Babri Torts Forum

[S. Goodman]

Alright, I have to ask; I'm not sure whether I'm just dumb or what here. I certainly more than understand the law of torts, and the black letter law, but for some reason the Barbri torts questions are kicking my butt, I'm around something like 60% correct. What's the deal?

The questions and answers seem to always be written so bizarrely. When I read the facts I know immeidley what's being tested and can recite the elements, but the answers they say are right always leave me saying "wtf? The law is this and your answer makes no sense" Lol and a lot of the times the explanations for the answers are just a recitation of the elements, and then a brisk legal conclusion, it seems like it always gets down to two answers, and the answer is something open to a reasonable argument, like whether this is foreseeable or not, or whether the behavior is reasonable under the circumstances etc.. The questions and answers with torts seem to be so poorly written!

Anyone else getting this, or am I just dumb on this topic and don't realize it?

[mvp99]

I wrote this in another thread and people seem to agree with me.

"2-3 crim questions for today (set 4) are ridiculously bad. Especially the one dealing with premeditated murder. There's no way we'll have a similar fact pattern on the bar exam with that kind of fuzzy definition, especially when there's real inconsistent case law out there. I don't want to give any spoilers here but if you agree let me know. I know one of Barbri's strategies is to make us think we suck so we end up studying more than we have to but this is just ridiculous."

[speed_the_loot]

.

[sublime]

Hard to say how accurate it is, but barbri's rep seems to be to "scare you into passing"

[S. Goodman]

Thanks for the replies, and sorry for the typo's!