Adaptibar user hangout - July 2017

Pearl
Posts: 5
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2007 3:12 am

Re: Adaptibar user hangout - July 2017

Postby Pearl » Thu Jul 27, 2017 7:54 pm

Adaptibar claims that they own all licensed and released MBE questions. Do they? For example, NCBE offers 4 sets from past exams, and two of them are from 2011 and 2013. Does it mean, that 1700 questions which Adaptibar offers include those questions NCBE questions?
My Adaptibar subscription ends in four days, I feel crappy about my MBE experience yesterday, so I am considering buying those two sets from NCBE in the nearest future.

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

Re: Adaptibar user hangout - July 2017

Postby unitball » Thu Jul 27, 2017 11:52 pm

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



I had the exact opposite experience actually. I did about 800 adaptibar questions total and felt like the MBE on Tuesday was way easier than any MBE set I'd ever done. But then again, maybe I totally bombed it.

6TimeFailure
Posts: 331
Joined: Sat Nov 21, 2015 5:27 am

Re: Adaptibar user hangout - July 2017

Postby 6TimeFailure » Fri Jul 28, 2017 4:24 pm

Woops, I didn't even see this thread. Here are my Adaptibar results:

viewtopic.php?f=41&t=280173

I started out at 67% correct for the first 350 questions of my MBE prep. I ended with 80% for the last 350 questions. So that's about a 13 point increase. Overall I have 73% correct over 2800 questions. I did all my practice in 50 to 80 question sets under timed conditions.

I feel that around 30% to 40% of this year's MBE were not similar to the licensed questions on Adaptibar. I felt the test was tougher overall, especially the morning session which I finished with 10 seconds left on the clock.. However, I finished 15 minutes early on the afternoon sessions. And I was not the only one. Probably 20% of the people in my hall walked out early in the afternoon. I stayed to review the questions though and changed two of my answers.

ConfusedL1
Posts: 233
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2015 6:53 pm

Re: Adaptibar user hangout - July 2017

Postby ConfusedL1 » Thu Aug 10, 2017 7:21 am

Brobot wrote:
barkschool wrote:Here's the question at issue with the answer:

[+] Spoiler
AB wrote:QUESTION:

An injured man brought a products liability case in state court in State A against the manufacturer of a drug that the man believes caused him injuries and against the retailer from whom the man bought the drug. The injured man is a citizen in State A. The manufacturer is a corporation that is incorporated in State B, has its sole manufacturing plant in State C, and holds the meetings of its board of directors in State A where they direct and control the corporation's activities. The retailer is a limited liability company that has its principal place of business in State A, but its owner-members are citizens of State E. The injured man seeks $100,000 in compensatory damages. The manufacturer and the retailer timely removed the case to the federal district court in State A. The injured man timely moved to remand the case back to state court. The district court is extremely busy with criminal cases and civil cases that arise under federal law.

Should the district court uphold the removal and retain the case, or remand the case to state court?

A. The district court should uphold the removal and retain the case because the injured man is diverse from both the manufacturer and the retailer, the amount in controversy required for diversity subject-matter jurisdiction is satisfied, the venue is proper, and all other requirements of the removal statutes have been met.
B. The district court should remand the case to state court because the injured man is not diverse from both the manufacturer and the retailer, and the court lacks any other basis of subject-matter jurisdiction.
C. In its discretion the district court should remand the case, even if it was properly removed, so that it can conserve its resources for criminal cases and civil cases that arise under federal law.
D. The district court should remand the case to state court. Although the injured man is diverse from both the manufacturer and the retailer, the amount in controversy required for diversity subject-matter jurisdiction is satisfied, and the venue is proper; the case should be remanded because either the manufacturer or the retailer, or both, are citizens of the state in which the action was brought.


I can't believe we're arguing about this, because if you take a look at the explanation it was a simple issue of whoever writing it getting a little excited with themselves. In context, the question really has nothing to do with HQ v. Nerve center.

The question tells you where all the parties are.

The injured man is a citizen in State A.

The manufacturer is a corporation that is incorporated in State B, has its sole manufacturing plant in State C, and holds the meetings of its board of directors in State A where they direct and control the corporation's activities.

The retailer is a limited liability company that has its principal place of business in State A, but its owner-members are citizens of State E

In context, the HQ v. nerve center distinction is silly.

[+] Spoiler
EXPLANATION:

B is correct. Here the parties are not diverse from one another because the injured man, and the manufacturer are citizens of State A. The plaintiff is domiciled in State A. A corporation is domiciled in both the state of incorporation, and the state of its principal place of business. A corporation's principal place of business is typically where it is headquartered. Therefore, the manufacturing corporation is domiciled in both State B, where it is incorporated, and State A where its board of directors sits. An unincorporated association, such as an LLC, however has different rules to determine its domicile. An unincorporated association is domiciled in every state in which its members are citizens. Therefore, the drug retailer is domiciled in State E.

A is incorrect. Here, there is no diversity jurisdiction between the parties because both the injured man and the drug manufacturer are co-citizens of State A.

C is incorrect. Even if the court had jurisdiction, it would lack authority to remand so that it could conserve its resources for federal question cases.

D is incorrect. Here, there is no diversity jurisdiction between the parties because both the injured man and the drug manufacturer are co-citizens of State A.


I do not recommend Adaptibar.

[Previous post edited after being contacted by Adaptibar.]


Why?

User avatar
Sprout
Posts: 632
Joined: Sun Nov 15, 2015 4:46 pm

Re: Adaptibar user hangout - July 2017

Postby Sprout » Fri Aug 11, 2017 12:59 pm

ConfusedL1 wrote:
Brobot wrote:
barkschool wrote:Here's the question at issue with the answer:

[+] Spoiler
AB wrote:QUESTION:

An injured man brought a products liability case in state court in State A against the manufacturer of a drug that the man believes caused him injuries and against the retailer from whom the man bought the drug. The injured man is a citizen in State A. The manufacturer is a corporation that is incorporated in State B, has its sole manufacturing plant in State C, and holds the meetings of its board of directors in State A where they direct and control the corporation's activities. The retailer is a limited liability company that has its principal place of business in State A, but its owner-members are citizens of State E. The injured man seeks $100,000 in compensatory damages. The manufacturer and the retailer timely removed the case to the federal district court in State A. The injured man timely moved to remand the case back to state court. The district court is extremely busy with criminal cases and civil cases that arise under federal law.

Should the district court uphold the removal and retain the case, or remand the case to state court?

A. The district court should uphold the removal and retain the case because the injured man is diverse from both the manufacturer and the retailer, the amount in controversy required for diversity subject-matter jurisdiction is satisfied, the venue is proper, and all other requirements of the removal statutes have been met.
B. The district court should remand the case to state court because the injured man is not diverse from both the manufacturer and the retailer, and the court lacks any other basis of subject-matter jurisdiction.
C. In its discretion the district court should remand the case, even if it was properly removed, so that it can conserve its resources for criminal cases and civil cases that arise under federal law.
D. The district court should remand the case to state court. Although the injured man is diverse from both the manufacturer and the retailer, the amount in controversy required for diversity subject-matter jurisdiction is satisfied, and the venue is proper; the case should be remanded because either the manufacturer or the retailer, or both, are citizens of the state in which the action was brought.


I can't believe we're arguing about this, because if you take a look at the explanation it was a simple issue of whoever writing it getting a little excited with themselves. In context, the question really has nothing to do with HQ v. Nerve center.

The question tells you where all the parties are.

The injured man is a citizen in State A.

The manufacturer is a corporation that is incorporated in State B, has its sole manufacturing plant in State C, and holds the meetings of its board of directors in State A where they direct and control the corporation's activities.

The retailer is a limited liability company that has its principal place of business in State A, but its owner-members are citizens of State E

In context, the HQ v. nerve center distinction is silly.

[+] Spoiler
EXPLANATION:

B is correct. Here the parties are not diverse from one another because the injured man, and the manufacturer are citizens of State A. The plaintiff is domiciled in State A. A corporation is domiciled in both the state of incorporation, and the state of its principal place of business. A corporation's principal place of business is typically where it is headquartered. Therefore, the manufacturing corporation is domiciled in both State B, where it is incorporated, and State A where its board of directors sits. An unincorporated association, such as an LLC, however has different rules to determine its domicile. An unincorporated association is domiciled in every state in which its members are citizens. Therefore, the drug retailer is domiciled in State E.

A is incorrect. Here, there is no diversity jurisdiction between the parties because both the injured man and the drug manufacturer are co-citizens of State A.

C is incorrect. Even if the court had jurisdiction, it would lack authority to remand so that it could conserve its resources for federal question cases.

D is incorrect. Here, there is no diversity jurisdiction between the parties because both the injured man and the drug manufacturer are co-citizens of State A.


I do not recommend Adaptibar.

[Previous post edited after being contacted by Adaptibar.]


Why?

adaptibar was rad.... Im confused what the issue with the above example is?

Brobot
Posts: 18
Joined: Wed Aug 19, 2015 11:35 am

Re: Adaptibar user hangout - July 2017

Postby Brobot » Fri Aug 11, 2017 1:26 pm

Sprout wrote:
ConfusedL1 wrote:
Brobot wrote:
barkschool wrote:Here's the question at issue with the answer:

[+] Spoiler
AB wrote:QUESTION:

An injured man brought a products liability case in state court in State A against the manufacturer of a drug that the man believes caused him injuries and against the retailer from whom the man bought the drug. The injured man is a citizen in State A. The manufacturer is a corporation that is incorporated in State B, has its sole manufacturing plant in State C, and holds the meetings of its board of directors in State A where they direct and control the corporation's activities. The retailer is a limited liability company that has its principal place of business in State A, but its owner-members are citizens of State E. The injured man seeks $100,000 in compensatory damages. The manufacturer and the retailer timely removed the case to the federal district court in State A. The injured man timely moved to remand the case back to state court. The district court is extremely busy with criminal cases and civil cases that arise under federal law.

Should the district court uphold the removal and retain the case, or remand the case to state court?

A. The district court should uphold the removal and retain the case because the injured man is diverse from both the manufacturer and the retailer, the amount in controversy required for diversity subject-matter jurisdiction is satisfied, the venue is proper, and all other requirements of the removal statutes have been met.
B. The district court should remand the case to state court because the injured man is not diverse from both the manufacturer and the retailer, and the court lacks any other basis of subject-matter jurisdiction.
C. In its discretion the district court should remand the case, even if it was properly removed, so that it can conserve its resources for criminal cases and civil cases that arise under federal law.
D. The district court should remand the case to state court. Although the injured man is diverse from both the manufacturer and the retailer, the amount in controversy required for diversity subject-matter jurisdiction is satisfied, and the venue is proper; the case should be remanded because either the manufacturer or the retailer, or both, are citizens of the state in which the action was brought.


I can't believe we're arguing about this, because if you take a look at the explanation it was a simple issue of whoever writing it getting a little excited with themselves. In context, the question really has nothing to do with HQ v. Nerve center.

The question tells you where all the parties are.

The injured man is a citizen in State A.

The manufacturer is a corporation that is incorporated in State B, has its sole manufacturing plant in State C, and holds the meetings of its board of directors in State A where they direct and control the corporation's activities.

The retailer is a limited liability company that has its principal place of business in State A, but its owner-members are citizens of State E

In context, the HQ v. nerve center distinction is silly.

[+] Spoiler
EXPLANATION:

B is correct. Here the parties are not diverse from one another because the injured man, and the manufacturer are citizens of State A. The plaintiff is domiciled in State A. A corporation is domiciled in both the state of incorporation, and the state of its principal place of business. A corporation's principal place of business is typically where it is headquartered. Therefore, the manufacturing corporation is domiciled in both State B, where it is incorporated, and State A where its board of directors sits. An unincorporated association, such as an LLC, however has different rules to determine its domicile. An unincorporated association is domiciled in every state in which its members are citizens. Therefore, the drug retailer is domiciled in State E.

A is incorrect. Here, there is no diversity jurisdiction between the parties because both the injured man and the drug manufacturer are co-citizens of State A.

C is incorrect. Even if the court had jurisdiction, it would lack authority to remand so that it could conserve its resources for federal question cases.

D is incorrect. Here, there is no diversity jurisdiction between the parties because both the injured man and the drug manufacturer are co-citizens of State A.


I do not recommend Adaptibar.

[Previous post edited after being contacted by Adaptibar.]


Why?

adaptibar was rad.... Im confused what the issue with the above example is?


Glad you had a good experience. I personally did not have a positive experience with the company, so I chose to remove anything I had written previously that could be considered a recommendation or endorsement of their product. That's all. Apologies to those who received an e-mail notification as a result of those edited posts.

User avatar
barkschool
Posts: 858
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2015 12:05 am

Re: Adaptibar user hangout - July 2017

Postby barkschool » Fri Aug 11, 2017 11:32 pm

Brobot wrote:
Glad you had a good experience. I personally did not have a positive experience with the company, so I chose to remove anything I had written previously that could be considered a recommendation or endorsement of their product. That's all. Apologies to those who received an e-mail notification as a result of those edited posts.


could u describe your experience?

that would probably be most helpful to people who read this for future bars

InterAlia1961
Posts: 133
Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2017 3:32 pm

Re: Adaptibar user hangout - July 2017

Postby InterAlia1961 » Mon Aug 14, 2017 8:25 am

For what it's worth, I've taken this beast four times now. I noticed a change this time. First, the copyright-it was 2016 this time, not 2014. There were many new questions that looked similar to the ones we've all seen on whichever MBE prep course we used. However, this time, the questions were worded slightly different. The incorrect answers were worded exactly the same, though, identical to the ones in the bar prep material. I saw several of these, where the fact pattern was almost exactly the same as what I saw on Adaptibar, Kaplan, and Barbri, as well as the older released exams which I have copies of. All totaled, I've done over 4000 questions. Here's the truth about the MBE. You have to know the law and know it well. You also have to RTFQ (read the the 'effing question.) The MBE tests your knowledge of the law and your ability to read critically.

We'll have some idea of how things are trending when the results start to come out.




Return to “Bar Exam Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: cho8583, jacketyellow and 3 guests