Finally just about lost it last night; while practicing some multiple-choice MBE questions from my PMBR book, I finally got to a Contracts question that I knew. Finally found one that I didn't need to narrow down to the two best choices, then flip a coin. Finally hit one out of the park. Answer C, no doubt. Final answer, Regis.
I think you know where this is going. I flip to the back, and it's answer A. That was enough to take me to the brink, but the final shove was the "explanation" for why A was right and C (Brendon) was completely wrong. And I quote:
"Choice C is a correct statement of law, and would be a good answer. However, in an inexplicable twist of law..."
I won't bore you with the rest...okay, I'm not sure I can bore you with the rest because I don't understand the rest. Apparently, if it is inexplicable, we can't understand the rest.
I lost it. Test me on things I know, and I get it wrong: fair enough, I blew it. Test me on things that are inexplicable? That's just plain mean, and I would love to know what they are testing when they do things like that. Jerks. At this point, I'd prefer that somebody come over to my house, introduce himself as the embodiment of the Bar process, and proceed to kick me in the testicles a few times.
At least that wouldn't be "inexplicable."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
1 comment:
My second favorite, if you are interested, is "clearly implied," which has to be the biggest oxymoron since "military intelligence." Again, I'll narrow it down to two answers, and neither are completely correct, and both require reading facts into the question, a big no-no. I'll flip a coin, pick A, and of course it's B. The explanation will tell me that A is wrong because there are no facts in the question to make A right. But then it will say that although the facts to support B are also not _directly_ present, they are "clearly implied."
Me no understand.
Post a Comment