Adaptibar user hangout - July 2017

ConfusedL1
Posts: 277
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2015 6:53 pm

Re: Adaptibar user hangout - July 2017

Postby ConfusedL1 » Fri Jul 14, 2017 12:44 pm

bda wrote:I'm confused as to how this is a unilateral contract. Isn't the hardware wholesaler's providing credit to the retailer a return commitment from the wholesaler?

[+] Spoiler
A U.S. manufacturer on the west coast gave a hardware retailer who was relocating to the east coast the following "letter of introduction" to a hardware wholesaler on the east coast.
This will introduce you to my good friend and former customer, a hardware retailer, who will be seeking to arrange the purchase of hardware inventory from you on credit. If you will let him have the goods, I will make good any loss up to $25,000 in the event of his default.

/Signed/ manufacturer.
The hardware retailer presented the letter to the hardware wholesaler, who then sold and delivered $20,000 worth of hardware to the hardware retailer on credit. The hardware wholesaler promptly notified the manufacturer of this sale.

Which of the following is NOT an accurate statement concerning the arrangement between the manufacturer and the hardware wholesaler?

A. It was important to enforceability of the manufacturer's promise to the hardware wholesaler that it be embodied in a signed writing.
B. By extending the credit to the hardware retailer, the hardware wholesaler effectively accepted the manufacturer's offer for a unilateral contract.
C. Although the manufacturer received no consideration from the hardware retailer, the manufacturer's promise is enforceable by the hardware wholesaler.
D. The manufacturer's promise is enforceable by the hardware wholesaler whether or not the hardware wholesaler gave the manufacturer seasonable notice of the extension of credit to the hardware retailer.



Answer D is correct. An offer for a unilateral contract seeks acceptance by performance and not a return promise. In order for the acceptance to be effective, however, the offeree must give seasonable notice of acceptance to the promisor where the offeree has reason to know that the offeror will not learn of the acceptance without notice. The manufacturer's offer to the hardware wholesaler is an offer to enter a unilateral contract because the manufacturer does not seek a return commitment from the hardware wholesaler but rather for the wholesaler to provide credit to the hardware retailer. Because the hardware wholesaler lives far from the manufacturer, however, he has reason to know that the manufacturer will not learn of his acceptance unless he gives notice, and therefore the hardware wholesaler must give notice of the extension of credit to the hardware retailer.

A, B and C are incorrect because they are each accurate statements: the manufacturer's promise to guarantee the debt falls within the surety clause of the statute of frauds, the hardware wholesaler's extension of credit to the hardware retailer effected an acceptance of an offer for a unilateral contract, and the manufacturer's promise is enforceable by the hardware wholesaler notwithstanding the fact that the hardware retailer provided no consideration, because the consideration was furnished by the hardware wholesaler.


I think it's because it can only be accepted by performance. He "accepts" the offer to pay him back by beginning to inform; notice isn't needed.

For the consideration issue, separate consideration is not needed for a surety contract. The original contract provides it.

SchneefaLongoria
Posts: 16
Joined: Mon Dec 23, 2013 4:15 am

Re: Adaptibar user hangout - July 2017

Postby SchneefaLongoria » Fri Jul 14, 2017 3:00 pm

I didn't like the explanation given, so can anyone confirm either interpretation of this question? I initially thought that even if there was a violation of the RAP in the second part of the conveyance, the language of the "residential purposes" requirement made it seem like the landowner would still end up getting the property through the possibility of reverter (hence, why I still thought A was wrong). But after thinking about it a little more, I'm thinking either

1) the fact that the landowner gave himself/his heirs the contingent remainder (that is void under the RAP), he lost/waived the possibility of reverter.

OR

2) the language of the conveyance without the provision voided by RAP is just a fee simple absolute, and the niece can do whatever she wants with the property.

[+] Spoiler
Three years ago a landowner conveyed Blackacre to his niece for $50,000 by a deed that provided: "By accepting this deed, [the niece] covenants for herself, her heirs and assigns, that the premises herein conveyed shall be used solely for residential purposes and, if the premises are used for nonresidential purposes, the landowner, his heirs and assigns, shall have the right to repurchase the premises for the sum of one thousand dollars ($1,000)." In order to pay the $50,000 purchase price for Blackacre, the niece obtained a $35,000 mortgage loan from the bank. The landowner had full knowledge of the mortgage transaction. The deed and mortgage were promptly and properly recorded in proper sequence. The mortgage, however, made no reference to the quoted language in the deed.

Two years ago the niece converted her use of Blackacre from residential to commercial without the knowledge or consent of the landowner or of the bank. The niece's commercial venture failed, and the niece defaulted on her mortgage payments to the bank. Blackacre now has a fair market value of $25,000.

The bank began appropriate foreclosure proceedings against the niece. The landowner properly intervened, tendered $1,000, and sought judgment that the niece and the bank be ordered to convey Blackacre to the landowner, free and clear of the mortgage.

The common law Rule Against Perpetuities is unmodified by statute.

If the court rules against the landowner, it will be because

A. the provision quoted from the deed violates the Rule Against Perpetuities.

B. the bank had no actual knowledge of, and did not consent to, the violation of the covenant.

C. the rights reserved by the landowner were subordinated, by necessary implication, to the rights of the bank as the lender of the purchase money.

D. the consideration of $1,000 was inadequate.

User avatar
TheSpanishMain
Posts: 4737
Joined: Tue Apr 02, 2013 2:26 pm

Re: Adaptibar user hangout - July 2017

Postby TheSpanishMain » Fri Jul 14, 2017 3:11 pm

Anyone else feel like they're backsliding on AB a bit? I was having some really good days where I would go 80%, and now I'm struggling to maintain 70%+. I can't tell if the questions are getting harder or if I'm getting dumber.

DCESQ
Posts: 52
Joined: Mon Jan 19, 2015 8:27 pm

Re: Adaptibar user hangout - July 2017

Postby DCESQ » Fri Jul 14, 2017 3:19 pm

TheSpanishMain wrote:Anyone else feel like they're backsliding on AB a bit? I was having some really good days where I would go 80%, and now I'm struggling to maintain 70%+. I can't tell if the questions are getting harder or if I'm getting dumber.


There's a feature on AB that allows you to see the percentage of people who answered the question correctly. I'm not sure if that was based on the actual test or on AB users, but there are some questions with pretty low percentages. I think the lowest I've seen is 14%, but I've seen plenty in the 20s and 30s. It made me feel a little better that I wasn't missing easy questions at least.

User avatar
okaygo
Posts: 775
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2013 1:23 pm

Re: Adaptibar user hangout - July 2017

Postby okaygo » Fri Jul 14, 2017 3:21 pm

TheSpanishMain wrote:Anyone else feel like they're backsliding on AB a bit? I was having some really good days where I would go 80%, and now I'm struggling to maintain 70%+. I can't tell if the questions are getting harder or if I'm getting dumber.


Had a day like that yesterday so I'm doing only MEE practice today. I think the software is pulling a Barbri and asking the tough questions now that we're closer to the exam. Take a OPE if you want a confidence boost and you'll probably do wonderful.

User avatar
TheSpanishMain
Posts: 4737
Joined: Tue Apr 02, 2013 2:26 pm

Re: Adaptibar user hangout - July 2017

Postby TheSpanishMain » Fri Jul 14, 2017 3:32 pm

okaygo wrote:
TheSpanishMain wrote:Take a OPE if you want a confidence boost and you'll probably do wonderful.


A what now?

User avatar
okaygo
Posts: 775
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2013 1:23 pm

Re: Adaptibar user hangout - July 2017

Postby okaygo » Fri Jul 14, 2017 3:40 pm

TheSpanishMain wrote:
okaygo wrote:
TheSpanishMain wrote:Take a OPE if you want a confidence boost and you'll probably do wonderful.


A what now?


You'll find it under the NCBE Practice Exam tabs. I believe they're half of a previous examination.

User avatar
TheSpanishMain
Posts: 4737
Joined: Tue Apr 02, 2013 2:26 pm

Re: Adaptibar user hangout - July 2017

Postby TheSpanishMain » Fri Jul 14, 2017 3:45 pm

Awesome, thanks.

User avatar
bda
Posts: 55
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2017 9:14 am

Re: Adaptibar user hangout - July 2017

Postby bda » Fri Jul 14, 2017 3:49 pm

DCESQ wrote:
TheSpanishMain wrote:Anyone else feel like they're backsliding on AB a bit? I was having some really good days where I would go 80%, and now I'm struggling to maintain 70%+. I can't tell if the questions are getting harder or if I'm getting dumber.


There's a feature on AB that allows you to see the percentage of people who answered the question correctly. I'm not sure if that was based on the actual test or on AB users, but there are some questions with pretty low percentages. I think the lowest I've seen is 14%, but I've seen plenty in the 20s and 30s. It made me feel a little better that I wasn't missing easy questions at least.


I got one that had 8% correct (Civ Pro 1644). That was a fun question.

User avatar
barkschool
Posts: 905
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2015 12:05 am

Re: Adaptibar user hangout - July 2017

Postby barkschool » Fri Jul 14, 2017 4:17 pm

SchneefaLongoria wrote:I didn't like the explanation given, so can anyone confirm either interpretation of this question? I initially thought that even if there was a violation of the RAP in the second part of the conveyance, the language of the "residential purposes" requirement made it seem like the landowner would still end up getting the property through the possibility of reverter (hence, why I still thought A was wrong). But after thinking about it a little more, I'm thinking either

1) the fact that the landowner gave himself/his heirs the contingent remainder (that is void under the RAP), he lost/waived the possibility of reverter.

OR

2) the language of the conveyance without the provision voided by RAP is just a fee simple absolute, and the niece can do whatever she wants with the property.

[+] Spoiler
Three years ago a landowner conveyed Blackacre to his niece for $50,000 by a deed that provided: "By accepting this deed, [the niece] covenants for herself, her heirs and assigns, that the premises herein conveyed shall be used solely for residential purposes and, if the premises are used for nonresidential purposes, the landowner, his heirs and assigns, shall have the right to repurchase the premises for the sum of one thousand dollars ($1,000)." In order to pay the $50,000 purchase price for Blackacre, the niece obtained a $35,000 mortgage loan from the bank. The landowner had full knowledge of the mortgage transaction. The deed and mortgage were promptly and properly recorded in proper sequence. The mortgage, however, made no reference to the quoted language in the deed.

Two years ago the niece converted her use of Blackacre from residential to commercial without the knowledge or consent of the landowner or of the bank. The niece's commercial venture failed, and the niece defaulted on her mortgage payments to the bank. Blackacre now has a fair market value of $25,000.

The bank began appropriate foreclosure proceedings against the niece. The landowner properly intervened, tendered $1,000, and sought judgment that the niece and the bank be ordered to convey Blackacre to the landowner, free and clear of the mortgage.

The common law Rule Against Perpetuities is unmodified by statute.

If the court rules against the landowner, it will be because

A. the provision quoted from the deed violates the Rule Against Perpetuities.

B. the bank had no actual knowledge of, and did not consent to, the violation of the covenant.

C. the rights reserved by the landowner were subordinated, by necessary implication, to the rights of the bank as the lender of the purchase money.

D. the consideration of $1,000 was inadequate.


Right of first refusals always violate the RAP where it can be triggered by an heir.

A ROFR is okay in an ascertainable person.

The difference is that the second type ROFR counts the designated ascertainable person as a measuring life. The right to refuse will or will not vest within their life. Therefore it would be valid.

In this case, he gives a ROFR to his heirs therefore the landowner cannot exercise an invalid option.

User avatar
de minimis
Posts: 91
Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2015 7:48 pm

Re: Adaptibar user hangout - July 2017

Postby de minimis » Sat Jul 15, 2017 12:54 am

Crim Pro question:

[+] Spoiler
A man entered the police station and announced that he wanted to confess to a murder. The police advised the man of his Miranda rights, and the man signed a written waiver. The man described the murder in detail and pinpointed the location where a murder victim had been found a few weeks before. Later, a court-appointed psychiatrist determined that the man was suffering from a serious mental illness that interfered with his ability to make rational choices and to understand his rights and that the psychosis had induced his confession.

The man's confession is


A. admissible, because there was no coercive police conduct in obtaining the man's statement.

B. admissible, because the man was not in custody.

C. inadmissible, because the man's confession was a product of his mental illness and was therefore involuntary.

D. inadmissible, because under these circumstances, there was no valid waiver of Miranda warnings.


Can anyone explain why the answer to this is A and not B. Seems like they are testing custodial interrogation here. How is coercion even at issue under these facts? I'm missing some piece of this.

User avatar
t-14orbust
Posts: 2123
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 4:43 pm

Re: Adaptibar user hangout - July 2017

Postby t-14orbust » Sat Jul 15, 2017 1:06 am

de minimis wrote:Crim Pro question:

[+] Spoiler
A man entered the police station and announced that he wanted to confess to a murder. The police advised the man of his Miranda rights, and the man signed a written waiver. The man described the murder in detail and pinpointed the location where a murder victim had been found a few weeks before. Later, a court-appointed psychiatrist determined that the man was suffering from a serious mental illness that interfered with his ability to make rational choices and to understand his rights and that the psychosis had induced his confession.

The man's confession is


A. admissible, because there was no coercive police conduct in obtaining the man's statement.

B. admissible, because the man was not in custody.

C. inadmissible, because the man's confession was a product of his mental illness and was therefore involuntary.

D. inadmissible, because under these circumstances, there was no valid waiver of Miranda warnings.


Can anyone explain why the answer to this is A and not B. Seems like they are testing custodial interrogation here. How is coercion even at issue under these facts? I'm missing some piece of this.


They're testing on whether or not the man's confession was voluntary. There are facts that suggest he may have involuntarily given his confession because of his illness. However, what really matters is whether the voluntariness is affected by coercive police conduct, not mental illness. Therefore, because the confession was not the result of coercive police conduct, it was voluntary and cannot be suppressed.

For even more reason that B is wrong, it states that the man waived his Miranda rights. Even if he was in custody, the confession would still be admissible so long as it was voluntary.

bballbb02
Posts: 86
Joined: Fri Nov 18, 2016 8:45 pm

Re: Adaptibar user hangout - July 2017

Postby bballbb02 » Sat Jul 15, 2017 6:06 pm

barkschool wrote:
SchneefaLongoria wrote:I didn't like the explanation given, so can anyone confirm either interpretation of this question? I initially thought that even if there was a violation of the RAP in the second part of the conveyance, the language of the "residential purposes" requirement made it seem like the landowner would still end up getting the property through the possibility of reverter (hence, why I still thought A was wrong). But after thinking about it a little more, I'm thinking either

1) the fact that the landowner gave himself/his heirs the contingent remainder (that is void under the RAP), he lost/waived the possibility of reverter.

OR

2) the language of the conveyance without the provision voided by RAP is just a fee simple absolute, and the niece can do whatever she wants with the property.

[+] Spoiler
Three years ago a landowner conveyed Blackacre to his niece for $50,000 by a deed that provided: "By accepting this deed, [the niece] covenants for herself, her heirs and assigns, that the premises herein conveyed shall be used solely for residential purposes and, if the premises are used for nonresidential purposes, the landowner, his heirs and assigns, shall have the right to repurchase the premises for the sum of one thousand dollars ($1,000)." In order to pay the $50,000 purchase price for Blackacre, the niece obtained a $35,000 mortgage loan from the bank. The landowner had full knowledge of the mortgage transaction. The deed and mortgage were promptly and properly recorded in proper sequence. The mortgage, however, made no reference to the quoted language in the deed.

Two years ago the niece converted her use of Blackacre from residential to commercial without the knowledge or consent of the landowner or of the bank. The niece's commercial venture failed, and the niece defaulted on her mortgage payments to the bank. Blackacre now has a fair market value of $25,000.

The bank began appropriate foreclosure proceedings against the niece. The landowner properly intervened, tendered $1,000, and sought judgment that the niece and the bank be ordered to convey Blackacre to the landowner, free and clear of the mortgage.

The common law Rule Against Perpetuities is unmodified by statute.

If the court rules against the landowner, it will be because

A. the provision quoted from the deed violates the Rule Against Perpetuities.

B. the bank had no actual knowledge of, and did not consent to, the violation of the covenant.

C. the rights reserved by the landowner were subordinated, by necessary implication, to the rights of the bank as the lender of the purchase money.

D. the consideration of $1,000 was inadequate.


Right of first refusals always violate the RAP where it can be triggered by an heir.

A ROFR is okay in an ascertainable person.

The difference is that the second type ROFR counts the designated ascertainable person as a measuring life. The right to refuse will or will not vest within their life. Therefore it would be valid.

In this case, he gives a ROFR to his heirs therefore the landowner cannot exercise an invalid option.



Are options to purchase the same thing as right of first refusal?

User avatar
Yazzzay
Posts: 289
Joined: Tue Oct 01, 2013 8:08 pm

Re: Adaptibar user hangout - July 2017

Postby Yazzzay » Sat Jul 15, 2017 9:36 pm

Not that we should be preparing to fail but I bought adaptibar and have been riding through it with 2 driving factors: 1) I must be learning something, despite my percentage barely moving now that I'm over 800 questions, and 2) if I fail I can retake adaptibar with over 1'300 questions complete. Then just now I decide to double check that, and NOPE you have to have 70%+ on the questions. How many people fail with 70%+ on those 1'300 questions, I doubt not as many as people with % below! Literally so demotivating because I'm pretty sure I can get everything right from this point on and reaching 70% would be difficult if not impossible.

User avatar
WestWingWatcher
Posts: 176
Joined: Mon Dec 23, 2013 5:08 pm

Re: Adaptibar user hangout - July 2017

Postby WestWingWatcher » Sat Jul 15, 2017 10:11 pm

Yazzzay wrote:Not that we should be preparing to fail but I bought adaptibar and have been riding through it with 2 driving factors: 1) I must be learning something, despite my percentage barely moving now that I'm over 800 questions, and 2) if I fail I can retake adaptibar with over 1'300 questions complete. Then just now I decide to double check that, and NOPE you have to have 70%+ on the questions. How many people fail with 70%+ on those 1'300 questions, I doubt not as many as people with % below! Literally so demotivating because I'm pretty sure I can get everything right from this point on and reaching 70% would be difficult if not impossible.


what

User avatar
ndbigdave
Posts: 233
Joined: Tue Nov 24, 2015 12:25 am

Re: Adaptibar user hangout - July 2017

Postby ndbigdave » Sat Jul 15, 2017 10:31 pm

WestWingWatcher wrote:
Yazzzay wrote:Not that we should be preparing to fail but I bought adaptibar and have been riding through it with 2 driving factors: 1) I must be learning something, despite my percentage barely moving now that I'm over 800 questions, and 2) if I fail I can retake adaptibar with over 1'300 questions complete. Then just now I decide to double check that, and NOPE you have to have 70%+ on the questions. How many people fail with 70%+ on those 1'300 questions, I doubt not as many as people with % below! Literally so demotivating because I'm pretty sure I can get everything right from this point on and reaching 70% would be difficult if not impossible.


what


I think the complaint is a person is using the program without seeing any benefit, but in the back of his/her mind they are thinking - "ok, this may not help me and I may not get all the way through it this time BUT I can try this again, perhaps starting earlier next time!" Only to find out that the Adaptibar "gaurantee" is really difficult to achieve - and I agree.

Though I fully endorse the program, I am using it for the first time this year (after using BarMax is the past and enjoying it) I will agree that the guarantee is a big shoddy, bordering on not even worth offering. 70% accumulative is a pretty high threshold, not only do you have to get through all 1750 questions (which for many people doing a traditional bar program would be a chore, but for someone like me who is using AB as a core component without another program relatively simple if you start early enough) but you must score 70%+ I can feel the frustration for someone who maybe didnt do their due dilligence in reading the promise.

Id be really curious to see how many people hit the threshold - I am aware of at least one person who appears to have reached that number on these boards, and based off of the National/State numbers I see through the program very, very few people are at an accumulative score of 70%+ which means very, very few get the guarantee of using the program again.

That all said, I am using it, I enjoy it, I endorse it and I feel very confident about the score I should get in just over a week, but when thinking about the guarantee/promise that Adaptibar offers it is pretty weak and applicable to a very finite set of students.

User avatar
WestWingWatcher
Posts: 176
Joined: Mon Dec 23, 2013 5:08 pm

Re: Adaptibar user hangout - July 2017

Postby WestWingWatcher » Sat Jul 15, 2017 10:40 pm

ndbigdave wrote:
WestWingWatcher wrote:
Yazzzay wrote:Not that we should be preparing to fail but I bought adaptibar and have been riding through it with 2 driving factors: 1) I must be learning something, despite my percentage barely moving now that I'm over 800 questions, and 2) if I fail I can retake adaptibar with over 1'300 questions complete. Then just now I decide to double check that, and NOPE you have to have 70%+ on the questions. How many people fail with 70%+ on those 1'300 questions, I doubt not as many as people with % below! Literally so demotivating because I'm pretty sure I can get everything right from this point on and reaching 70% would be difficult if not impossible.


what


I think the complaint is a person is using the program without seeing any benefit, but in the back of his/her mind they are thinking - "ok, this may not help me and I may not get all the way through it this time BUT I can try this again, perhaps starting earlier next time!" Only to find out that the Adaptibar "gaurantee" is really difficult to achieve - and I agree.

Though I fully endorse the program, I am using it for the first time this year (after using BarMax is the past and enjoying it) I will agree that the guarantee is a big shoddy, bordering on not even worth offering. 70% accumulative is a pretty high threshold, not only do you have to get through all 1750 questions (which for many people doing a traditional bar program would be a chore, but for someone like me who is using AB as a core component without another program relatively simple if you start early enough) but you must score 70%+ I can feel the frustration for someone who maybe didnt do their due dilligence in reading the promise.

Id be really curious to see how many people hit the threshold - I am aware of at least one person who appears to have reached that number on these boards, and based off of the National/State numbers I see through the program very, very few people are at an accumulative score of 70%+ which means very, very few get the guarantee of using the program again.

That all said, I am using it, I enjoy it, I endorse it and I feel very confident about the score I should get in just over a week, but when thinking about the guarantee/promise that Adaptibar offers it is pretty weak and applicable to a very finite set of students.


Whoa, I had no idea there was such a high threshold. I didn't look into it, b/c imminent failure wasn't a consideration when I purchased Adaptibar, but I guess I just assume you could automatically use it again if you failed. Requiring someone to hit 70% correct in order to benefit from the guarantor seems to be almost no guarantee at all, given that someone who has that score would almost certainly pass. I can't be upset b/c the guarantor didn't really cross my mind until I saw this post to begin with, but I do sympathize to those who had the rug pulled out from under them with these crazy terms.

User avatar
Yazzzay
Posts: 289
Joined: Tue Oct 01, 2013 8:08 pm

Re: Adaptibar user hangout - July 2017

Postby Yazzzay » Sun Jul 16, 2017 12:08 am

WestWingWatcher wrote:
ndbigdave wrote:
WestWingWatcher wrote:
Yazzzay wrote:Not that we should be preparing to fail but I bought adaptibar and have been riding through it with 2 driving factors: 1) I must be learning something, despite my percentage barely moving now that I'm over 800 questions, and 2) if I fail I can retake adaptibar with over 1'300 questions complete. Then just now I decide to double check that, and NOPE you have to have 70%+ on the questions. How many people fail with 70%+ on those 1'300 questions, I doubt not as many as people with % below! Literally so demotivating because I'm pretty sure I can get everything right from this point on and reaching 70% would be difficult if not impossible.


what


I think the complaint is a person is using the program without seeing any benefit, but in the back of his/her mind they are thinking - "ok, this may not help me and I may not get all the way through it this time BUT I can try this again, perhaps starting earlier next time!" Only to find out that the Adaptibar "gaurantee" is really difficult to achieve - and I agree.

Though I fully endorse the program, I am using it for the first time this year (after using BarMax is the past and enjoying it) I will agree that the guarantee is a big shoddy, bordering on not even worth offering. 70% accumulative is a pretty high threshold, not only do you have to get through all 1750 questions (which for many people doing a traditional bar program would be a chore, but for someone like me who is using AB as a core component without another program relatively simple if you start early enough) but you must score 70%+ I can feel the frustration for someone who maybe didnt do their due dilligence in reading the promise.

Id be really curious to see how many people hit the threshold - I am aware of at least one person who appears to have reached that number on these boards, and based off of the National/State numbers I see through the program very, very few people are at an accumulative score of 70%+ which means very, very few get the guarantee of using the program again.

That all said, I am using it, I enjoy it, I endorse it and I feel very confident about the score I should get in just over a week, but when thinking about the guarantee/promise that Adaptibar offers it is pretty weak and applicable to a very finite set of students.


Whoa, I had no idea there was such a high threshold. I didn't look into it, b/c imminent failure wasn't a consideration when I purchased Adaptibar, but I guess I just assume you could automatically use it again if you failed. Requiring someone to hit 70% correct in order to benefit from the guarantor seems to be almost no guarantee at all, given that someone who has that score would almost certainly pass. I can't be upset b/c the guarantor didn't really cross my mind until I saw this post to begin with, but I do sympathize to those who had the rug pulled out from under them with these crazy terms.


That's the thing- I obviously didn't go in even considering the fact that I might fail but with each passing day it just feels more and more possible. I don't think 70%+ should count as a guarantee at all- I THOUGHT I had read on the site and elsewhere you had to complete about 3/4 of the questions and you could retake, and that's why I just happened to double check it for the exact number and read the 70%+ thing.

So sorry- I'm not trying to be debby downer, I know we can all pass!

nsv
Posts: 47
Joined: Tue May 31, 2011 3:36 pm

Re: Adaptibar user hangout - July 2017

Postby nsv » Sun Jul 16, 2017 2:22 pm

ndbigdave wrote:
WestWingWatcher wrote:
Yazzzay wrote:Not that we should be preparing to fail but I bought adaptibar and have been riding through it with 2 driving factors: 1) I must be learning something, despite my percentage barely moving now that I'm over 800 questions, and 2) if I fail I can retake adaptibar with over 1'300 questions complete. Then just now I decide to double check that, and NOPE you have to have 70%+ on the questions. How many people fail with 70%+ on those 1'300 questions, I doubt not as many as people with % below! Literally so demotivating because I'm pretty sure I can get everything right from this point on and reaching 70% would be difficult if not impossible.


what


I think the complaint is a person is using the program without seeing any benefit, but in the back of his/her mind they are thinking - "ok, this may not help me and I may not get all the way through it this time BUT I can try this again, perhaps starting earlier next time!" Only to find out that the Adaptibar "gaurantee" is really difficult to achieve - and I agree.

Though I fully endorse the program, I am using it for the first time this year (after using BarMax is the past and enjoying it) I will agree that the guarantee is a big shoddy, bordering on not even worth offering. 70% accumulative is a pretty high threshold, not only do you have to get through all 1750 questions (which for many people doing a traditional bar program would be a chore, but for someone like me who is using AB as a core component without another program relatively simple if you start early enough) but you must score 70%+ I can feel the frustration for someone who maybe didnt do their due dilligence in reading the promise.

Id be really curious to see how many people hit the threshold - I am aware of at least one person who appears to have reached that number on these boards, and based off of the National/State numbers I see through the program very, very few people are at an accumulative score of 70%+ which means very, very few get the guarantee of using the program again.

That all said, I am using it, I enjoy it, I endorse it and I feel very confident about the score I should get in just over a week, but when thinking about the guarantee/promise that Adaptibar offers it is pretty weak and applicable to a very finite set of students.


Agreed...It's not impossible but definitely harder than a lot of people may have contemplated. Personally, AB has allowed me to learn how the rules are tested. If you have a keen eye for patterns, after doing a 1,000 questions you can see how the bar likes to test certain rules.

http://imgur.com/a/LbV1F
Last edited by nsv on Sun Jul 16, 2017 4:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Brobot
Posts: 19
Joined: Wed Aug 19, 2015 11:35 am

Re: Adaptibar user hangout - July 2017

Postby Brobot » Sun Jul 16, 2017 2:55 pm

nsv wrote:
ndbigdave wrote:
WestWingWatcher wrote:
Yazzzay wrote:Not that we should be preparing to fail but I bought adaptibar and have been riding through it with 2 driving factors: 1) I must be learning something, despite my percentage barely moving now that I'm over 800 questions, and 2) if I fail I can retake adaptibar with over 1'300 questions complete. Then just now I decide to double check that, and NOPE you have to have 70%+ on the questions. How many people fail with 70%+ on those 1'300 questions, I doubt not as many as people with % below! Literally so demotivating because I'm pretty sure I can get everything right from this point on and reaching 70% would be difficult if not impossible.


what


I think the complaint is a person is using the program without seeing any benefit, but in the back of his/her mind they are thinking - "ok, this may not help me and I may not get all the way through it this time BUT I can try this again, perhaps starting earlier next time!" Only to find out that the Adaptibar "gaurantee" is really difficult to achieve - and I agree.

Though I fully endorse the program, I am using it for the first time this year (after using BarMax is the past and enjoying it) I will agree that the guarantee is a big shoddy, bordering on not even worth offering. 70% accumulative is a pretty high threshold, not only do you have to get through all 1750 questions (which for many people doing a traditional bar program would be a chore, but for someone like me who is using AB as a core component without another program relatively simple if you start early enough) but you must score 70%+ I can feel the frustration for someone who maybe didnt do their due dilligence in reading the promise.

Id be really curious to see how many people hit the threshold - I am aware of at least one person who appears to have reached that number on these boards, and based off of the National/State numbers I see through the program very, very few people are at an accumulative score of 70%+ which means very, very few get the guarantee of using the program again.

That all said, I am using it, I enjoy it, I endorse it and I feel very confident about the score I should get in just over a week, but when thinking about the guarantee/promise that Adaptibar offers it is pretty weak and applicable to a very finite set of students.


Agreed...It's not impossible but definitely harder than a lot of people may have contemplated. Personally, AB has allowed me to learn how the rules are tested. If you have a keen eye for patterns, after doing a 1,000 questions you can see how the bar likes to test certain rules.

http://imgur.com/a/93yyB


I do not recommend Adaptibar.

[Previous post edited after being contacted by Adaptibar.]
Last edited by Brobot on Wed Aug 09, 2017 6:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.

nsv
Posts: 47
Joined: Tue May 31, 2011 3:36 pm

Re: Adaptibar user hangout - July 2017

Postby nsv » Sun Jul 16, 2017 4:26 pm

Brobot wrote:
nsv wrote:
ndbigdave wrote:
WestWingWatcher wrote:
Yazzzay wrote:Not that we should be preparing to fail but I bought adaptibar and have been riding through it with 2 driving factors: 1) I must be learning something, despite my percentage barely moving now that I'm over 800 questions, and 2) if I fail I can retake adaptibar with over 1'300 questions complete. Then just now I decide to double check that, and NOPE you have to have 70%+ on the questions. How many people fail with 70%+ on those 1'300 questions, I doubt not as many as people with % below! Literally so demotivating because I'm pretty sure I can get everything right from this point on and reaching 70% would be difficult if not impossible.


what


I think the complaint is a person is using the program without seeing any benefit, but in the back of his/her mind they are thinking - "ok, this may not help me and I may not get all the way through it this time BUT I can try this again, perhaps starting earlier next time!" Only to find out that the Adaptibar "gaurantee" is really difficult to achieve - and I agree.

Though I fully endorse the program, I am using it for the first time this year (after using BarMax is the past and enjoying it) I will agree that the guarantee is a big shoddy, bordering on not even worth offering. 70% accumulative is a pretty high threshold, not only do you have to get through all 1750 questions (which for many people doing a traditional bar program would be a chore, but for someone like me who is using AB as a core component without another program relatively simple if you start early enough) but you must score 70%+ I can feel the frustration for someone who maybe didnt do their due dilligence in reading the promise.

Id be really curious to see how many people hit the threshold - I am aware of at least one person who appears to have reached that number on these boards, and based off of the National/State numbers I see through the program very, very few people are at an accumulative score of 70%+ which means very, very few get the guarantee of using the program again.

That all said, I am using it, I enjoy it, I endorse it and I feel very confident about the score I should get in just over a week, but when thinking about the guarantee/promise that Adaptibar offers it is pretty weak and applicable to a very finite set of students.


Agreed...It's not impossible but definitely harder than a lot of people may have contemplated. Personally, AB has allowed me to learn how the rules are tested. If you have a keen eye for patterns, after doing a 1,000 questions you can see how the bar likes to test certain rules.

http://imgur.com/a/93yyB


Wow, that number of completed questions... Nice work grinding through those Qs.

I noticed in the guarantee fine print that it specifies "original questions" - I assume that means your first attempt at a given question in the database? [If so, I'm guessing they use that to prevent people from just repeating questions to boost above their minimum 70% threshold.]


Thanks, I'm giving it my all so I never (emphasis) have to go through this again. My schedule for the past 10 weeks has been to complete 50+ mcs, write out at least 4 essays, and spend a few hours memorizing rules of law.

In regards to the fine print, from my understanding, the 70% threshold should be based on your overall performance.

So burned out...never again

Brobot
Posts: 19
Joined: Wed Aug 19, 2015 11:35 am

Re: Adaptibar user hangout - July 2017

Postby Brobot » Sun Jul 16, 2017 4:31 pm

nsv wrote:
brobot wrote:
nsv wrote:
ndbigdave wrote:
WestWingWatcher wrote:
Yazzzay wrote:Not that we should be preparing to fail but I bought adaptibar and have been riding through it with 2 driving factors: 1) I must be learning something, despite my percentage barely moving now that I'm over 800 questions, and 2) if I fail I can retake adaptibar with over 1'300 questions complete. Then just now I decide to double check that, and NOPE you have to have 70%+ on the questions. How many people fail with 70%+ on those 1'300 questions, I doubt not as many as people with % below! Literally so demotivating because I'm pretty sure I can get everything right from this point on and reaching 70% would be difficult if not impossible.


what


I think the complaint is a person is using the program without seeing any benefit, but in the back of his/her mind they are thinking - "ok, this may not help me and I may not get all the way through it this time BUT I can try this again, perhaps starting earlier next time!" Only to find out that the Adaptibar "gaurantee" is really difficult to achieve - and I agree.

Though I fully endorse the program, I am using it for the first time this year (after using BarMax is the past and enjoying it) I will agree that the guarantee is a big shoddy, bordering on not even worth offering. 70% accumulative is a pretty high threshold, not only do you have to get through all 1750 questions (which for many people doing a traditional bar program would be a chore, but for someone like me who is using AB as a core component without another program relatively simple if you start early enough) but you must score 70%+ I can feel the frustration for someone who maybe didnt do their due dilligence in reading the promise.

Id be really curious to see how many people hit the threshold - I am aware of at least one person who appears to have reached that number on these boards, and based off of the National/State numbers I see through the program very, very few people are at an accumulative score of 70%+ which means very, very few get the guarantee of using the program again.

That all said, I am using it, I enjoy it, I endorse it and I feel very confident about the score I should get in just over a week, but when thinking about the guarantee/promise that Adaptibar offers it is pretty weak and applicable to a very finite set of students.


Agreed...It's not impossible but definitely harder than a lot of people may have contemplated. Personally, AB has allowed me to learn how the rules are tested. If you have a keen eye for patterns, after doing a 1,000 questions you can see how the bar likes to test certain rules.

http://imgur.com/a/93yyB


I do not recommend Adaptibar.

[Previous post edited after being contacted by Adaptibar.]


Thanks, I'm giving it my all so I never (emphasis) have to go through this again. My schedule for the past 10 weeks has been to complete 50+ mcs, write out at least 4 essays, and spend a few hours memorizing rules of law.

In regards to the fine print, from my understanding, the 70% threshold should be based on your overall performance.

So burned out...never again


I do not recommend Adaptibar.

[Previous post edited after being contacted by Adaptibar.]
Last edited by Brobot on Wed Aug 09, 2017 6:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.

musername
Posts: 18
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2016 4:22 pm

Re: Adaptibar user hangout - July 2017

Postby musername » Sun Jul 16, 2017 5:45 pm

Few questions re: adaptibar

1. Is there any way to do questions by subtopic? Or atleast to view past questions by subtopic?

2. Has anyone done questions second time around? I finished all the questions about a week ago and have been doing them a second time around. I feel like it's still ok because I can truly say I am still thinking about the questions. I don't feel like I am picking C because I remember C was the answer I put before. Thoughts about the value of doing questions 2nd time--- good way to reinforce rules or waste of time giving a false boost of confidence??

kcjlo10
Posts: 18
Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2013 6:49 am

Re: Adaptibar user hangout - July 2017

Postby kcjlo10 » Sun Jul 16, 2017 6:04 pm

Could someone please explain when character is an essential element of the crime or defense? I know there are obvious ones like defamation/truthfulness and child custody/violent tendencies, but what about something more grey like fraud/trustworthiness?

The question that sparked this question is:
A defendant was charged with the crime of defrauding the federal agency where he worked as an accountant. At trial, the court allowed the defendant to call his supervisor at the large corporation where he had previously worked, who testified about the defendant's good reputation in the community for honesty. Over objection, the defendant then sought to elicit testimony from his former supervisor that on several occasions the corporation had, without incident, entrusted him with large sums of money.

Should the testimony be admitted?


[+] Spoiler
B. No, because good character cannot be proved by specific instances of conduct unless character is an essential element of the charge or defense.
C. Yes, because it is evidence of a pertinent character trait offered by an accused.

B, and C seem to be the most logical answers. I thought it was C because honesty seemed to be an essential element, thus evidence of a pertinent character trait, and thus okay to introduce the evidence as a specific prior act.
Last edited by kcjlo10 on Mon Jul 17, 2017 2:11 am, edited 1 time in total.

RaceJudicata
Posts: 1606
Joined: Mon Jun 22, 2015 2:51 pm

Re: Adaptibar user hangout - July 2017

Postby RaceJudicata » Sun Jul 16, 2017 6:58 pm

musername wrote:Few questions re: adaptibar

1. Is there any way to do questions by subtopic? Or atleast to view past questions by subtopic?

2. Has anyone done questions second time around? I finished all the questions about a week ago and have been doing them a second time around. I feel like it's still ok because I can truly say I am still thinking about the questions. I don't feel like I am picking C because I remember C was the answer I put before. Thoughts about the value of doing questions 2nd time--- good way to reinforce rules or waste of time giving a false boost of confidence??


No info on 2.

As for 1.:

You can do questions by subtopic if you go to Questions --> Practice Exam --> Customized Practice Exam.

As for viewing questions by subtopic, go to Performance --> Past Questions --> make selections for the topics you want to see. Can see all questions, incorrect questions, or correct questions.




Return to “Bar Exam Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: adil91, nybar2017, ttix67 and 5 guests