Is anyone else finding practice SQE questions that are badly written and omitting key information necessary in order to make a reasonable judgement, even in reputable legal education books?
There is supposed to be a level of ambiguity in the possible answers that is designed to test our problem-solving and legal reasoning skills, of course. But I have seen more than one question which - in the explanation of the correct answer provided - assumes an awareness of specific facts about a case (not legal knowledge) that are not provided by the question.
Here is an example:
"A party was organised which took place in the woods. Starting at 11pm, the party continued for 12 hours and thousands of people attended. DJs played loud music, and attendees parked cars along the roads to the woods. There were no toilets or litter bins in the woods."
"What is the court's approach likely to be when considering if the party organiser created a public nuisance?"
The correct answer is: "The court is likely to find that the organiser created a public nuisance on the basis that noise and inconvenience affected the locals."
All the other answers are wrong, and not all of them assume that a claim has been brought by a particular person or class of people.
The problem is that the scenario contains no mention of any "locals", let alone their proximity to the party, attitude toward the event, or position in respect to a possible claim. So, when considering the question the reader immediately excludes this (correct) answer because it refers to specific information which is not taken for granted in the premise of the question. Public nuisance claims may be brought by individuals, classes or the Attorney General, but none of these possibilities are contextualised by the MCQ in a way which leads to the correct answer.
Has anyone else seen this kind of mistake in SQE question construction?
There is supposed to be a level of ambiguity in the possible answers that is designed to test our problem-solving and legal reasoning skills, of course. But I have seen more than one question which - in the explanation of the correct answer provided - assumes an awareness of specific facts about a case (not legal knowledge) that are not provided by the question.
Here is an example:
"A party was organised which took place in the woods. Starting at 11pm, the party continued for 12 hours and thousands of people attended. DJs played loud music, and attendees parked cars along the roads to the woods. There were no toilets or litter bins in the woods."
"What is the court's approach likely to be when considering if the party organiser created a public nuisance?"
The correct answer is: "The court is likely to find that the organiser created a public nuisance on the basis that noise and inconvenience affected the locals."
All the other answers are wrong, and not all of them assume that a claim has been brought by a particular person or class of people.
The problem is that the scenario contains no mention of any "locals", let alone their proximity to the party, attitude toward the event, or position in respect to a possible claim. So, when considering the question the reader immediately excludes this (correct) answer because it refers to specific information which is not taken for granted in the premise of the question. Public nuisance claims may be brought by individuals, classes or the Attorney General, but none of these possibilities are contextualised by the MCQ in a way which leads to the correct answer.
Has anyone else seen this kind of mistake in SQE question construction?
