Adaptibar user hangout - July 2017

User avatar
Yazzzay
Posts: 285
Joined: Tue Oct 01, 2013 8:08 pm

Re: Adaptibar user hangout - July 2017

Postby Yazzzay » Thu Jul 20, 2017 1:36 pm

Hey- sorry if this one has been asked before:

A businessman had title to Brownacre in fee simple. Without the businessman's knowledge, a nearby farmer entered Brownacre in 1980 and constructed an earthen dam across a watercourse. The earthen dam trapped water that the farmer used to water a herd of cattle he owned. After twelve years of possession of Brownacre, the farmer gave possession of Brownacre to his oldest son. At the same time, the farmer also purported to transfer his cattle and all his interests in the dam and water to his son by a document that was sufficient as a bill of sale to transfer personal property but was insufficient as a deed to transfer real property.

One year later, the son entered into a lease with the businessman to lease Brownacre for a period of five years. After the end of the five-year term of the lease, the son remained on Brownacre for an additional three years and then left Brownacre. At that time the businessman conveyed Brownacre by a quitclaim deed to a friend. The period of time to acquire title by adverse possession in the jurisdiction is ten years.

After the businessman's conveyance to the friend, title to Brownacre was in
A. the farmer.
B. the businessman.
C. the son.
D. the businessman's friend.


Answer:
[+] Spoiler
A! I think/thought I understand AP, but I thought it was B because while the farmer may have used a small portion of the property I thought it had to be use like that of a normal property owner. He took one small section, from what I understand. The son still resided on brownacre during this.
Can anyone explain?

User avatar
t-14orbust
Posts: 2120
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 4:43 pm

Re: Adaptibar user hangout - July 2017

Postby t-14orbust » Thu Jul 20, 2017 1:41 pm

Yazzzay wrote:Hey- sorry if this one has been asked before:

A businessman had title to Brownacre in fee simple. Without the businessman's knowledge, a nearby farmer entered Brownacre in 1980 and constructed an earthen dam across a watercourse. The earthen dam trapped water that the farmer used to water a herd of cattle he owned. After twelve years of possession of Brownacre the farmer gave possession of Brownacre to his oldest son. At the same time, the farmer also purported to transfer his cattle and all his interests in the dam and water to his son by a document that was sufficient as a bill of sale to transfer personal property but was insufficient as a deed to transfer real property.

One year later, the son entered into a lease with the businessman to lease Brownacre for a period of five years. After the end of the five-year term of the lease, the son remained on Brownacre for an additional three years and then left Brownacre. At that time the businessman conveyed Brownacre by a quitclaim deed to a friend. The period of time to acquire title by adverse possession in the jurisdiction is ten years.

After the businessman's conveyance to the friend, title to Brownacre was in
A. the farmer.
B. the businessman.
C. the son.
D. the businessman's friend.


Answer:
[+] Spoiler
A! I think/thought I understand AP, but I thought it was B because while the farmer may have used a small portion of the property I thought it had to be use like that of a normal property owner. He took one small section, from what I understand. The son still resided on brownacre during this.
Can anyone explain?


See bolded. Your suspicion would be right if it said after 12 years of possession of the small earthen dam on a small portion of brown acre. It says he possessed the entire estate. Dude was herding cattle there.

He took possession for 12 years giving him AP, after which, he gave possession to his son (even if it was adverse in businessmans favor because of rent, wouldn't meet the statutory period of 10 years because only 5 were under the lease and only 3 more which likely weren't even adverse because the farmer "gave" possession)

ConfusedL1
Posts: 252
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2015 6:53 pm

Re: Adaptibar user hangout - July 2017

Postby ConfusedL1 » Thu Jul 20, 2017 1:54 pm

t-14orbust wrote:
Yazzzay wrote:Hey- sorry if this one has been asked before:

A businessman had title to Brownacre in fee simple. Without the businessman's knowledge, a nearby farmer entered Brownacre in 1980 and constructed an earthen dam across a watercourse. The earthen dam trapped water that the farmer used to water a herd of cattle he owned. After twelve years of possession of Brownacre the farmer gave possession of Brownacre to his oldest son. At the same time, the farmer also purported to transfer his cattle and all his interests in the dam and water to his son by a document that was sufficient as a bill of sale to transfer personal property but was insufficient as a deed to transfer real property.

One year later, the son entered into a lease with the businessman to lease Brownacre for a period of five years. After the end of the five-year term of the lease, the son remained on Brownacre for an additional three years and then left Brownacre. At that time the businessman conveyed Brownacre by a quitclaim deed to a friend. The period of time to acquire title by adverse possession in the jurisdiction is ten years.

After the businessman's conveyance to the friend, title to Brownacre was in
A. the farmer.
B. the businessman.
C. the son.
D. the businessman's friend.


Answer:
[+] Spoiler
A! I think/thought I understand AP, but I thought it was B because while the farmer may have used a small portion of the property I thought it had to be use like that of a normal property owner. He took one small section, from what I understand. The son still resided on brownacre during this.
Can anyone explain?


See bolded. Your suspicion would be right if it said after 12 years of possession of the small earthen dam on a small portion of brown acre. It says he possessed the entire estate. Dude was herding cattle there.

He took possession for 12 years giving him AP, after which, he gave possession to his son (even if it was adverse in businessmans favor because of rent, wouldn't meet the statutory period of 10 years because only 5 were under the lease and only 3 more which likely weren't even adverse because the farmer "gave" possession)


So are we just supossed to assume exclusive possession? It's extremely annoying when there aren't enough facts to support a necessary element.

User avatar
barkschool
Posts: 881
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2015 12:05 am

Re: Adaptibar user hangout - July 2017

Postby barkschool » Thu Jul 20, 2017 2:20 pm

dam avg question answered shot to 700 in the last week

ConfusedL1
Posts: 252
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2015 6:53 pm

Re: Adaptibar user hangout - July 2017

Postby ConfusedL1 » Thu Jul 20, 2017 2:39 pm

Can some one explain how the employer exception to defemation per se interacts with former employers who make statements without knowledge of falsity or malice?

IN QUESTION 857 - TORTS - OTHER TORTS, is the reason the employer is covered under the per se categories because he is a CURRENT and not a PAST employee? Super tricky.

GGMcSwift
Posts: 22
Joined: Wed Jun 10, 2015 12:19 am

Re: Adaptibar user hangout - July 2017

Postby GGMcSwift » Thu Jul 20, 2017 5:35 pm

I don't understand this one at all.

QUESTION:

Congress provides by statute that any state that fails to prohibit automobile speeds of over 55 miles per hour on highways within the state shall be denied all federal highway construction funding. One of the richest ]and most highway-oriented states in the country refuses to enact such a statute.

The federal statute relating to disbursement of highway funds conditioned on the 55 mile-an-hour speed limit is probably

A. unconstitutional.
B. constitutional only on the basis of the spending power.
C. constitutional only on the basis of the commerce power.
D. constitutional on the basis of both the spending power and the commerce power.

[+] Spoiler
EXPLANATION:

D is the correct answer. Under the Commerce Clause, Congress may regulate the channels of interstate commerce, which would include the federal highway system. Additionally, Congress may regulate through spending as long as there is a nexus between the general welfare, the imposed condition, and the purpose of the federal funds. A speed limit of 55 miles per hour is reasonably related to highway safety, and the funds are for highway repair. Therefore, the statute is constitutional under both powers.

A is incorrect because the statute is constitutional. B is incorrect because the Commerce Clause gives Congress broad power to regulate federal highways, a means of interstate commerce. C is incorrect because the spending power gives Congress broad power to determine how federal funds are spent for the general welfare.


[+] Spoiler
This fact pattern is very similar to South Dakota v. Dole (the case involving states raising the drinking age to 21 or 5% of fed. highway money would be withheld), and that was held Constitutional because there was a nexus AND BECAUSE it was NOT unduly coercive. Other than knowing "it's a rich state," which could mean anything, how could we know this is not unduly coercive? It seems by definition just that.
Moreover, I don't get how this is Constitutional under the Commerce Clause. Sure highways are an instrumentality of interstate commerce but congress isn't regulating highways here, it's forcing states to do so. It's a spending issue. Indeed, the Commerce Clause wasn't mentioned in South Dakota v. Dole at all.

User avatar
ndbigdave
Posts: 224
Joined: Tue Nov 24, 2015 12:25 am

Re: Adaptibar user hangout - July 2017

Postby ndbigdave » Thu Jul 20, 2017 5:39 pm

GGMcSwift wrote:I don't understand this one at all.

QUESTION:

Congress provides by statute that any state that fails to prohibit automobile speeds of over 55 miles per hour on highways within the state shall be denied all federal highway construction funding. One of the richest ]and most highway-oriented states in the country refuses to enact such a statute.

The federal statute relating to disbursement of highway funds conditioned on the 55 mile-an-hour speed limit is probably

A. unconstitutional.
B. constitutional only on the basis of the spending power.
C. constitutional only on the basis of the commerce power.
D. constitutional on the basis of both the spending power and the commerce power.

[+] Spoiler
EXPLANATION:

D is the correct answer. Under the Commerce Clause, Congress may regulate the channels of interstate commerce, which would include the federal highway system. Additionally, Congress may regulate through spending as long as there is a nexus between the general welfare, the imposed condition, and the purpose of the federal funds. A speed limit of 55 miles per hour is reasonably related to highway safety, and the funds are for highway repair. Therefore, the statute is constitutional under both powers.

A is incorrect because the statute is constitutional. B is incorrect because the Commerce Clause gives Congress broad power to regulate federal highways, a means of interstate commerce. C is incorrect because the spending power gives Congress broad power to determine how federal funds are spent for the general welfare.


[+] Spoiler
This fact pattern is very similar to South Dakota v. Dole (the case involving states raising the drinking age to 21 or 5% of fed. highway money would be withheld), and that was held Constitutional because there was a nexus AND BECAUSE it was NOT unduly coercive. Other than knowing "it's a rich state," which could mean anything, how could we know this is not unduly coercive? It seems by definition just that.
Moreover, I don't get how this is Constitutional under the Commerce Clause. Sure highways are an instrumentality of interstate commerce but congress isn't regulating highways here, it's forcing states to do so. It's a spending issue. Indeed, the Commerce Clause wasn't mentioned in South Dakota v. Dole at all.


Simply stated there would be authority in congress under either the spending power which is BROAD whereby congress can dangle funds on a stick, they cannot force a state to pass certain laws, but they can entice them to do so with funding.

Secondly, remember that congress on the commerce clause, which is also BROAD, can control the INSTRUMENTALITIES of commerce - which would be federal, interstate highways.

Therefore there is authority under both constitutional clauses.

GGMcSwift
Posts: 22
Joined: Wed Jun 10, 2015 12:19 am

Re: Adaptibar user hangout - July 2017

Postby GGMcSwift » Thu Jul 20, 2017 5:48 pm

ndbigdave wrote:
GGMcSwift wrote:I don't understand this one at all.

QUESTION:

Congress provides by statute that any state that fails to prohibit automobile speeds of over 55 miles per hour on highways within the state shall be denied all federal highway construction funding. One of the richest ]and most highway-oriented states in the country refuses to enact such a statute.

The federal statute relating to disbursement of highway funds conditioned on the 55 mile-an-hour speed limit is probably

A. unconstitutional.
B. constitutional only on the basis of the spending power.
C. constitutional only on the basis of the commerce power.
D. constitutional on the basis of both the spending power and the commerce power.

[+] Spoiler
EXPLANATION:

D is the correct answer. Under the Commerce Clause, Congress may regulate the channels of interstate commerce, which would include the federal highway system. Additionally, Congress may regulate through spending as long as there is a nexus between the general welfare, the imposed condition, and the purpose of the federal funds. A speed limit of 55 miles per hour is reasonably related to highway safety, and the funds are for highway repair. Therefore, the statute is constitutional under both powers.

A is incorrect because the statute is constitutional. B is incorrect because the Commerce Clause gives Congress broad power to regulate federal highways, a means of interstate commerce. C is incorrect because the spending power gives Congress broad power to determine how federal funds are spent for the general welfare.


[+] Spoiler
This fact pattern is very similar to South Dakota v. Dole (the case involving states raising the drinking age to 21 or 5% of fed. highway money would be withheld), and that was held Constitutional because there was a nexus AND BECAUSE it was NOT unduly coercive. Other than knowing "it's a rich state," which could mean anything, how could we know this is not unduly coercive? It seems by definition just that.
Moreover, I don't get how this is Constitutional under the Commerce Clause. Sure highways are an instrumentality of interstate commerce but congress isn't regulating highways here, it's forcing states to do so. It's a spending issue. Indeed, the Commerce Clause wasn't mentioned in South Dakota v. Dole at all.


Simply stated there would be authority in congress under either the spending power which is BROAD whereby congress can dangle funds on a stick, they cannot force a state to pass certain laws, but they can entice them to do so with funding.

Secondly, remember that congress on the commerce clause, which is also BROAD, can control the INSTRUMENTALITIES of commerce - which would be federal, interstate highways.

Therefore there is authority under both constitutional clauses.


No. Read my spoiler. They may only entice them if the grant/withholding of funding is not unduly coercive. And again, they are not making a law regulating the instrumentalities of commerce--they are making the states make such a law. Not the same.

User avatar
Percival Jenkins
Posts: 75
Joined: Wed Aug 08, 2012 6:07 pm

Re: Adaptibar user hangout - July 2017

Postby Percival Jenkins » Thu Jul 20, 2017 5:51 pm

ndbigdave wrote:
GGMcSwift wrote:I don't understand this one at all.

QUESTION:

Congress provides by statute that any state that fails to prohibit automobile speeds of over 55 miles per hour on highways within the state shall be denied all federal highway construction funding. One of the richest ]and most highway-oriented states in the country refuses to enact such a statute.

The federal statute relating to disbursement of highway funds conditioned on the 55 mile-an-hour speed limit is probably

A. unconstitutional.
B. constitutional only on the basis of the spending power.
C. constitutional only on the basis of the commerce power.
D. constitutional on the basis of both the spending power and the commerce power.

[+] Spoiler
EXPLANATION:

D is the correct answer. Under the Commerce Clause, Congress may regulate the channels of interstate commerce, which would include the federal highway system. Additionally, Congress may regulate through spending as long as there is a nexus between the general welfare, the imposed condition, and the purpose of the federal funds. A speed limit of 55 miles per hour is reasonably related to highway safety, and the funds are for highway repair. Therefore, the statute is constitutional under both powers.

A is incorrect because the statute is constitutional. B is incorrect because the Commerce Clause gives Congress broad power to regulate federal highways, a means of interstate commerce. C is incorrect because the spending power gives Congress broad power to determine how federal funds are spent for the general welfare.


[+] Spoiler
This fact pattern is very similar to South Dakota v. Dole (the case involving states raising the drinking age to 21 or 5% of fed. highway money would be withheld), and that was held Constitutional because there was a nexus AND BECAUSE it was NOT unduly coercive. Other than knowing "it's a rich state," which could mean anything, how could we know this is not unduly coercive? It seems by definition just that.
Moreover, I don't get how this is Constitutional under the Commerce Clause. Sure highways are an instrumentality of interstate commerce but congress isn't regulating highways here, it's forcing states to do so. It's a spending issue. Indeed, the Commerce Clause wasn't mentioned in South Dakota v. Dole at all.


Simply stated there would be authority in congress under either the spending power which is BROAD whereby congress can dangle funds on a stick, they cannot force a state to pass certain laws, but they can entice them to do so with funding.

Secondly, remember that congress on the commerce clause, which is also BROAD, can control the INSTRUMENTALITIES of commerce - which would be federal, interstate highways.

Therefore there is authority under both constitutional clauses.


Did this same questions and chose C. I think while South Dakota v. Dole is relevant, 5% versus all funds is different. Additionally, it would seem that the Spending Clause argument would be invalid because of NFIB v. Sebelius, where Congress conditioned all receipt of Medicaid funds on expansion of Medicaid. SCOTUS struck it down under the Spending Clause. A friend reached out to Adaptibar about this and the gave an answer that did not quite satisfy our concerns about the Sebelius case. Probably proper under the CC because Congress can regulate the channels of commerce, which includes highways.

User avatar
ndbigdave
Posts: 224
Joined: Tue Nov 24, 2015 12:25 am

Re: Adaptibar user hangout - July 2017

Postby ndbigdave » Thu Jul 20, 2017 6:02 pm

Percival Jenkins wrote:
ndbigdave wrote:
GGMcSwift wrote:I don't understand this one at all.

QUESTION:

Congress provides by statute that any state that fails to prohibit automobile speeds of over 55 miles per hour on highways within the state shall be denied all federal highway construction funding. One of the richest ]and most highway-oriented states in the country refuses to enact such a statute.

The federal statute relating to disbursement of highway funds conditioned on the 55 mile-an-hour speed limit is probably

A. unconstitutional.
B. constitutional only on the basis of the spending power.
C. constitutional only on the basis of the commerce power.
D. constitutional on the basis of both the spending power and the commerce power.

[+] Spoiler
EXPLANATION:

D is the correct answer. Under the Commerce Clause, Congress may regulate the channels of interstate commerce, which would include the federal highway system. Additionally, Congress may regulate through spending as long as there is a nexus between the general welfare, the imposed condition, and the purpose of the federal funds. A speed limit of 55 miles per hour is reasonably related to highway safety, and the funds are for highway repair. Therefore, the statute is constitutional under both powers.

A is incorrect because the statute is constitutional. B is incorrect because the Commerce Clause gives Congress broad power to regulate federal highways, a means of interstate commerce. C is incorrect because the spending power gives Congress broad power to determine how federal funds are spent for the general welfare.


[+] Spoiler
This fact pattern is very similar to South Dakota v. Dole (the case involving states raising the drinking age to 21 or 5% of fed. highway money would be withheld), and that was held Constitutional because there was a nexus AND BECAUSE it was NOT unduly coercive. Other than knowing "it's a rich state," which could mean anything, how could we know this is not unduly coercive? It seems by definition just that.
Moreover, I don't get how this is Constitutional under the Commerce Clause. Sure highways are an instrumentality of interstate commerce but congress isn't regulating highways here, it's forcing states to do so. It's a spending issue. Indeed, the Commerce Clause wasn't mentioned in South Dakota v. Dole at all.


Simply stated there would be authority in congress under either the spending power which is BROAD whereby congress can dangle funds on a stick, they cannot force a state to pass certain laws, but they can entice them to do so with funding.

Secondly, remember that congress on the commerce clause, which is also BROAD, can control the INSTRUMENTALITIES of commerce - which would be federal, interstate highways.

Therefore there is authority under both constitutional clauses.


Did this same questions and chose C. I think while South Dakota v. Dole is relevant, 5% versus all funds is different. Additionally, it would seem that the Spending Clause argument would be invalid because of NFIB v. Sebelius, where Congress conditioned all receipt of Medicaid funds on expansion of Medicaid. SCOTUS struck it down under the Spending Clause. A friend reached out to Adaptibar about this and the gave an answer that did not quite satisfy our concerns about the Sebelius case. Probably proper under the CC because Congress can regulate the channels of commerce, which includes highways.


You may very well be correct, but remember this question was likely created and test pre Sebelius. I suppose the mention of the state being rich is what gets it over the hurdle of not being unduly coercive? I would also argue it may be a case where you are over analyzing and assuming facts not in the pattern - there is no reference being too coercive (perhaps if it made mention to the state being poor or desperately needing funds?) As to Commerce Clause (CC), this is an insanely broad power AND the underlying statute here IS a Federal law, the first four words are "Congress provides by statute..." so this is a mix of spending power and CC.

User avatar
Percival Jenkins
Posts: 75
Joined: Wed Aug 08, 2012 6:07 pm

Re: Adaptibar user hangout - July 2017

Postby Percival Jenkins » Thu Jul 20, 2017 8:11 pm

ndbigdave wrote:
Percival Jenkins wrote:
ndbigdave wrote:
GGMcSwift wrote:I don't understand this one at all.

QUESTION:

Congress provides by statute that any state that fails to prohibit automobile speeds of over 55 miles per hour on highways within the state shall be denied all federal highway construction funding. One of the richest ]and most highway-oriented states in the country refuses to enact such a statute.

The federal statute relating to disbursement of highway funds conditioned on the 55 mile-an-hour speed limit is probably

A. unconstitutional.
B. constitutional only on the basis of the spending power.
C. constitutional only on the basis of the commerce power.
D. constitutional on the basis of both the spending power and the commerce power.

[+] Spoiler
EXPLANATION:

D is the correct answer. Under the Commerce Clause, Congress may regulate the channels of interstate commerce, which would include the federal highway system. Additionally, Congress may regulate through spending as long as there is a nexus between the general welfare, the imposed condition, and the purpose of the federal funds. A speed limit of 55 miles per hour is reasonably related to highway safety, and the funds are for highway repair. Therefore, the statute is constitutional under both powers.

A is incorrect because the statute is constitutional. B is incorrect because the Commerce Clause gives Congress broad power to regulate federal highways, a means of interstate commerce. C is incorrect because the spending power gives Congress broad power to determine how federal funds are spent for the general welfare.


[+] Spoiler
This fact pattern is very similar to South Dakota v. Dole (the case involving states raising the drinking age to 21 or 5% of fed. highway money would be withheld), and that was held Constitutional because there was a nexus AND BECAUSE it was NOT unduly coercive. Other than knowing "it's a rich state," which could mean anything, how could we know this is not unduly coercive? It seems by definition just that.
Moreover, I don't get how this is Constitutional under the Commerce Clause. Sure highways are an instrumentality of interstate commerce but congress isn't regulating highways here, it's forcing states to do so. It's a spending issue. Indeed, the Commerce Clause wasn't mentioned in South Dakota v. Dole at all.


Simply stated there would be authority in congress under either the spending power which is BROAD whereby congress can dangle funds on a stick, they cannot force a state to pass certain laws, but they can entice them to do so with funding.

Secondly, remember that congress on the commerce clause, which is also BROAD, can control the INSTRUMENTALITIES of commerce - which would be federal, interstate highways.

Therefore there is authority under both constitutional clauses.


Did this same questions and chose C. I think while South Dakota v. Dole is relevant, 5% versus all funds is different. Additionally, it would seem that the Spending Clause argument would be invalid because of NFIB v. Sebelius, where Congress conditioned all receipt of Medicaid funds on expansion of Medicaid. SCOTUS struck it down under the Spending Clause. A friend reached out to Adaptibar about this and the gave an answer that did not quite satisfy our concerns about the Sebelius case. Probably proper under the CC because Congress can regulate the channels of commerce, which includes highways.


You may very well be correct, but remember this question was likely created and test pre Sebelius. I suppose the mention of the state being rich is what gets it over the hurdle of not being unduly coercive? I would also argue it may be a case where you are over analyzing and assuming facts not in the pattern - there is no reference being too coercive (perhaps if it made mention to the state being poor or desperately needing funds?) As to Commerce Clause (CC), this is an insanely broad power AND the underlying statute here IS a Federal law, the first four words are "Congress provides by statute..." so this is a mix of spending power and CC.


I think we can all agree that these questions should test what we need to know, not what others should have known at the time the questions were given. It wouldnt take apadtibar much effort to update the question to reflect the new case. Additionally, rich or poor state is irrelevant. The test is based on the impact on state budgets. Cutting all highway funds is more analogous to cutting all Mediciad funds than it is to cutting 5% of highway funds.

sk1130
Posts: 37
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2017 12:41 pm

Re: Adaptibar user hangout - July 2017

Postby sk1130 » Fri Jul 21, 2017 5:46 pm

Procrastinating by trying to go into the exam knowing my average MBE percentage correct.

Are you guys relying on your overall percentage since you started the program? Or just this last month? Or even last two weeks?

For example, my overall percentage is 63% with 1,348 questions completed. But I started this back in May and I was, naturally, getting many wrong in the early weeks. I've been doing anywhere from 50-100 questions a day this week and my daily percentages range from 68-72%. Past two weeks has been 66% and this week alone 68.5%

In other words, I don't know how to bridge the gap in my mind from the overall 63% and the difference (albeit not very much, of the last two weeks).

User avatar
barkschool
Posts: 881
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2015 12:05 am

Re: Adaptibar user hangout - July 2017

Postby barkschool » Fri Jul 21, 2017 6:11 pm

sk1130 wrote:Procrastinating by trying to go into the exam knowing my average MBE percentage correct.

Are you guys relying on your overall percentage since you started the program? Or just this last month? Or even last two weeks?

For example, my overall percentage is 63% with 1,348 questions completed. But I started this back in May and I was, naturally, getting many wrong in the early weeks. I've been doing anywhere from 50-100 questions a day this week and my daily percentages range from 68-72%. Past two weeks has been 66% and this week alone 68.5%

In other words, I don't know how to bridge the gap in my mind from the overall 63% and the difference (albeit not very much, of the last two weeks).



have you gotten a higher number of questions correct lately than you did when you started to practice?

that's what you should be thinking about

User avatar
t-14orbust
Posts: 2120
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 4:43 pm

Re: Adaptibar user hangout - July 2017

Postby t-14orbust » Fri Jul 21, 2017 6:43 pm

sk1130 wrote:Procrastinating by trying to go into the exam knowing my average MBE percentage correct.

Are you guys relying on your overall percentage since you started the program? Or just this last month? Or even last two weeks?

For example, my overall percentage is 63% with 1,348 questions completed. But I started this back in May and I was, naturally, getting many wrong in the early weeks. I've been doing anywhere from 50-100 questions a day this week and my daily percentages range from 68-72%. Past two weeks has been 66% and this week alone 68.5%

In other words, I don't know how to bridge the gap in my mind from the overall 63% and the difference (albeit not very much, of the last two weeks).


I'm using overall average but mostly because I did 200 repeat questions over the 1750. Figure the last 200 balance out the first 200

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

Re: Adaptibar user hangout - July 2017

Postby bballbb02 » Fri Jul 21, 2017 11:02 pm

Are grounds of government buildings/courthouses public forums?? And what about classrooms and the sides of city buses and buildings?? Confusing

GGMcSwift
Posts: 22
Joined: Wed Jun 10, 2015 12:19 am

Re: Adaptibar user hangout - July 2017

Postby GGMcSwift » Sat Jul 22, 2017 4:10 pm

Well it took until three days before the exam, but I finally finished them all.

I'm not allowed to post pictures yet, but here are some links.


[img]http://i.imgur.com/xOm1qQ9.png

[img]http://i.imgur.com/OLPQfeJ.png

[+] Spoiler
At least I qualify for the full refund if I fail!!

zbv4
Posts: 11
Joined: Fri Feb 12, 2010 3:08 pm

Re: Adaptibar user hangout - July 2017

Postby zbv4 » Sun Jul 23, 2017 5:14 pm

I just finished all of the Adaptibar questions as well. 79.4% overall and 84.6% on the last phase of 350. I'm in a 50% MBE state, so I guess I should feel good going into Tuesday. But it's hard to shake the terror from feeling like I don't know (or at least haven't memorized) enough state law and am not well prepared for the essays...

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

Re: Adaptibar user hangout - July 2017

Postby kcjlo10 » Sun Jul 23, 2017 5:59 pm

Any international students here rolling their eyes at this question?

Pursuant to a state statute, a student applied for tuition assistance to attend the Institute of Liberal Arts. He was qualified for such assistance in every way except that he was a resident alien who did not intend to become a United States citizen. The state's restriction of such grants to United States citizens or resident aliens seeking such citizenship is probably.

A. valid, because aliens are not per se "a discrete and insular minority" specially protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.
B. valid, because the line drawn by the state for extending aid was reasonably related to a legitimate state interest.
C. invalid, because the justifications for this restriction are insufficient to overcome the burden imposed on a state when it uses such an alienage classification.
D. invalid, because the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV does not permit such an arbitrary classification.


[+] Spoiler
C is the correct answer. Classifications in state law based on alienage are suspect and must pass strict scrutiny. It is unlikely that whatever justification the state has for the classification will satisfy that burden. There is an exception to this standard when the state law discriminates against aliens participating in state government; in that case, rational basis is applied. However, that is not the case in this fact pattern because the individual is seeking tuition assistance, so strict scrutiny will apply.

[+] Spoiler
Answer is strange, given that in real life state laws do this as a matter of course. I don't know of a single government grant for tuition aid that's granted to international students, but I know that pretty much all of them are restricted to U.S. citizens.

RaceJudicata
Posts: 1585
Joined: Mon Jun 22, 2015 2:51 pm

Re: Adaptibar user hangout - July 2017

Postby RaceJudicata » Sun Jul 23, 2017 6:23 pm

Done w/ MBE practice (well, might to 10-15 questions tuesday night to stay fresh/warm up). Ended w/ 71% overall; 75% in last 350 questions. Feel good, not great.

Good luck everyone.

unitball
Posts: 80
Joined: Mon May 23, 2011 12:37 am

Re: Adaptibar user hangout - July 2017

Postby unitball » Thu Jul 27, 2017 6:01 am

GGMcSwift wrote:Well it took until three days before the exam, but I finally finished them all.

I'm not allowed to post pictures yet, but here are some links.


[img]http://i.imgur.com/xOm1qQ9.png

[img]http://i.imgur.com/OLPQfeJ.png

[+] Spoiler
At least I qualify for the full refund if I fail!!



Beastly.

GGMcSwift
Posts: 22
Joined: Wed Jun 10, 2015 12:19 am

Re: Adaptibar user hangout - July 2017

Postby GGMcSwift » Thu Jul 27, 2017 6:51 am

unitball wrote:
GGMcSwift wrote:Well it took until three days before the exam, but I finally finished them all.

I'm not allowed to post pictures yet, but here are some links.


[img]http://i.imgur.com/xOm1qQ9.png

[img]http://i.imgur.com/OLPQfeJ.png

[+] Spoiler
At least I qualify for the full refund if I fail!!



Beastly.


Not quite....

Anyone else think the MBE was significantly harder than the Adaptibar questions? I now feel cheated and stupid for not doing Barbri questions, and seriously question the legitimacy of the actual MBE questions AB supposedly offers

Babum
Posts: 203
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2013 5:55 pm

Re: Adaptibar user hangout - July 2017

Postby Babum » Thu Jul 27, 2017 6:55 am

GGMcSwift wrote:
unitball wrote:
GGMcSwift wrote:Well it took until three days before the exam, but I finally finished them all.

I'm not allowed to post pictures yet, but here are some links.


[img]http://i.imgur.com/xOm1qQ9.png

[img]http://i.imgur.com/OLPQfeJ.png

[+] Spoiler
At least I qualify for the full refund if I fail!!



Beastly.


Not quite....

Anyone else think the MBE was significantly harder than the Adaptibar questions? I now feel cheated and stupid for not doing Barbri questions, and seriously question the legitimacy of the actual MBE questions AB supposedly offers


If it helps, I did both and I still feel cheated

User avatar
cnk1220
Posts: 988
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2017 9:48 pm

Re: Adaptibar user hangout - July 2017

Postby cnk1220 » Thu Jul 27, 2017 10:47 am

Babum wrote:
GGMcSwift wrote:
unitball wrote:
GGMcSwift wrote:Well it took until three days before the exam, but I finally finished them all.

I'm not allowed to post pictures yet, but here are some links.


[img]http://i.imgur.com/xOm1qQ9.png

[img]http://i.imgur.com/OLPQfeJ.png

[+] Spoiler
At least I qualify for the full refund if I fail!!



Beastly.


Not quite....

Anyone else think the MBE was significantly harder than the Adaptibar questions? I now feel cheated and stupid for not doing Barbri questions, and seriously question the legitimacy of the actual MBE questions AB supposedly offers


If it helps, I did both and I still feel cheated


When I was preparing for the exam I did barbri and adaptibar, yes adaptibar is easier Qs because these are the released ones, there to give you a feel of how the exam Qs will be formatted, barbri is sometimes more difficult/longer but the Qs are nothing like the real exam. IMO the real exam ends up being a mix of a little of both, but nobody usually comes out feeling like a test prep company adequately prepared them for the MBE.

User avatar
Futuregohan14
Posts: 195
Joined: Mon Sep 02, 2013 10:41 pm

Re: Adaptibar user hangout - July 2017

Postby Futuregohan14 » Thu Jul 27, 2017 10:50 am

GGMcSwift wrote:
Not quite....

Anyone else think the MBE was significantly harder than the Adaptibar questions? I now feel cheated and stupid for not doing Barbri questions, and seriously question the legitimacy of the actual MBE questions AB supposedly offers


I did both. The Barbri questions were no more representative. Judging from the comments here and elsewhere online, pretty much nobody (Barbri, Adaptibar, Themis, etc) walked out of their test center feeling they were well prepared for that MBE.

Judging from what I've read and heard, these feelings about the MBE being unrepresentative and so on are normal every year. Nobody ever feels prepared. It's all out of our hands now, so just got to try and move on. Just take solace in the fact that if you're feeling not so good about this, you're in the same boat as just about everyone else...which means you're probably going to be ok.

Lawyerinwaiting89
Posts: 87
Joined: Sun Apr 09, 2017 7:53 am

Re: Adaptibar user hangout - July 2017

Postby Lawyerinwaiting89 » Thu Jul 27, 2017 5:36 pm

I took the last three administrations for different states (July 16, February 17, and now July 17). Each time (including yesterday) I left feeling crappy on MBE Day. I think just about everyone leaves feeling like they got hit by a bus. Same sentiment for the person who got a 110 and the person who got a 165. It's weird. But I've come to accept that I always feel like I'm guessing on like 70% of the exam. But in the end, most people do average and that's what you need. Most times you are guessing between two answers and statistically that should probably get you to average.

FWIW, there seemed to be a disproportionate amount of whacko civ pro questions, so I'm hoping a lot were experimental. I complained like many people that AdaptiBar's made up civ pro questions were not representative of real questions. Nevertheless, it's clear that the MBE is moving away from lots of easier SMJ and PJ questions so I guess it wasn't a total loss dealing with the harder and weirder ones. Not that it helped me much lol.




Return to “Bar Exam Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], kumako and 17 guests