Took a Paddlin' from Barbri MPQ Sets 5 and 6
Posted: Wed Feb 08, 2017 11:40 pm
Scores were all over the place in these sets. I performed above the goals in Civ Pro and Torts, but took a beating in Evidence. The answer explanations feel like they're really pushing the boundaries of rule exceptions. I guess that's the idea, but wow. Getting around 40% correct in evidence was so demoralizing. Going through the questions, I'd click an answer I was almost certain to be correct, only to be smacked with a big red X.
"Explanation: Answer C is correct because although XYZ, ABC is also true. Generally, when ABC, DEF applies and would make D the correct answer. However, DEF doesn't apply in cases where GHI is true. There is likely enough evidence here for a court to find that GHI is true, so D is incorrect."
What's frustrating is that I feel like I understand the rule and the exception during as I'm reading the question. Then I'll see an answer choice that hints at an exception to the exception that is either completely foreign to me, or is unfamiliar enough that I don't know whether it applies. And I think, "That looks interesting...but it could be a trap. Do I take the bait?"
On the bright side, I've learned more specific exceptions that frustrated me so much, I'm unlikely to forget them. I'll probably never forget that a prosecutor in a criminal trial for homicide is not a predecessor in interest to the plaintiff against the same defendant in a later civil wrongful death action for purposes of former testimony exception, despite having the same motive and opportunity to cross.
"Explanation: Answer C is correct because although XYZ, ABC is also true. Generally, when ABC, DEF applies and would make D the correct answer. However, DEF doesn't apply in cases where GHI is true. There is likely enough evidence here for a court to find that GHI is true, so D is incorrect."
What's frustrating is that I feel like I understand the rule and the exception during as I'm reading the question. Then I'll see an answer choice that hints at an exception to the exception that is either completely foreign to me, or is unfamiliar enough that I don't know whether it applies. And I think, "That looks interesting...but it could be a trap. Do I take the bait?"
On the bright side, I've learned more specific exceptions that frustrated me so much, I'm unlikely to forget them. I'll probably never forget that a prosecutor in a criminal trial for homicide is not a predecessor in interest to the plaintiff against the same defendant in a later civil wrongful death action for purposes of former testimony exception, despite having the same motive and opportunity to cross.