content-based restriction on speech. The hook here is to not get caught up in the fact that barbers are restricted while non-barbers aren't. That doesn't really matter. All that matters is that the state pointed to a group and said "you can't make displays about politics". Needs to meet strict scrutiny when that happens.

A would imply some sort of equal protection problem, but barbers aren't a suspect or protected class. The state is free to make laws pertaining to barbershops only, while excluding all others. The key is that the law is based on a content-based speech restriction.

Tx dude!

Wait, so is the answer A or B? You wrote "A" but your reasoning implies B.

[Agoraphobia]

Wow. 7/18 and then 80/100 on NCBE # 3. Granted, I had seen a bunch of the questions from Themis, but to go from around 33% to 80%?

Yeah dude I had the same problem when I did these a few weeks ago. I think the free ones are flame to try to get you to buy their exams.

I like this theory. I didn't even finish the set of 18 cuz I was so discouraged.

[Bikeflip]

Wow. 7/18 and then 80/100 on NCBE # 3. Granted, I had seen a bunch of the questions from Themis, but to go from around 33% to 80%?

Yeah dude I had the same problem when I did these a few weeks ago. I think the free ones are flame to try to get you to buy their exams.

I like this theory. I didn't even finish the set of 18 cuz I was so discouraged.

So, in summary, if you rocked this damn thing, you'll probably win at the bar. If you sucked at it, don't worry too much.

[Matteliszt]

Wow. 7/18 and then 80/100 on NCBE # 3. Granted, I had seen a bunch of the questions from Themis, but to go from around 33% to 80%?

Yeah dude I had the same problem when I did these a few weeks ago. I think the free ones are flame to try to get you to buy their exams.

I like this theory. I didn't even finish the set of 18 cuz I was so discouraged.

So, in summary, if you rocked this damn thing, you'll probably win at the bar. iIf you sucked at it, don't worry too much.

The average MBE is 140. Some jurisdictions it's higher. You've been studying for 2 months. It just can't be that hard or the average wouldn't be 140 and pass rates wouldn't be as high as they are.