Multiple Choice Questions

Law School Multiple Choice Questions

Some students find answering multiple choice questions more challenging than writing essay exams. There is some discretion with essays: with multiple choice questions, there is only one correct answer. Because multiple choice questions are such an integral part of the bar exam and have come to figure more prominently in law school exams, students must learn to master them.

The most obvious reason for wrong answers on multiple choice questions is not knowing the law. A superficial or general understanding of a rule is insufficient to distinguish between the answer choices. There are also other reasons for incorrect answers, having nothing to do with “knowing the law.” For example, it is easy to misread or misunderstand the question itself and the fact pattern that the question is based on. This can happen for many reasons including skimming rather than deep reading, skipping or not knowing the meaning of words, mischaracterizing facts, not interpreting facts logically, adding facts or “reading into” facts.

To get a head start and learn more about multiple choice questions before you begin law school or during your 1L year, try this online lesson, free for Touro Law Students –and find many other law school success lessons at this link. In CALI’s words: This lesson teaches a methodical approach for all law school multiple choice questions. The step-by-step approach provides a framework to work through questions so students can more easily eliminate distractor answer choices. The lesson will thoroughly explore each step in this analytical approach.

The Process of Answering Multiple Choice Questions: Hear From One of Our Experts

The order of how to read a multiple-choice question is law school is critical. One of Touro Law Center’s highly acclaimed faculty and a nationally renowned bar exam expert, Suzanne Darrow-Kleinhaus, wrote about the process as follows:

Whether we’re conscious of it or not, we engage in an internal, ongoing conversation with ourselves when we read. When I work with students on analyzing multiple-choice questions, I enter these conversations. It happens simply enough: I give the student a problem and ask her to read it. After a minute, I ask, ”what were you thinking when you read this sentence?” And that’s how I get inside her head. What follows is a guide to show you how to do what I do so you can do it for yourself. I’ve written it directly to you so it’s as if we were sitting and working together.

Let’s get started by reading a real problem:

Peavey was walking peacefully along a public street when he encountered Dorwin, whom he had never seen before. Without provocation or warning, Dorwin picked up a rock and struck Peavey with it. It was later established that Dorwin was mentally ill and suffered recurrent hallucinations. If Peavey asserts a claim against Dorwin based on battery, which of the following, if supported by evidence, will be Dorwin’s best defense?
A) Dorwin did not understand that his act was wrongful.
B) Dorwin did not desire to cause harm to Peavey.
C) Dorwin did not know that he was striking a person.
D) Dorwin thought Peavey was about to attack him.

Begin by reading the interrogatory and proceed to the fact pattern. As you read, pause after each sentence and write down exactly what you think. Don’t stop to censor your thoughts; write them as you have them. To borrow an old phrase, “go with the flow.”

Note: By committing your thoughts to specific words, you are forced to be aware of what you are thinking. This will then allow you to backtrack to find any errors in your thought process should you select an incorrect answer choice.

After you complete your reading of the fact pattern, form your own answer in response to the call-of-the-question. Read each of the answer choices and once again write down exactly what you think. Translate your “answer” to fit one of the available answer choices. Now read my thoughts on the problem and compare them to what you’ve written. Don’t expect them to be the same but your thinking should parallel mine. After all, the same problem should elicit a similar analysis. While what we’ve written won’t be exactly the same, it should be close — what I found important, you should have found important, what I questioned, you should have questioned, and how I responded to each of the issues raised in the facts, you should have responded.

Here’s what I thought as I read this problem, sentence by sentence:
(First I’ll check the interrogatory.) “If Peavey asserts a claim against Dorwin based on battery, which of the following, if supported by evidence, will be Dorwin’s best defense?” Since a person is bringing the suit and not the state, it’s a civil suit and not a criminal case. I’m looking for Dorwin’s best defense to battery, so I’d better keep the rule in mind as I go through this — “a battery is the intent to cause a harmful or offensive contact with the person of another.” I’ll be looking for something that negates an element of battery or possibly self-defense.

“Peavey was walking peacefully along a public street when he encountered Dorwin, whom he had never seen before.“
Nothing has happened yet, but it may be important that this was a “public” and not a “private” street but maybe not because the question stem tells me that Peavey brought the action against Dorwin in battery so the state is not involved and it’s not a constitutional issue. Maybe “peacefully” goes to provocation and since Peavey never saw Dorwin before, there’s no past history between them .

“Without provocation or warning, Dorwin picked up a rock and struck Peavey with it.”
Here’s the act required for the battery and I was right about the lack of provocation. Now the issue is one of intent. The facts say that Dorwin “picked” up a rock. This sounds like he acted with purpose. The intent element is satisfied not only when the actor intends harmful or wrongful behavior, but if he acts with purpose or knowledge to a “substantial certainty.” Dorwin need not have understood his act to be “wrongful” to have formed the requisite intent: he need only to know what would be the likely consequence of striking Peavey with a rock.

“It was later established that Dorwin was mentally ill and suffered recurrent hallucinations.”
What’s the relevance of this? The majority view is that insane persons are liable for their intentional torts. So if Dorwin made a choice to pick up the rock and hit Peavey with it, it doesn’t matter if it was an irrational or crazy choice.

On to the answer choices. I’m looking for Dorwin’s best defense to battery. I know the act occurred, so any defense will have to negate the intent element or provide for self-defense, which doesn’t seem likely since Dorwin wasn’t provoked or even knew Peavey.
Choice A: Dorwin did not understand that his act was wrongful.
This one isn’t right because Dorwin doesn’t have to understand his act to be wrongful to commit battery; he only has to act with purpose or knowledge to a “substantial certainty.” He need only know what would be the likely consequence of hitting Peavey with a rock.
Choice B: Dorwin did not desire to cause harm to Peavey.
This is just a variation of A. Even though a battery is the intentional, harmful or offensive touching of another, Dorwin need not have intended harm to be found liable in battery.
Choice C. Dorwin did not know that he was striking a person.
This sounds funny, but if Dorwin had no idea — no “knowledge” — he was striking a person, then he could not have formed the requisite intent to do the act. This one may be it but I need to read D.
Choice D. Dorwin thought Peavey was about to attack him.
This sounds like self-defense, which is a defense but there’s nothing in the facts to lead Dorwin to believe Peavey was about to attack him but even assuming Dorwin believed he was about to be attacked and he needed to defend himself, this still admits that he committed the battery. The question asks for the “best” defense and that’s one that says he never committed the battery. I’ll go with C.

Choice C is the correct answer. It probably seems as if it would take a long time to think through this problem, but it really doesn’t. Just a couple of minutes. It takes much longer to write it and for you to read it than it actually takes to do it. That’s because what I think as I read is so mechanical that it happens automatically. It takes practice, but the process can become automatic for you as well.

I’ve given you the guidelines and shown you how I go about it. Now you need to practice. I realize it won’t be practical to write down your thoughts each time you answer a multiple-choice question. But now that you know what should be going on in your head as you work your way through a problem, your task is to be conscious and deliberate during each step of the process. This way you’ll remember what you thought and can go back and revisit it should you arrive at an incorrect answer choice. If you make the effort to put your thoughts into some concrete form — even if it’s just articulated in your head — you'll remember what you thought. Words give form to thoughts. And once there’s form, there’s something to remember.