THEMIS JULY 2018 - DISCUSSION Forum

[White Dwarf]

Holy crap at this question:

97% got it wrong! Granted, it's a super-obscure rule that runs contrary to most of what we've learned about damages.

[LawIsLyfe33]

http://www.ncbex.org/pdfviewer/?file=%2 ... ument%2F17

Just did these sample 21 questions directly from NCBE website. Not sure if any of you don't know about it but can get them done in 38 mins.

How'd you do on them? I only got 14/21.

I only got a 13/21. Yikes.

The fact patterns seem easier to get through but some of the concepts I just didn't off the top of my head know if that makes sense.

hoping these were hard questions, because i only got 13/21 too.

I got a 13/21 as well. Why is everyone extremely upset with a 13? 62% is not end of the world...

[BasilHallward]

http://www.ncbex.org/pdfviewer/?file=%2 ... ument%2F17

Just did these sample 21 questions directly from NCBE website. Not sure if any of you don't know about it but can get them done in 38 mins.

How'd you do on them? I only got 14/21.

I only got a 13/21. Yikes.

The fact patterns seem easier to get through but some of the concepts I just didn't off the top of my head know if that makes sense.

hoping these were hard questions, because i only got 13/21 too.

I got a 13/21 as well. Why is everyone extremely upset with a 13? 62% is not end of the world...

17/21. I felt very comfortable with those questions, except for the common law conspiracy. I'll never get that stuff.

[Lawworld19]

I'm going to go do 25 out of the 200 new NCBE questions and report back how I do.

[Tala29]

http://www.ncbex.org/pdfviewer/?file=%2 ... ument%2F17

Just did these sample 21 questions directly from NCBE website. Not sure if any of you don't know about it but can get them done in 38 mins.

How'd you do on them? I only got 14/21.

I only got a 13/21. Yikes.

The fact patterns seem easier to get through but some of the concepts I just didn't off the top of my head know if that makes sense.

18 really pissed me off. I analyzed every step from divisible portions of the contract, to goods vs. service, to SoF.... and the answer is fair and equitable? Apparently I have to go over contracts more.

Yeah... I didn't get that either. I'm not even sure what doctrine it's under. Estoppel?

Yeah what the hell were these answers. That, and newsworthy? They made no sense, at least reference a specific rule!! Are these official questions from old exams?

[White Dwarf]

So, on mixed set 9 there are two questions regarding the Equal Dignities rule (power of agents must be set out in writing). The 1st question says it doesn't apply to a one-off action (in this question, it's the signing of a deed in place of the grantor). The 2nd question says the opposite: "when an agent signs a deed, the agent’s authority must also generally be in writing." The 2nd question is also a one-off deed signing.

In both cases the party signing had the oral permission of the party being signed for. Is this just s***ty question writing, or am I missing something?

[dabigchina]

http://www.ncbex.org/pdfviewer/?file=%2 ... ument%2F17

Just did these sample 21 questions directly from NCBE website. Not sure if any of you don't know about it but can get them done in 38 mins.

How'd you do on them? I only got 14/21.

I only got a 13/21. Yikes.

The fact patterns seem easier to get through but some of the concepts I just didn't off the top of my head know if that makes sense.

hoping these were hard questions, because i only got 13/21 too.

I got a 13/21 as well. Why is everyone extremely upset with a 13? 62% is not end of the world...

62% is failing in my jurisdiction, so...

[xhe02]

Can someone explain why the answer is B? Thanks!

A father lived with his son, who was an alcoholic. When drunk, the son often became violent and physically abused his father. As a result, the father always lived in fear. One night, the father heard his son on the front stoop making loud obscene remarks. The father was certain that his son was drunk and was terrified that he would be physically beaten again. In his fear, he bolted the front door and took out a revolver. When the son discovered that the door was bolted, he kicked it down. As the son burst through the front door, his father shot him four times in the chest, killing him. In fact, the son was not under the influence of alcohol or any drug and did not intend to harm his father.
At trial, the father presented the above facts and asked the judge to instruct the jury on self-defense.
How should the judge instruct the jury with respect to self-defense?
(A) Give the self-defense instruction, because it expresses the defense’s theory of the case.
(B) Give the self-defense instruction, because the evi- dence is sufficient to raise the defense.
(C) Deny the self-defense instruction, because the father was not in imminent danger from his son.
(D) Deny the self-defense instruction, because the father used excessive force.

[EncyclopediaOrange]

Can someone explain why the answer is B? Thanks!

Because there's enough evidence that the father could plausibly have a successful self-defense defense, the judge should give the instruction and let the jury decide if the father has successfully proven the defense.

[xhe02]

Can someone explain why the answer is B? Thanks!

Because there's enough evidence that the father could plausibly have a successful self-defense defense, the judge should give the instruction and let the jury decide if the father has successfully proven the defense.

Thanks! Do you know why C is not correct? I thought for self-defense, the danger has to be imminent. Does the father's mistake of fact justify his self-defense?

[emwallen]

right--its whether or not his belief that harm was imminent was reasonable, not whether harm was actually imminent. based on his history with his son, a jury could probably find he reasonably feared imminent harm. if they had no such history, he would probably have an imperfect self defense argument-- unreasonable but honestly held belief.

[EncyclopediaOrange]

Can someone explain why the answer is B? Thanks!

Because there's enough evidence that the father could plausibly have a successful self-defense defense, the judge should give the instruction and let the jury decide if the father has successfully proven the defense.

Thanks! Do you know why C is not correct? I thought for self-defense, the danger has to be imminent. Does the father's mistake of fact justify his self-defense?

I think it's just an evidentiary issue. Because a jury could find that the father believed he was in imminent harm (because of the past abuse and the son knocking the door down) the instruction should be given to let the jury decide the weight of the evidence.

[deacon]

12/21.

I know what the question is asking. I just couldn't find the right rationale. I eliminate to two (because I know either yes or no), then I am always making a mistake as to the correct rationale. This is super annoying. Happened to me on March MPRE as well. I passed that exam, but WTF MBE is way harder

[jcwest]

62% is failing in my jurisdiction, so...

Sadly, it is in mine too. I need a 133 on the MBE to get half my points.

I really don't feel great about the graded essay but all my scores have been 4 or 5 on the Themis site... maybe it will carry me. Who knows. Is it even possible to get a 6?

Also, this might be of some consolation. Talked to my rep the other day, and (at least in my state) they generally give you between 12 and 18 point curve but AT LEAST 12 for the curve. Could be worse.

[Lawworld19]

Just did the first 25. Got 14 out of 25.

Not good. I prob am going to have to retake in Feb.

Mixed sets I get 64-70 usually.

[jcwest]

Just did the first 25. Got 14 out of 25.

Not good. I prob am going to have to retake in Feb.

Mixed sets I get 64-70 usually.

You have a lot of time to fix your issues before the test.

[deacon]

Just did the first 25. Got 14 out of 25.

Not good. I prob am going to have to retake in Feb.

Mixed sets I get 64-70 usually.

I feel you. But hanging there. I am very much the same.

Do you think newer questions are different than ones in Themis?

[Lawworld19]

Just did the first 25. Got 14 out of 25.

Not good. I prob am going to have to retake in Feb.

Mixed sets I get 64-70 usually.

I feel you. But hanging there. I am very much the same.

Do you think newer questions are different than ones in Themis?

Idk really, somewhat similar, I think the answer choices seemed a little harder to differentiate maybe. We will see, I only did 25 so far.

Are you a first time taker?

[deacon]

Just did the first 25. Got 14 out of 25.

Not good. I prob am going to have to retake in Feb.

Mixed sets I get 64-70 usually.

I feel you. But hanging there. I am very much the same.

Do you think newer questions are different than ones in Themis?

Idk really, somewhat similar, I think the answer choices seemed a little harder to differentiate maybe. We will see, I only did 25 so far.

Are you a first time taker?

Yes, I am. I am an international lawyer from a civil law country. Only took contracts and torts in my LLM. It has been damn hard to learn all these new subjects. I am not super hopeful, but trying to do as much as I can

[xhe02]

right--its whether or not his belief that harm was imminent was reasonable, not whether harm was actually imminent. based on his history with his son, a jury could probably find he reasonably feared imminent harm. if they had no such history, he would probably have an imperfect self defense argument-- unreasonable but honestly held belief.

Thank you!

[EncyclopediaOrange]

62% is failing in my jurisdiction, so...

Sadly, it is in mine too. I need a 133 on the MBE to get half my points.

But is it per se failing or just being on track to fail? There are lots of points to be had on the MPT and writing coherent, even if wrong, answers on the MEE.

[xhe02]

Can someone explain why the answer is B? Thanks!

Because there's enough evidence that the father could plausibly have a successful self-defense defense, the judge should give the instruction and let the jury decide if the father has successfully proven the defense.

Thanks! Do you know why C is not correct? I thought for self-defense, the danger has to be imminent. Does the father's mistake of fact justify his self-defense?

I think it's just an evidentiary issue. Because a jury could find that the father believed he was in imminent harm (because of the past abuse and the son knocking the door down) the instruction should be given to let the jury decide the weight of the evidence.

Thanks a lot!

[dabigchina]

62% is failing in my jurisdiction, so...

Sadly, it is in mine too. I need a 133 on the MBE to get half my points.

But is it per se failing or just being on track to fail? There are lots of points to be had on the MPT and writing coherent, even if wrong, answers on the MEE.

I'm in CA. I have no confidence in my ability to write significantly above average answers on the essay portion.

[Lawworld19]

62% is failing in my jurisdiction, so...

Sadly, it is in mine too. I need a 133 on the MBE to get half my points.

But is it per se failing or just being on track to fail? There are lots of points to be had on the MPT and writing coherent, even if wrong, answers on the MEE.

I'm in CA. I have no confidence in my ability to write significantly above average answers on the essay portion.

Hahaha I love the honesty. I would answer exactly the same.

[EncyclopediaOrange]

I'm in CA. I have no confidence in my ability to write significantly above average answers on the essay portion.

Yikes sorry