[["Question: The owner of a large unimproved tract of land leased it to a tenant for five years at a monthly rental of $1,500. The rental agreement provided that the land was to be used as farmland. Shortly after the tenant took possession of the tract of land, he built thereon, at his own expense, a barn made of lumber, which was 15 feet wide, 20 feet long, and set on loose bricks. The barn increased the appraised market value of the tract of land from $250,000 to $275,000. The tenant then began farming operations on the land. Toward the end of the lease period, the owner informed the tenant that he was going to put the tract of land up for sale. The next month, when the lease expired, the parties settled a dispute over the tenant's right, if any, to compensation for the improvements by the following written agreement:\"On the sale of the tract of land, the owner hereby agrees to pay the tenant two-thirds of any sale proceeds in excess of $250,000, provided that tenant may remain on the farm for the next year, rent-free, while the owner tries to sell it. After that time, the tenant may remain on the land until closing of the sale, at a monthly rental of $1,000. \"The owner initially set the asking price at $300,000. After receiving scant interest, the owner decided to reduce the price to $260,000. This price reduction so infuriated the tenant that he thereafter made negative comments about the farm to all of the prospective buyers. Finally, 14 months after the agreement between the owner and the tenant was executed, and after rejecting offers for $240,000 and $250,000, the owner sold the tract of land for $256,000 to a buyer who visited the land while the tenant was away on vacation. Thereupon, the tenant, who had failed to pay the last two months rent as per the agreement, moved out. After closing, the owner refused to pay the tenant any of the sale proceeds, and the tenant brought suit to recover damages for breach of contract. Which of the following is the owner's most persuasive argument in defense of the tenant's suit?\nChoices:\nA. The tenant committed an uncured material breach of an implied promise to cooperate in the owner's efforts to sell the property, or at least not to hinder the proposed sale.\nB. The tenant's negative comments about the farm to prospective buyers amounted to an anticipatory repudiation of the agreement between the owner and the tenant.\nC. The tenant's failure to pay any rent for the last two months was a material breach of contract that discharged the owner's remaining duties of performance.\nD. The agreement between the owner and the tenant was voidable because it was a restraint on alienation, since it conditioned a promise to pay for a conveyance of land upon an otherwise invalid leasehold contract.\nAnswer:", " The tenant committed an uncured material breach of an implied promise to cooperate in the owner's efforts to sell the property, or at least not to hinder the proposed sale."], ["Question: The owner of a large unimproved tract of land leased it to a tenant for five years at a monthly rental of $1,500. The rental agreement provided that the land was to be used as farmland. Shortly after the tenant took possession of the tract of land, he built thereon, at his own expense, a barn made of lumber, which was 15 feet wide, 20 feet long, and set on loose bricks. The barn increased the appraised market value of the tract of land from $250,000 to $275,000. The tenant then began farming operations on the land. Toward the end of the lease period, the owner informed the tenant that he was going to put the tract of land up for sale. The next month, when the lease expired, the parties settled a dispute over the tenant's right, if any, to compensation for the improvements by the following written agreement:\"On the sale of the tract of land, the owner hereby agrees to pay the tenant two-thirds of any sale proceeds in excess of $250,000, provided that tenant may remain on the farm for the next year, rent-free, while the owner tries to sell it. After that time, the tenant may remain on the land until closing of the sale, at a monthly rental of $1,000. \"The owner initially set the asking price at $300,000. After receiving scant interest, the owner decided to reduce the price to $260,000. This price reduction so infuriated the tenant that he thereafter made negative comments about the farm to all of the prospective buyers. Finally, 14 months after the agreement between the owner and the tenant was executed, and after rejecting offers for $240,000 and $250,000, the owner sold the tract of land for $256,000 to a buyer who visited the land while the tenant was away on vacation. Thereupon, the tenant, who had failed to pay the last two months rent as per the agreement, moved out. After closing, the owner refused to pay the tenant any of the sale proceeds, and the tenant brought suit to recover damages for breach of contract. Which of the following is the owner's most persuasive argument in defense of the tenant's suit?\nChoices:\nA. The tenant committed an uncured material breach of an implied promise to cooperate in the owner's efforts to sell the property, or at least not to hinder the proposed sale.\nB. The tenant's negative comments about the farm to prospective buyers amounted to an anticipatory repudiation of the agreement between the owner and the tenant.\nC. The tenant's failure to pay any rent for the last two months was a material breach of contract that discharged the owner's remaining duties of performance.\nD. The agreement between the owner and the tenant was voidable because it was a restraint on alienation, since it conditioned a promise to pay for a conveyance of land upon an otherwise invalid leasehold contract.\nAnswer:", " The tenant's negative comments about the farm to prospective buyers amounted to an anticipatory repudiation of the agreement between the owner and the tenant."], ["Question: The owner of a large unimproved tract of land leased it to a tenant for five years at a monthly rental of $1,500. The rental agreement provided that the land was to be used as farmland. Shortly after the tenant took possession of the tract of land, he built thereon, at his own expense, a barn made of lumber, which was 15 feet wide, 20 feet long, and set on loose bricks. The barn increased the appraised market value of the tract of land from $250,000 to $275,000. The tenant then began farming operations on the land. Toward the end of the lease period, the owner informed the tenant that he was going to put the tract of land up for sale. The next month, when the lease expired, the parties settled a dispute over the tenant's right, if any, to compensation for the improvements by the following written agreement:\"On the sale of the tract of land, the owner hereby agrees to pay the tenant two-thirds of any sale proceeds in excess of $250,000, provided that tenant may remain on the farm for the next year, rent-free, while the owner tries to sell it. After that time, the tenant may remain on the land until closing of the sale, at a monthly rental of $1,000. \"The owner initially set the asking price at $300,000. After receiving scant interest, the owner decided to reduce the price to $260,000. This price reduction so infuriated the tenant that he thereafter made negative comments about the farm to all of the prospective buyers. Finally, 14 months after the agreement between the owner and the tenant was executed, and after rejecting offers for $240,000 and $250,000, the owner sold the tract of land for $256,000 to a buyer who visited the land while the tenant was away on vacation. Thereupon, the tenant, who had failed to pay the last two months rent as per the agreement, moved out. After closing, the owner refused to pay the tenant any of the sale proceeds, and the tenant brought suit to recover damages for breach of contract. Which of the following is the owner's most persuasive argument in defense of the tenant's suit?\nChoices:\nA. The tenant committed an uncured material breach of an implied promise to cooperate in the owner's efforts to sell the property, or at least not to hinder the proposed sale.\nB. The tenant's negative comments about the farm to prospective buyers amounted to an anticipatory repudiation of the agreement between the owner and the tenant.\nC. The tenant's failure to pay any rent for the last two months was a material breach of contract that discharged the owner's remaining duties of performance.\nD. The agreement between the owner and the tenant was voidable because it was a restraint on alienation, since it conditioned a promise to pay for a conveyance of land upon an otherwise invalid leasehold contract.\nAnswer:", " The tenant's failure to pay any rent for the last two months was a material breach of contract that discharged the owner's remaining duties of performance."], ["Question: The owner of a large unimproved tract of land leased it to a tenant for five years at a monthly rental of $1,500. The rental agreement provided that the land was to be used as farmland. Shortly after the tenant took possession of the tract of land, he built thereon, at his own expense, a barn made of lumber, which was 15 feet wide, 20 feet long, and set on loose bricks. The barn increased the appraised market value of the tract of land from $250,000 to $275,000. The tenant then began farming operations on the land. Toward the end of the lease period, the owner informed the tenant that he was going to put the tract of land up for sale. The next month, when the lease expired, the parties settled a dispute over the tenant's right, if any, to compensation for the improvements by the following written agreement:\"On the sale of the tract of land, the owner hereby agrees to pay the tenant two-thirds of any sale proceeds in excess of $250,000, provided that tenant may remain on the farm for the next year, rent-free, while the owner tries to sell it. After that time, the tenant may remain on the land until closing of the sale, at a monthly rental of $1,000. \"The owner initially set the asking price at $300,000. After receiving scant interest, the owner decided to reduce the price to $260,000. This price reduction so infuriated the tenant that he thereafter made negative comments about the farm to all of the prospective buyers. Finally, 14 months after the agreement between the owner and the tenant was executed, and after rejecting offers for $240,000 and $250,000, the owner sold the tract of land for $256,000 to a buyer who visited the land while the tenant was away on vacation. Thereupon, the tenant, who had failed to pay the last two months rent as per the agreement, moved out. After closing, the owner refused to pay the tenant any of the sale proceeds, and the tenant brought suit to recover damages for breach of contract. Which of the following is the owner's most persuasive argument in defense of the tenant's suit?\nChoices:\nA. The tenant committed an uncured material breach of an implied promise to cooperate in the owner's efforts to sell the property, or at least not to hinder the proposed sale.\nB. The tenant's negative comments about the farm to prospective buyers amounted to an anticipatory repudiation of the agreement between the owner and the tenant.\nC. The tenant's failure to pay any rent for the last two months was a material breach of contract that discharged the owner's remaining duties of performance.\nD. The agreement between the owner and the tenant was voidable because it was a restraint on alienation, since it conditioned a promise to pay for a conveyance of land upon an otherwise invalid leasehold contract.\nAnswer:", " The agreement between the owner and the tenant was voidable because it was a restraint on alienation, since it conditioned a promise to pay for a conveyance of land upon an otherwise invalid leasehold contract."], ["Question: A man was in jail after being arrested for burglary. When the police attempted to question him, the man invoked his Miranda rights and refused to answer any questions. The man was subsequently tried, convicted, and sentenced to a prison term for the burglary. Three years later, while the man was serving his prison sentence for the burglary, a police detective from a nearby town questioned him about an unsolved homicide. The detective did not know that the man had invoked Miranda at an earlier time. that the man had invoked Miranda at an earlier time. The man waived his Miranda rights and made several incriminating statements to the detective. When he was later charged with the homicide, the man moved to suppress these statements, claiming that his earlier refusal to waive his Miranda rights should have been honored. Should the court suppress the statements?\nChoices:\nA. No, because the detective was unaware that the man had originally invoked his Miranda rights.\nB. No, because the man's prior invocation of his Miranda rights did not preclude the later interrogation.\nC. Yes, because the man had earlier invoked his Miranda rights, and the police were not permitted to resume questioning, even after a time lapse of years.\nD. Yes, because the man was incarcerated, and his earlier invocation of his Miranda rights shielded him from further questioning until shielded him from further questioning until he was released.\nAnswer:", " No, because the detective was unaware that the man had originally invoked his Miranda rights."], ["Question: A man was in jail after being arrested for burglary. When the police attempted to question him, the man invoked his Miranda rights and refused to answer any questions. The man was subsequently tried, convicted, and sentenced to a prison term for the burglary. Three years later, while the man was serving his prison sentence for the burglary, a police detective from a nearby town questioned him about an unsolved homicide. The detective did not know that the man had invoked Miranda at an earlier time. that the man had invoked Miranda at an earlier time. The man waived his Miranda rights and made several incriminating statements to the detective. When he was later charged with the homicide, the man moved to suppress these statements, claiming that his earlier refusal to waive his Miranda rights should have been honored. Should the court suppress the statements?\nChoices:\nA. No, because the detective was unaware that the man had originally invoked his Miranda rights.\nB. No, because the man's prior invocation of his Miranda rights did not preclude the later interrogation.\nC. Yes, because the man had earlier invoked his Miranda rights, and the police were not permitted to resume questioning, even after a time lapse of years.\nD. Yes, because the man was incarcerated, and his earlier invocation of his Miranda rights shielded him from further questioning until shielded him from further questioning until he was released.\nAnswer:", " No, because the man's prior invocation of his Miranda rights did not preclude the later interrogation."], ["Question: A man was in jail after being arrested for burglary. When the police attempted to question him, the man invoked his Miranda rights and refused to answer any questions. The man was subsequently tried, convicted, and sentenced to a prison term for the burglary. Three years later, while the man was serving his prison sentence for the burglary, a police detective from a nearby town questioned him about an unsolved homicide. The detective did not know that the man had invoked Miranda at an earlier time. that the man had invoked Miranda at an earlier time. The man waived his Miranda rights and made several incriminating statements to the detective. When he was later charged with the homicide, the man moved to suppress these statements, claiming that his earlier refusal to waive his Miranda rights should have been honored. Should the court suppress the statements?\nChoices:\nA. No, because the detective was unaware that the man had originally invoked his Miranda rights.\nB. No, because the man's prior invocation of his Miranda rights did not preclude the later interrogation.\nC. Yes, because the man had earlier invoked his Miranda rights, and the police were not permitted to resume questioning, even after a time lapse of years.\nD. Yes, because the man was incarcerated, and his earlier invocation of his Miranda rights shielded him from further questioning until shielded him from further questioning until he was released.\nAnswer:", " Yes, because the man had earlier invoked his Miranda rights, and the police were not permitted to resume questioning, even after a time lapse of years."], ["Question: A man was in jail after being arrested for burglary. When the police attempted to question him, the man invoked his Miranda rights and refused to answer any questions. The man was subsequently tried, convicted, and sentenced to a prison term for the burglary. Three years later, while the man was serving his prison sentence for the burglary, a police detective from a nearby town questioned him about an unsolved homicide. The detective did not know that the man had invoked Miranda at an earlier time. that the man had invoked Miranda at an earlier time. The man waived his Miranda rights and made several incriminating statements to the detective. When he was later charged with the homicide, the man moved to suppress these statements, claiming that his earlier refusal to waive his Miranda rights should have been honored. Should the court suppress the statements?\nChoices:\nA. No, because the detective was unaware that the man had originally invoked his Miranda rights.\nB. No, because the man's prior invocation of his Miranda rights did not preclude the later interrogation.\nC. Yes, because the man had earlier invoked his Miranda rights, and the police were not permitted to resume questioning, even after a time lapse of years.\nD. Yes, because the man was incarcerated, and his earlier invocation of his Miranda rights shielded him from further questioning until shielded him from further questioning until he was released.\nAnswer:", " Yes, because the man was incarcerated, and his earlier invocation of his Miranda rights shielded him from further questioning until shielded him from further questioning until he was released."], ["Question: A woman acquired land by a deed that contained the following language in the grantee section: \"to [the woman], her heirs and assigns, provided, however, that said grantee may not transfer any interest in the land for 10 years from the date of this instrument.\" Two years later, the woman contracted to sell the land to an investor for a price based on a recent appraisal. When the investor's title search revealed the above language in the grantee section of the deed to the woman, the investor refused to close the transaction. The contract was silent as to the woman's title obligation. The woman has sued the investor for specific performance. Who is likely to prevail?\nChoices:\nA. The investor, because the woman cannot sell the land during the 10-year period specified in the deed.\nB. The investor, because the woman's heirs did not join in the contract.\nC. The woman, because the contract did not obligate her to provide marketable title.\nD. The woman, because the deed's restraint on transfer is void as a matter of law.\nAnswer:", " The investor, because the woman cannot sell the land during the 10-year period specified in the deed."], ["Question: A woman acquired land by a deed that contained the following language in the grantee section: \"to [the woman], her heirs and assigns, provided, however, that said grantee may not transfer any interest in the land for 10 years from the date of this instrument.\" Two years later, the woman contracted to sell the land to an investor for a price based on a recent appraisal. When the investor's title search revealed the above language in the grantee section of the deed to the woman, the investor refused to close the transaction. The contract was silent as to the woman's title obligation. The woman has sued the investor for specific performance. Who is likely to prevail?\nChoices:\nA. The investor, because the woman cannot sell the land during the 10-year period specified in the deed.\nB. The investor, because the woman's heirs did not join in the contract.\nC. The woman, because the contract did not obligate her to provide marketable title.\nD. The woman, because the deed's restraint on transfer is void as a matter of law.\nAnswer:", " The investor, because the woman's heirs did not join in the contract."], ["Question: A woman acquired land by a deed that contained the following language in the grantee section: \"to [the woman], her heirs and assigns, provided, however, that said grantee may not transfer any interest in the land for 10 years from the date of this instrument.\" Two years later, the woman contracted to sell the land to an investor for a price based on a recent appraisal. When the investor's title search revealed the above language in the grantee section of the deed to the woman, the investor refused to close the transaction. The contract was silent as to the woman's title obligation. The woman has sued the investor for specific performance. Who is likely to prevail?\nChoices:\nA. The investor, because the woman cannot sell the land during the 10-year period specified in the deed.\nB. The investor, because the woman's heirs did not join in the contract.\nC. The woman, because the contract did not obligate her to provide marketable title.\nD. The woman, because the deed's restraint on transfer is void as a matter of law.\nAnswer:", " The woman, because the contract did not obligate her to provide marketable title."], ["Question: A woman acquired land by a deed that contained the following language in the grantee section: \"to [the woman], her heirs and assigns, provided, however, that said grantee may not transfer any interest in the land for 10 years from the date of this instrument.\" Two years later, the woman contracted to sell the land to an investor for a price based on a recent appraisal. When the investor's title search revealed the above language in the grantee section of the deed to the woman, the investor refused to close the transaction. The contract was silent as to the woman's title obligation. The woman has sued the investor for specific performance. Who is likely to prevail?\nChoices:\nA. The investor, because the woman cannot sell the land during the 10-year period specified in the deed.\nB. The investor, because the woman's heirs did not join in the contract.\nC. The woman, because the contract did not obligate her to provide marketable title.\nD. The woman, because the deed's restraint on transfer is void as a matter of law.\nAnswer:", " The woman, because the deed's restraint on transfer is void as a matter of law."], ["Question: In an action for malpractice, a plaintiff sued a doctor, claiming that the latter failed to properly diagnose his emphysema condition. The plaintiff contends that he went to the doctor for a medical examination after experiencing chest pains and shortness of breath. However, the doctor found no evidence of the disease and advised him that he was probably suffering from indigestion. Thereafter, the plaintiff was examined by another doctor who discovered that the plaintiff in fact was suffering from a chronic case of emphysema. At trial, the plaintiff calls the other doctor as his first witness. The other doctor proposes to testify the x-rays of the plaintiff's lungs showed that his respiratory organs were marked by distension, which was characteristic of emphysema. Upon objection by the defendant's attorney, the testimony should be\nChoices:\nA. admitted, because a doctor is properly qualified as an expert in medical matters.\nB. admitted, because the other doctor followed accepted medical practice in arriving at his opinion.\nC. excluded, because his opinion is based upon facts not in evidence.\nD. excluded, because the x-rays are the best evidence to show the distension of the plaintiff's lungs.\nAnswer:", " admitted, because a doctor is properly qualified as an expert in medical matters."], ["Question: In an action for malpractice, a plaintiff sued a doctor, claiming that the latter failed to properly diagnose his emphysema condition. The plaintiff contends that he went to the doctor for a medical examination after experiencing chest pains and shortness of breath. However, the doctor found no evidence of the disease and advised him that he was probably suffering from indigestion. Thereafter, the plaintiff was examined by another doctor who discovered that the plaintiff in fact was suffering from a chronic case of emphysema. At trial, the plaintiff calls the other doctor as his first witness. The other doctor proposes to testify the x-rays of the plaintiff's lungs showed that his respiratory organs were marked by distension, which was characteristic of emphysema. Upon objection by the defendant's attorney, the testimony should be\nChoices:\nA. admitted, because a doctor is properly qualified as an expert in medical matters.\nB. admitted, because the other doctor followed accepted medical practice in arriving at his opinion.\nC. excluded, because his opinion is based upon facts not in evidence.\nD. excluded, because the x-rays are the best evidence to show the distension of the plaintiff's lungs.\nAnswer:", " admitted, because the other doctor followed accepted medical practice in arriving at his opinion."], ["Question: In an action for malpractice, a plaintiff sued a doctor, claiming that the latter failed to properly diagnose his emphysema condition. The plaintiff contends that he went to the doctor for a medical examination after experiencing chest pains and shortness of breath. However, the doctor found no evidence of the disease and advised him that he was probably suffering from indigestion. Thereafter, the plaintiff was examined by another doctor who discovered that the plaintiff in fact was suffering from a chronic case of emphysema. At trial, the plaintiff calls the other doctor as his first witness. The other doctor proposes to testify the x-rays of the plaintiff's lungs showed that his respiratory organs were marked by distension, which was characteristic of emphysema. Upon objection by the defendant's attorney, the testimony should be\nChoices:\nA. admitted, because a doctor is properly qualified as an expert in medical matters.\nB. admitted, because the other doctor followed accepted medical practice in arriving at his opinion.\nC. excluded, because his opinion is based upon facts not in evidence.\nD. excluded, because the x-rays are the best evidence to show the distension of the plaintiff's lungs.\nAnswer:", " excluded, because his opinion is based upon facts not in evidence."], ["Question: In an action for malpractice, a plaintiff sued a doctor, claiming that the latter failed to properly diagnose his emphysema condition. The plaintiff contends that he went to the doctor for a medical examination after experiencing chest pains and shortness of breath. However, the doctor found no evidence of the disease and advised him that he was probably suffering from indigestion. Thereafter, the plaintiff was examined by another doctor who discovered that the plaintiff in fact was suffering from a chronic case of emphysema. At trial, the plaintiff calls the other doctor as his first witness. The other doctor proposes to testify the x-rays of the plaintiff's lungs showed that his respiratory organs were marked by distension, which was characteristic of emphysema. Upon objection by the defendant's attorney, the testimony should be\nChoices:\nA. admitted, because a doctor is properly qualified as an expert in medical matters.\nB. admitted, because the other doctor followed accepted medical practice in arriving at his opinion.\nC. excluded, because his opinion is based upon facts not in evidence.\nD. excluded, because the x-rays are the best evidence to show the distension of the plaintiff's lungs.\nAnswer:", " excluded, because the x-rays are the best evidence to show the distension of the plaintiff's lungs."], ["Question: A patient was admitted to a hospital. He had driven his car despite being intoxicated. As a result, he crashed the car into a tree and suffered a broken nose. After a doctor reset the broken nose, the patient was transferred to a room in the west wing of the hospital. In extreme pain, the patient asked the nurse for a painkiller. Without seeking the doctor's approval, the nurse administered an injection of morphine, which the nurse should have known to be an excessive dosage. The patient died an hour after the injection; the cause of death was a morphine overdose. The nurse's injection of morphine to this patient would most likely constitute\nChoices:\nA. a cause-in-fact, but not a legal cause of the patient's death.\nB. a legal cause, but not a cause-in-fact of the patient's death.\nC. a cause-in-fact and a legal cause of the patient's death.\nD. neither a legal cause nor a cause-in-fact of the patient's death.\nAnswer:", " a cause-in-fact, but not a legal cause of the patient's death."], ["Question: A patient was admitted to a hospital. He had driven his car despite being intoxicated. As a result, he crashed the car into a tree and suffered a broken nose. After a doctor reset the broken nose, the patient was transferred to a room in the west wing of the hospital. In extreme pain, the patient asked the nurse for a painkiller. Without seeking the doctor's approval, the nurse administered an injection of morphine, which the nurse should have known to be an excessive dosage. The patient died an hour after the injection; the cause of death was a morphine overdose. The nurse's injection of morphine to this patient would most likely constitute\nChoices:\nA. a cause-in-fact, but not a legal cause of the patient's death.\nB. a legal cause, but not a cause-in-fact of the patient's death.\nC. a cause-in-fact and a legal cause of the patient's death.\nD. neither a legal cause nor a cause-in-fact of the patient's death.\nAnswer:", " a legal cause, but not a cause-in-fact of the patient's death."], ["Question: A patient was admitted to a hospital. He had driven his car despite being intoxicated. As a result, he crashed the car into a tree and suffered a broken nose. After a doctor reset the broken nose, the patient was transferred to a room in the west wing of the hospital. In extreme pain, the patient asked the nurse for a painkiller. Without seeking the doctor's approval, the nurse administered an injection of morphine, which the nurse should have known to be an excessive dosage. The patient died an hour after the injection; the cause of death was a morphine overdose. The nurse's injection of morphine to this patient would most likely constitute\nChoices:\nA. a cause-in-fact, but not a legal cause of the patient's death.\nB. a legal cause, but not a cause-in-fact of the patient's death.\nC. a cause-in-fact and a legal cause of the patient's death.\nD. neither a legal cause nor a cause-in-fact of the patient's death.\nAnswer:", " a cause-in-fact and a legal cause of the patient's death."], ["Question: A patient was admitted to a hospital. He had driven his car despite being intoxicated. As a result, he crashed the car into a tree and suffered a broken nose. After a doctor reset the broken nose, the patient was transferred to a room in the west wing of the hospital. In extreme pain, the patient asked the nurse for a painkiller. Without seeking the doctor's approval, the nurse administered an injection of morphine, which the nurse should have known to be an excessive dosage. The patient died an hour after the injection; the cause of death was a morphine overdose. The nurse's injection of morphine to this patient would most likely constitute\nChoices:\nA. a cause-in-fact, but not a legal cause of the patient's death.\nB. a legal cause, but not a cause-in-fact of the patient's death.\nC. a cause-in-fact and a legal cause of the patient's death.\nD. neither a legal cause nor a cause-in-fact of the patient's death.\nAnswer:", " neither a legal cause nor a cause-in-fact of the patient's death."], ["Question: In which of the following situations would the defendant not be guilty of homicide?\nChoices:\nA. A defendant came into a bar looking for a fight. He walked up to a victim, tapped him on the shoulder and said, \"You bother me. Get out of here. \" The victim ignored him, and the defendant proceeded to punch the victim in the face and stab him in the arm with a knife. The victim thereupon took out a knife that had been concealed in his pocket and stabbed the defendant in the right arm. The defendant, fearful that the victim would stab him in the heart, took out a gun and shot the victim to death.\nB. A defendant was home in bed with a fever one night, and all the lights in his house were off. A victim, who was scouting the neighborhood that night for a house to burglarize, broke into the defendant's house through the basement window and went upstairs to the bedrooms to look for jewelry. The defendant, who was not aware that someone else was in the house, was startled when he saw the victim walk past his room toward the stairs leading to the outside doorway. The defendant pulled out a pistol from under his pillow when he saw the victim and shot him to death.\nC. A defendant started a joke about the victim's brother. When word got to the victim about the defendant's joke, the victim became incensed. He rushed to the defendant's home, broke open the door and found the defendant preparing dinner in the kitchen. He immediately said, \"I'm going to kill you. \" The defendant knew that the victim had been convicted of attempted murder several years ago, and he cringed when the victim took out a gun and pointed it at him. The defendant could have easily darted for the open front door and evaded the victim but, instead, he suddenly pulled a knife from the kitchen wall, lunged at the victim, and stabbed him to death. Unknown to the defendant, the victim's gun was not loaded.\nD. A defendant was a reporter for a newspaper and was sent on assignment to another state to cover the story of a mining disaster. He was sitting in his hotel room one evening, trying to get a message to his editor, when a victim knocked at the door. The defendant opened the door, and the victim announced a robbery. The defendant took a lamp from the night table and threw it at the victim. The victim was momentarily stunned, and the defendant then pulled a gun out of his own suitcase and shot the victim to death.\nAnswer:", " A defendant came into a bar looking for a fight. He walked up to a victim, tapped him on the shoulder and said, \"You bother me. Get out of here. \" The victim ignored him, and the defendant proceeded to punch the victim in the face and stab him in the arm with a knife. The victim thereupon took out a knife that had been concealed in his pocket and stabbed the defendant in the right arm. The defendant, fearful that the victim would stab him in the heart, took out a gun and shot the victim to death."], ["Question: In which of the following situations would the defendant not be guilty of homicide?\nChoices:\nA. A defendant came into a bar looking for a fight. He walked up to a victim, tapped him on the shoulder and said, \"You bother me. Get out of here. \" The victim ignored him, and the defendant proceeded to punch the victim in the face and stab him in the arm with a knife. The victim thereupon took out a knife that had been concealed in his pocket and stabbed the defendant in the right arm. The defendant, fearful that the victim would stab him in the heart, took out a gun and shot the victim to death.\nB. A defendant was home in bed with a fever one night, and all the lights in his house were off. A victim, who was scouting the neighborhood that night for a house to burglarize, broke into the defendant's house through the basement window and went upstairs to the bedrooms to look for jewelry. The defendant, who was not aware that someone else was in the house, was startled when he saw the victim walk past his room toward the stairs leading to the outside doorway. The defendant pulled out a pistol from under his pillow when he saw the victim and shot him to death.\nC. A defendant started a joke about the victim's brother. When word got to the victim about the defendant's joke, the victim became incensed. He rushed to the defendant's home, broke open the door and found the defendant preparing dinner in the kitchen. He immediately said, \"I'm going to kill you. \" The defendant knew that the victim had been convicted of attempted murder several years ago, and he cringed when the victim took out a gun and pointed it at him. The defendant could have easily darted for the open front door and evaded the victim but, instead, he suddenly pulled a knife from the kitchen wall, lunged at the victim, and stabbed him to death. Unknown to the defendant, the victim's gun was not loaded.\nD. A defendant was a reporter for a newspaper and was sent on assignment to another state to cover the story of a mining disaster. He was sitting in his hotel room one evening, trying to get a message to his editor, when a victim knocked at the door. The defendant opened the door, and the victim announced a robbery. The defendant took a lamp from the night table and threw it at the victim. The victim was momentarily stunned, and the defendant then pulled a gun out of his own suitcase and shot the victim to death.\nAnswer:", " A defendant was home in bed with a fever one night, and all the lights in his house were off. A victim, who was scouting the neighborhood that night for a house to burglarize, broke into the defendant's house through the basement window and went upstairs to the bedrooms to look for jewelry. The defendant, who was not aware that someone else was in the house, was startled when he saw the victim walk past his room toward the stairs leading to the outside doorway. The defendant pulled out a pistol from under his pillow when he saw the victim and shot him to death."], ["Question: In which of the following situations would the defendant not be guilty of homicide?\nChoices:\nA. A defendant came into a bar looking for a fight. He walked up to a victim, tapped him on the shoulder and said, \"You bother me. Get out of here. \" The victim ignored him, and the defendant proceeded to punch the victim in the face and stab him in the arm with a knife. The victim thereupon took out a knife that had been concealed in his pocket and stabbed the defendant in the right arm. The defendant, fearful that the victim would stab him in the heart, took out a gun and shot the victim to death.\nB. A defendant was home in bed with a fever one night, and all the lights in his house were off. A victim, who was scouting the neighborhood that night for a house to burglarize, broke into the defendant's house through the basement window and went upstairs to the bedrooms to look for jewelry. The defendant, who was not aware that someone else was in the house, was startled when he saw the victim walk past his room toward the stairs leading to the outside doorway. The defendant pulled out a pistol from under his pillow when he saw the victim and shot him to death.\nC. A defendant started a joke about the victim's brother. When word got to the victim about the defendant's joke, the victim became incensed. He rushed to the defendant's home, broke open the door and found the defendant preparing dinner in the kitchen. He immediately said, \"I'm going to kill you. \" The defendant knew that the victim had been convicted of attempted murder several years ago, and he cringed when the victim took out a gun and pointed it at him. The defendant could have easily darted for the open front door and evaded the victim but, instead, he suddenly pulled a knife from the kitchen wall, lunged at the victim, and stabbed him to death. Unknown to the defendant, the victim's gun was not loaded.\nD. A defendant was a reporter for a newspaper and was sent on assignment to another state to cover the story of a mining disaster. He was sitting in his hotel room one evening, trying to get a message to his editor, when a victim knocked at the door. The defendant opened the door, and the victim announced a robbery. The defendant took a lamp from the night table and threw it at the victim. The victim was momentarily stunned, and the defendant then pulled a gun out of his own suitcase and shot the victim to death.\nAnswer:", " A defendant started a joke about the victim's brother. When word got to the victim about the defendant's joke, the victim became incensed. He rushed to the defendant's home, broke open the door and found the defendant preparing dinner in the kitchen. He immediately said, \"I'm going to kill you. \" The defendant knew that the victim had been convicted of attempted murder several years ago, and he cringed when the victim took out a gun and pointed it at him. The defendant could have easily darted for the open front door and evaded the victim but, instead, he suddenly pulled a knife from the kitchen wall, lunged at the victim, and stabbed him to death. Unknown to the defendant, the victim's gun was not loaded."], ["Question: In which of the following situations would the defendant not be guilty of homicide?\nChoices:\nA. A defendant came into a bar looking for a fight. He walked up to a victim, tapped him on the shoulder and said, \"You bother me. Get out of here. \" The victim ignored him, and the defendant proceeded to punch the victim in the face and stab him in the arm with a knife. The victim thereupon took out a knife that had been concealed in his pocket and stabbed the defendant in the right arm. The defendant, fearful that the victim would stab him in the heart, took out a gun and shot the victim to death.\nB. A defendant was home in bed with a fever one night, and all the lights in his house were off. A victim, who was scouting the neighborhood that night for a house to burglarize, broke into the defendant's house through the basement window and went upstairs to the bedrooms to look for jewelry. The defendant, who was not aware that someone else was in the house, was startled when he saw the victim walk past his room toward the stairs leading to the outside doorway. The defendant pulled out a pistol from under his pillow when he saw the victim and shot him to death.\nC. A defendant started a joke about the victim's brother. When word got to the victim about the defendant's joke, the victim became incensed. He rushed to the defendant's home, broke open the door and found the defendant preparing dinner in the kitchen. He immediately said, \"I'm going to kill you. \" The defendant knew that the victim had been convicted of attempted murder several years ago, and he cringed when the victim took out a gun and pointed it at him. The defendant could have easily darted for the open front door and evaded the victim but, instead, he suddenly pulled a knife from the kitchen wall, lunged at the victim, and stabbed him to death. Unknown to the defendant, the victim's gun was not loaded.\nD. A defendant was a reporter for a newspaper and was sent on assignment to another state to cover the story of a mining disaster. He was sitting in his hotel room one evening, trying to get a message to his editor, when a victim knocked at the door. The defendant opened the door, and the victim announced a robbery. The defendant took a lamp from the night table and threw it at the victim. The victim was momentarily stunned, and the defendant then pulled a gun out of his own suitcase and shot the victim to death.\nAnswer:", " A defendant was a reporter for a newspaper and was sent on assignment to another state to cover the story of a mining disaster. He was sitting in his hotel room one evening, trying to get a message to his editor, when a victim knocked at the door. The defendant opened the door, and the victim announced a robbery. The defendant took a lamp from the night table and threw it at the victim. The victim was momentarily stunned, and the defendant then pulled a gun out of his own suitcase and shot the victim to death."], ["Question: A state election code provides that any political organization whose candidate received 20% or more of the vote at the most recent gubernatorial or presidential election is a political party; other political organizations are construed as political bodies. Political parties conduct primaries, and the winning candidates in each office may have their names placed on the ballot. However, nominees of political bodies or any independent candidate may only have their names placed on the ballot if they file a nominating petition signed by not less than 7% of those eligible to vote at the last election for the offices that they are seeking. The time for circulating the petition is 180 days, which is also the deadline governing party candidates in party primaries. An independent candidate, who desires to be listed on the ballot for the office of governor, challenges the constitutionality of this election law. The court will most likely declare this statute\nChoices:\nA. unconstitutional, because it is a violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments' rights of free speech.\nB. unconstitutional, because it is a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause.\nC. unconstitutional, because it violates the Fifteenth Amendment's voting provisions.\nD. constitutional, because the election code is nonviolative of the equal protection clause.\nAnswer:", " unconstitutional, because it is a violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments' rights of free speech."], ["Question: A state election code provides that any political organization whose candidate received 20% or more of the vote at the most recent gubernatorial or presidential election is a political party; other political organizations are construed as political bodies. Political parties conduct primaries, and the winning candidates in each office may have their names placed on the ballot. However, nominees of political bodies or any independent candidate may only have their names placed on the ballot if they file a nominating petition signed by not less than 7% of those eligible to vote at the last election for the offices that they are seeking. The time for circulating the petition is 180 days, which is also the deadline governing party candidates in party primaries. An independent candidate, who desires to be listed on the ballot for the office of governor, challenges the constitutionality of this election law. The court will most likely declare this statute\nChoices:\nA. unconstitutional, because it is a violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments' rights of free speech.\nB. unconstitutional, because it is a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause.\nC. unconstitutional, because it violates the Fifteenth Amendment's voting provisions.\nD. constitutional, because the election code is nonviolative of the equal protection clause.\nAnswer:", " unconstitutional, because it is a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause."], ["Question: A state election code provides that any political organization whose candidate received 20% or more of the vote at the most recent gubernatorial or presidential election is a political party; other political organizations are construed as political bodies. Political parties conduct primaries, and the winning candidates in each office may have their names placed on the ballot. However, nominees of political bodies or any independent candidate may only have their names placed on the ballot if they file a nominating petition signed by not less than 7% of those eligible to vote at the last election for the offices that they are seeking. The time for circulating the petition is 180 days, which is also the deadline governing party candidates in party primaries. An independent candidate, who desires to be listed on the ballot for the office of governor, challenges the constitutionality of this election law. The court will most likely declare this statute\nChoices:\nA. unconstitutional, because it is a violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments' rights of free speech.\nB. unconstitutional, because it is a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause.\nC. unconstitutional, because it violates the Fifteenth Amendment's voting provisions.\nD. constitutional, because the election code is nonviolative of the equal protection clause.\nAnswer:", " unconstitutional, because it violates the Fifteenth Amendment's voting provisions."], ["Question: A state election code provides that any political organization whose candidate received 20% or more of the vote at the most recent gubernatorial or presidential election is a political party; other political organizations are construed as political bodies. Political parties conduct primaries, and the winning candidates in each office may have their names placed on the ballot. However, nominees of political bodies or any independent candidate may only have their names placed on the ballot if they file a nominating petition signed by not less than 7% of those eligible to vote at the last election for the offices that they are seeking. The time for circulating the petition is 180 days, which is also the deadline governing party candidates in party primaries. An independent candidate, who desires to be listed on the ballot for the office of governor, challenges the constitutionality of this election law. The court will most likely declare this statute\nChoices:\nA. unconstitutional, because it is a violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments' rights of free speech.\nB. unconstitutional, because it is a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause.\nC. unconstitutional, because it violates the Fifteenth Amendment's voting provisions.\nD. constitutional, because the election code is nonviolative of the equal protection clause.\nAnswer:", " constitutional, because the election code is nonviolative of the equal protection clause."], ["Question: A businessman is the owner of a pet products company, which is engaged in the manufacture and sale of a variety of pet supplies. The businessman's company manufactures such products as pet furniture, toys, beds, collars, leashes, cages, and vitamins. These items are distributed to pet stores throughout the United States and Europe. For many years, the company has conducted its operations from a large factory located in a small town in the southern part of the state. One of the businessman's biggest selling products is specially manufactured high-frequency dog-calling whistles. These whistles are sold to dog-training schools and canine divisions of many police departments. Although these whistles are not audible to people, they are audible to dogs over considerable distances. Two years ago, a breeder purchased an undeveloped lot in the small town in which the company's factory was located. On her property, the breeder constructed a pet hotel, which was used as a boarding kennel for dogs and cats. This boarding facility was situated about 100 yards from the company's factory. Unknown to the breeder, high-frequency sound waves often emanated from the company's factory when dog-calling whistles were being tested. These sound waves caused the breeder's dogs to howl uncontrollably for many hours during the day and seriously interfered with the operation of her business. The breeder now brings an action against the businessman and the company to recover damages for the interference with her business caused by the high-frequency sound that reaches her kennel. The court should rule in favor of\nChoices:\nA. the businessman, because the breeder came to the nuisance after his factory had already been in operation for a number of years.\nB. the businessman, because the breeder's business is abnormally sensitive to harm caused by the high-frequency sound waves.\nC. the breeder, because the high-frequency sound waves constitute a trespass to her premises.\nD. the breeder, because the high-frequency sound waves have seriously interfered with the operation of her business.\nAnswer:", " the businessman, because the breeder came to the nuisance after his factory had already been in operation for a number of years."], ["Question: A businessman is the owner of a pet products company, which is engaged in the manufacture and sale of a variety of pet supplies. The businessman's company manufactures such products as pet furniture, toys, beds, collars, leashes, cages, and vitamins. These items are distributed to pet stores throughout the United States and Europe. For many years, the company has conducted its operations from a large factory located in a small town in the southern part of the state. One of the businessman's biggest selling products is specially manufactured high-frequency dog-calling whistles. These whistles are sold to dog-training schools and canine divisions of many police departments. Although these whistles are not audible to people, they are audible to dogs over considerable distances. Two years ago, a breeder purchased an undeveloped lot in the small town in which the company's factory was located. On her property, the breeder constructed a pet hotel, which was used as a boarding kennel for dogs and cats. This boarding facility was situated about 100 yards from the company's factory. Unknown to the breeder, high-frequency sound waves often emanated from the company's factory when dog-calling whistles were being tested. These sound waves caused the breeder's dogs to howl uncontrollably for many hours during the day and seriously interfered with the operation of her business. The breeder now brings an action against the businessman and the company to recover damages for the interference with her business caused by the high-frequency sound that reaches her kennel. The court should rule in favor of\nChoices:\nA. the businessman, because the breeder came to the nuisance after his factory had already been in operation for a number of years.\nB. the businessman, because the breeder's business is abnormally sensitive to harm caused by the high-frequency sound waves.\nC. the breeder, because the high-frequency sound waves constitute a trespass to her premises.\nD. the breeder, because the high-frequency sound waves have seriously interfered with the operation of her business.\nAnswer:", " the businessman, because the breeder's business is abnormally sensitive to harm caused by the high-frequency sound waves."], ["Question: A businessman is the owner of a pet products company, which is engaged in the manufacture and sale of a variety of pet supplies. The businessman's company manufactures such products as pet furniture, toys, beds, collars, leashes, cages, and vitamins. These items are distributed to pet stores throughout the United States and Europe. For many years, the company has conducted its operations from a large factory located in a small town in the southern part of the state. One of the businessman's biggest selling products is specially manufactured high-frequency dog-calling whistles. These whistles are sold to dog-training schools and canine divisions of many police departments. Although these whistles are not audible to people, they are audible to dogs over considerable distances. Two years ago, a breeder purchased an undeveloped lot in the small town in which the company's factory was located. On her property, the breeder constructed a pet hotel, which was used as a boarding kennel for dogs and cats. This boarding facility was situated about 100 yards from the company's factory. Unknown to the breeder, high-frequency sound waves often emanated from the company's factory when dog-calling whistles were being tested. These sound waves caused the breeder's dogs to howl uncontrollably for many hours during the day and seriously interfered with the operation of her business. The breeder now brings an action against the businessman and the company to recover damages for the interference with her business caused by the high-frequency sound that reaches her kennel. The court should rule in favor of\nChoices:\nA. the businessman, because the breeder came to the nuisance after his factory had already been in operation for a number of years.\nB. the businessman, because the breeder's business is abnormally sensitive to harm caused by the high-frequency sound waves.\nC. the breeder, because the high-frequency sound waves constitute a trespass to her premises.\nD. the breeder, because the high-frequency sound waves have seriously interfered with the operation of her business.\nAnswer:", " the breeder, because the high-frequency sound waves constitute a trespass to her premises."], ["Question: A businessman is the owner of a pet products company, which is engaged in the manufacture and sale of a variety of pet supplies. The businessman's company manufactures such products as pet furniture, toys, beds, collars, leashes, cages, and vitamins. These items are distributed to pet stores throughout the United States and Europe. For many years, the company has conducted its operations from a large factory located in a small town in the southern part of the state. One of the businessman's biggest selling products is specially manufactured high-frequency dog-calling whistles. These whistles are sold to dog-training schools and canine divisions of many police departments. Although these whistles are not audible to people, they are audible to dogs over considerable distances. Two years ago, a breeder purchased an undeveloped lot in the small town in which the company's factory was located. On her property, the breeder constructed a pet hotel, which was used as a boarding kennel for dogs and cats. This boarding facility was situated about 100 yards from the company's factory. Unknown to the breeder, high-frequency sound waves often emanated from the company's factory when dog-calling whistles were being tested. These sound waves caused the breeder's dogs to howl uncontrollably for many hours during the day and seriously interfered with the operation of her business. The breeder now brings an action against the businessman and the company to recover damages for the interference with her business caused by the high-frequency sound that reaches her kennel. The court should rule in favor of\nChoices:\nA. the businessman, because the breeder came to the nuisance after his factory had already been in operation for a number of years.\nB. the businessman, because the breeder's business is abnormally sensitive to harm caused by the high-frequency sound waves.\nC. the breeder, because the high-frequency sound waves constitute a trespass to her premises.\nD. the breeder, because the high-frequency sound waves have seriously interfered with the operation of her business.\nAnswer:", " the breeder, because the high-frequency sound waves have seriously interfered with the operation of her business."], ["Question: A state enacted a statute prohibiting any motor vehicle traveling within the state from having window tinting or glass coating of any kind. The bill passed the state legislature at the urging of state and local law enforcement agencies who argued that tinted windows prevented them from observing interior car activity. Most citizens also supported the bill, especially after a state trooper was killed by an occupant in a window-tinted limousine. The trooper was unable to see that his assailant was armed and dangerous when he approached the vehicle for a speeding infraction. A limousine company operates a limo service in a neighboring state and has a fleet of 68 limos, all of which have tinted windows. Each year, the company makes thousands of trips into the state to transport passengers to the international airport situated 10 miles from the border separating the two states. Since all of its limos are manufactured with tinted windows, the company will incur great expense in ordering limos without tinting. The company brings suit to challenge the constitutionality of the state statute. Assuming that the company has proper standing to assert such an action, which of the following is their strongest constitutional argument to invalidate the aforesaid statute?\nChoices:\nA. Because window tinting is permitted on vehicles in neighboring states, this law denies the company the equal protection of laws.\nB. Because this law burdens interstate commerce by prohibiting all vehicles with window tinting from entering the state, this law violates the commerce clause.\nC. Because window tinting on vehicles is legal in their home state, this law violates the contract clause by preventing the company from fulfilling its obligation to transport passengers into a neighboring state.\nD. Because interstate travel is a fundamental right that may not be burdened by state law, it violates the company's substantive due process rights by arbitrarily and unreasonably regulating economic activity.\nAnswer:", " Because window tinting is permitted on vehicles in neighboring states, this law denies the company the equal protection of laws."], ["Question: A state enacted a statute prohibiting any motor vehicle traveling within the state from having window tinting or glass coating of any kind. The bill passed the state legislature at the urging of state and local law enforcement agencies who argued that tinted windows prevented them from observing interior car activity. Most citizens also supported the bill, especially after a state trooper was killed by an occupant in a window-tinted limousine. The trooper was unable to see that his assailant was armed and dangerous when he approached the vehicle for a speeding infraction. A limousine company operates a limo service in a neighboring state and has a fleet of 68 limos, all of which have tinted windows. Each year, the company makes thousands of trips into the state to transport passengers to the international airport situated 10 miles from the border separating the two states. Since all of its limos are manufactured with tinted windows, the company will incur great expense in ordering limos without tinting. The company brings suit to challenge the constitutionality of the state statute. Assuming that the company has proper standing to assert such an action, which of the following is their strongest constitutional argument to invalidate the aforesaid statute?\nChoices:\nA. Because window tinting is permitted on vehicles in neighboring states, this law denies the company the equal protection of laws.\nB. Because this law burdens interstate commerce by prohibiting all vehicles with window tinting from entering the state, this law violates the commerce clause.\nC. Because window tinting on vehicles is legal in their home state, this law violates the contract clause by preventing the company from fulfilling its obligation to transport passengers into a neighboring state.\nD. Because interstate travel is a fundamental right that may not be burdened by state law, it violates the company's substantive due process rights by arbitrarily and unreasonably regulating economic activity.\nAnswer:", " Because this law burdens interstate commerce by prohibiting all vehicles with window tinting from entering the state, this law violates the commerce clause."], ["Question: A state enacted a statute prohibiting any motor vehicle traveling within the state from having window tinting or glass coating of any kind. The bill passed the state legislature at the urging of state and local law enforcement agencies who argued that tinted windows prevented them from observing interior car activity. Most citizens also supported the bill, especially after a state trooper was killed by an occupant in a window-tinted limousine. The trooper was unable to see that his assailant was armed and dangerous when he approached the vehicle for a speeding infraction. A limousine company operates a limo service in a neighboring state and has a fleet of 68 limos, all of which have tinted windows. Each year, the company makes thousands of trips into the state to transport passengers to the international airport situated 10 miles from the border separating the two states. Since all of its limos are manufactured with tinted windows, the company will incur great expense in ordering limos without tinting. The company brings suit to challenge the constitutionality of the state statute. Assuming that the company has proper standing to assert such an action, which of the following is their strongest constitutional argument to invalidate the aforesaid statute?\nChoices:\nA. Because window tinting is permitted on vehicles in neighboring states, this law denies the company the equal protection of laws.\nB. Because this law burdens interstate commerce by prohibiting all vehicles with window tinting from entering the state, this law violates the commerce clause.\nC. Because window tinting on vehicles is legal in their home state, this law violates the contract clause by preventing the company from fulfilling its obligation to transport passengers into a neighboring state.\nD. Because interstate travel is a fundamental right that may not be burdened by state law, it violates the company's substantive due process rights by arbitrarily and unreasonably regulating economic activity.\nAnswer:", " Because window tinting on vehicles is legal in their home state, this law violates the contract clause by preventing the company from fulfilling its obligation to transport passengers into a neighboring state."], ["Question: A state enacted a statute prohibiting any motor vehicle traveling within the state from having window tinting or glass coating of any kind. The bill passed the state legislature at the urging of state and local law enforcement agencies who argued that tinted windows prevented them from observing interior car activity. Most citizens also supported the bill, especially after a state trooper was killed by an occupant in a window-tinted limousine. The trooper was unable to see that his assailant was armed and dangerous when he approached the vehicle for a speeding infraction. A limousine company operates a limo service in a neighboring state and has a fleet of 68 limos, all of which have tinted windows. Each year, the company makes thousands of trips into the state to transport passengers to the international airport situated 10 miles from the border separating the two states. Since all of its limos are manufactured with tinted windows, the company will incur great expense in ordering limos without tinting. The company brings suit to challenge the constitutionality of the state statute. Assuming that the company has proper standing to assert such an action, which of the following is their strongest constitutional argument to invalidate the aforesaid statute?\nChoices:\nA. Because window tinting is permitted on vehicles in neighboring states, this law denies the company the equal protection of laws.\nB. Because this law burdens interstate commerce by prohibiting all vehicles with window tinting from entering the state, this law violates the commerce clause.\nC. Because window tinting on vehicles is legal in their home state, this law violates the contract clause by preventing the company from fulfilling its obligation to transport passengers into a neighboring state.\nD. Because interstate travel is a fundamental right that may not be burdened by state law, it violates the company's substantive due process rights by arbitrarily and unreasonably regulating economic activity.\nAnswer:", " Because interstate travel is a fundamental right that may not be burdened by state law, it violates the company's substantive due process rights by arbitrarily and unreasonably regulating economic activity."], ["Question: A debtor owed a creditor $15,000 on a debt that had been discharged by the debtor's bankruptcy the previous year. The debtor wrote a letter to the creditor stating that he would pay the creditor $10,000 received from the proceeds of the sale of his house in payment of the discharged debt. One week later, the debtor learned that the person who had contracted to buy his house reneged on the deal. As a result, the debtor refused to pay anything to the creditor. If the creditor sues the debtor for breach of contract, he should be entitled to recover\nChoices:\nA. nothing.\nB. $10,000. 00\nC. $10,000, only if the debtor is successful in suing the person who had contracted to buy his house.\nD. $15,000. 00\nAnswer:", " nothing."], ["Question: A debtor owed a creditor $15,000 on a debt that had been discharged by the debtor's bankruptcy the previous year. The debtor wrote a letter to the creditor stating that he would pay the creditor $10,000 received from the proceeds of the sale of his house in payment of the discharged debt. One week later, the debtor learned that the person who had contracted to buy his house reneged on the deal. As a result, the debtor refused to pay anything to the creditor. If the creditor sues the debtor for breach of contract, he should be entitled to recover\nChoices:\nA. nothing.\nB. $10,000. 00\nC. $10,000, only if the debtor is successful in suing the person who had contracted to buy his house.\nD. $15,000. 00\nAnswer:", " $10,000. 00"], ["Question: A debtor owed a creditor $15,000 on a debt that had been discharged by the debtor's bankruptcy the previous year. The debtor wrote a letter to the creditor stating that he would pay the creditor $10,000 received from the proceeds of the sale of his house in payment of the discharged debt. One week later, the debtor learned that the person who had contracted to buy his house reneged on the deal. As a result, the debtor refused to pay anything to the creditor. If the creditor sues the debtor for breach of contract, he should be entitled to recover\nChoices:\nA. nothing.\nB. $10,000. 00\nC. $10,000, only if the debtor is successful in suing the person who had contracted to buy his house.\nD. $15,000. 00\nAnswer:", " $10,000, only if the debtor is successful in suing the person who had contracted to buy his house."], ["Question: A debtor owed a creditor $15,000 on a debt that had been discharged by the debtor's bankruptcy the previous year. The debtor wrote a letter to the creditor stating that he would pay the creditor $10,000 received from the proceeds of the sale of his house in payment of the discharged debt. One week later, the debtor learned that the person who had contracted to buy his house reneged on the deal. As a result, the debtor refused to pay anything to the creditor. If the creditor sues the debtor for breach of contract, he should be entitled to recover\nChoices:\nA. nothing.\nB. $10,000. 00\nC. $10,000, only if the debtor is successful in suing the person who had contracted to buy his house.\nD. $15,000. 00\nAnswer:", " $15,000. 00"]]