Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Facebook
Twitter
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forum Home
Law Firms
Wiki
Events
Deadlines
Members
Leaderboards
Apply to Paul, Weiss
Premium Database
TCLA Premium:
Now half price (£30/month). Applications, interviews, commercial awareness + 700+ examples.
Join →
Forum Home
Aspiring Lawyers - Applications & General Advice
Solicitors Qualifying Exam (SQE) Forum
Badly written SQE questions
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="WillKitchen" data-source="post: 217075" data-attributes="member: 41829"><p>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? </p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>Here is an example:</p><p></p><p>"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."</p><p></p><p>"What is the court's approach likely to be when considering if the party organiser created a public nuisance?"</p><p></p><p>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." </p><p></p><p>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. </p><p></p><p>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. </p><p></p><p>Has anyone else seen this kind of mistake in SQE question construction?</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="WillKitchen, post: 217075, member: 41829"] 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? [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Our company is called, "The Corporate ___ Academy". What is the missing word here?
Post reply
Forum Home
Aspiring Lawyers - Applications & General Advice
Solicitors Qualifying Exam (SQE) Forum
Badly written SQE questions
Top
Bottom
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…