Multiple Choice Exam Skills
Approaches to Multiple Choice Exams

This paper will focus on strategies for successfully taking multiple choice exams. The purpose of this memorandum is to outline the structure of multiple choice questions, and to consider various strategies for answering them.

Structure of Multiple Choice Questions

There are three parts to a Multiple Choice Question: the root; the stem; and the options.

The root is the part of the question containing the underlying facts. This may include both relevant and irrelevant facts, just like any law school hypothetical. Sometimes, there is an independent root that applies to a series of questions, each of which has additional facts in their individual roots.

The stem is the part containing the call of the questions or the assignment of the task. Sometimes it is in the form of a question. Sometimes it calls for you to complete the sentence. Sometimes it calls out specific additional facts, and sometimes it asks you to assume something.

The options are the choices given as answers. Sometimes they state conclusions. Other times, they state a conclusion, and add a reason to support it. One option is always correct, while the other three are always incorrect.

More on Options

Of the four options, while only one is correct, the three incorrect options are incorrect for different reasons. Often they are distractors or foils. A distractor compellingly and confusingly attracts the student in the wrong direction, by sounding too good to pass up. A foil makes some options look good that shouldn’t, or makes the correct option look bad.

As a result, all of the options have at least a superficial plausibility. You have two weapons in fighting this problem. First, like every other law school exam, you need to know the law. If you know the rules, the elements, or whatever legal principles underlie what you are being asked to answer, you will be able to ignore the distractors and foils. They won’t hurt you.

Second, in reading the options, read the language carefully. In doing so, you will find up to six common traps that students fail to see if they don’t carefully read the language.

Six Common Traps in Options

The six common traps in options are:

1. Incomplete definitions and arguments. Lawyers must be precise in their use of language. Learning this precision is one of the goals of a law school education. Often, however, an option which explains a reason is incomplete. For example: “A is liable to B for battery if he touched B.” This option is incomplete, because a battery is an offensive or unconsented-to touching, which causes damage. Thus, some of the foils and distractors in the options consist of such incomplete statements of the law, hoping that a student who didn’t read carefully would miss the omissions.

2. Dealing with the facts. Lawyers must be careful with the facts. In an opening statement, lawyers can only state what facts they expect to prove. In a closing argument, they can only argue facts which have arguably been proven. On appeal, the parties cannot argue facts unless they were proven at trial, and the appealing party must accept as proven only those facts found in favor of the prevailing party at trial. Often, a root may be filled with implausible or unlikely facts. But you must accept them if they are there. You cannot reject them as facts. For example, if the root states that after B drank two quarts of whiskey, he was driving in a reasonable manner when he collided with A, you cannot reject that fact of reasonable driving. In that case, an answer such as, “B is guilty of negligence due to his having drunk the whiskey just before driving,” is wrong.

Similarly, don’t assume any facts which are not presented to you. Thus, assume you are told that “A shot B. B died an hour later.” You cannot pick an option that merely says, “A is guilty of a homicide.” You need the “fact” that A’s bullet caused B’s death. Without it, B could have died from being hit by a truck. Yet, you can’t assume the existence of the fact you need. If it isn’t there, don’t assume it.

3. Common errors. Some areas of law are so confusing that they furnish the examiners with opportunities to use foils and distractors. Often, the incorrect options used in exams are based on historical misunderstandings of legal doctrines by students.

One example of this is the “last clear chance” doctrine from Torts. This is a doctrine that only a plaintiff can raise to eliminate the consequences of their own contributory or comparative negligence. Often, however, a Torts question will contain an option such as, “Defendant wins because plaintiff had the last clear chance to avoid the accident.” This is the perfect distractor: it sounds good if you don’t know the law that only a plaintiff can win with the application of the last clear chance doctrine.

Another example is the “dying declaration,” (or any evidence rule with technical requirements). Consider this root and option:

Jim was walking in the crosswalk, when he was hit by a car driven by Bill. Jim got the license number and, as he was being loaded into the ambulance, told Vern, the ambulance driver, “I’m done for. I was hit by a car and all I saw was the license number: 2GPG330. Avenge me.” Jim was transported to Bedlam Hospital, where he spent the next three years in a coma. Meanwhile, the license number was traced to a car owned by Bill. Bill was prosecuted for felony hit and run and served two years in the Big House. One year later, Jim awoke from his coma, and sued Jim. Which of these best explains the admissibility of Jim’s statement to Vern?

A. Jim’s identification of the license number was a dying declaration.

However, this is not a dying declaration. Under FRE 804, the declarant must be unavailable. Jim, as plaintiff, is available (unless the root or option had provided that Jim now suffered from amnesia, or otherwise had no memory of the event). This is another example of a common error of law students make simply by not knowing the law well enough.

4. Overlooking the Obvious. Sometimes, an option is so obviously correct that there is no good reason for missing it. Professor Rose, for example, has occasionally gone through an example in class which he then puts, verbatim, on the exam. And a number of people still miss it.

An example of this kind of situation is the sufficiency of a deed description in property. The general rule is that a description in a deed is sufficient if it adequately identifies the real property conveyed. In real life, without a knowledge of surveying and local geography, you cannot determine the sufficiency of the deed. That knowledge is not expected of you on an exam. However, you may get a root which describes a deed, recites its (often complex) language, and then asks whether it is valid. One option will likely be, “The description is valid if it adequately identifies the real property conveyed.” This is a gift. That statement is always true (remembering the system for evaluating potential options), so it will always be correct. Be on the lookout for potential gifts.

5. Plausible Creations. Some students are so intimidated by an exam that they are sure that the right answers involve ideas or concepts they never heard of before. Therefore, some exam answers include whimsical uses of Latin words or phrases which sound important, but are used in a completely meaningless context. One example is the phrase, post hoc ergo propter hoc. This means, literally, “after which, therefore because of which.” It refers to an error in reasoning, such as, “It always rains after I wash my car, so washing my car makes it rain.” However, the inclusion of such a phrase, or similar Latin phrases, in an option may be seductive, but it is almost always wrong.

6. Unfamiliar Phrases. However, sometimes the correct option will use common plain English instead of familiar legal terms. For example, an option may provide, “A had no obligation to B unless it appeared that A’s conduct would harm B.” This is plain English for, “A had no legal duty toward B unless A’s conduct created a foreseeable harm to B.” Be on the lookout for common language rendering of legal principles.

Playing the Right Role

In multiple-choice exams, you will be asked to play different roles. You may be asked to play the judge, or the advocate, or the scholar. The different roles affect how you approach a particular questions.

Acting as the Judge

Here, the typical stem reads, “If John sues Ralph for breach of contract, the court should find in favor of …”

If this kind of question is presented, do not decide questions of fact. Accept the facts as presented. Do not try to determine who should win until you examine each option. With each option, check first if all the facts and law are accurately stated. If not, reject the option. Is the conclusion consistent with the argument advanced? If not, reject the option. There will be only one option in which the argument advanced is both based on accurate statements of fact and law and consistent with the conclusion. Choose this option, whether or not you like it.

Acting as the Advocate

Here, the typical stem reads, “If John sues Ralph for breach of contract, which is the most effective argument in favor of John’s position?”

The advocate is being paid to win. The advocate makes the argument most likely to bring about the victory. If this kind of question is presented, examine each option to see whether the law is accurately stated and whether the inferences on which it is based are justified by the facts given. If not, reject the option. Determine whether the option could possibly result in victory for the party identified. If not, reject the option. . There will be only one option in which the argument in behalf of the client is based on accurate statements of law and fact and which supports the party’s position. Choose this option, whether or not you really believe the argument will ultimately be successful. You are only being asked which is the most effective argument, not whether the party will prevail.

Acting as the Scholar

Here, the typical stem reads, “The interest in Blackacre which John had on the day after the Testatrix’s death is best described as a …”

The issue is not who will win or lose. Don’t worry about whether the option will result in justice. Read the root and the stem and, before you even look at the options, focus on the specific issue involved and resolve it, based on your knowledge of the law. Then compare your conclusion with the options, and choose the option that is consistent with your conclusion.

Whichever role you play, one requirement is consistent throughout all the types of questions: a complete and thorough knowledge of the law.

Timing

You must use your time efficiently. You probably will not have time to go back and check your choices, so it is important to get them right the first time. Answer the questions in the order they appear. There are four reasons for this.

First, the hard ones don’t get any easier as time passes, but you will get more tired. As you get more tired, the harder questions may seem even harder.

Second, if you read a question, and put it off, part of your mind will still be thinking about it as you move on, thus clouding your mind while you try to focus on the next question. This can be confusing, and cause you to miss other questions by mixing up facts or law from previous unanswered questions.

Third, if you skip an answer, there will be a blank space on your answer sheet, and you might become confused and put the answer to the next question in the blank space. After that, all your answers will be wrong.

Fourth, even an educated guess is better than no guess. You at least have a ¼ (if not better) chance of getting credit for a correct answer.

To avoid running out of time, move through every item as swiftly as possible, but still be careful to read every word patiently and carefully. How can this be accomplished? It can be accomplished by proper orientation, and with a logical game plan.

Orientation

A fact patter in a root can raise dozens of issues, but only one or two will be the focus of the stem. To avoid being drawn into false directions during your reading of the root, always begin with a quick reading of the stem to determine the call of the question and your role (judge, advocate, or scholar). Once you know your role, and the general direction of the issue presented by the stem, quickly read the root. At this point, don’t worry about keeping all the facts straight; and don’t draw little diagrams. You can always quickly check the facts again. This quick reading of the stem and root accomplishes two purposes in orienting you: you find out your role, and you find out what task you have been asked to accomplish.

Basic Game Plan

Always look at all four options, but treat each one separately as if it were the only option before you. Don’t compare one option to the others, since wrong options are supposed to make the correct options look bad. Examine each option carefully, returning to the root to check facts if necessary, and always reminding yourself of the call of the question. Mark the option “T” if it is true (meaning that it contains the correct law, its conclusion logically follows, or it otherwise comports with a correct answer as described in discussing the roles above), “F” if it is false, and ? if you can’t make up your mind. When you finish, there should be one “T”, and the rest “F’s”. If you have a clear “T”, treat a ? as “F”. The option with a “T” is the correct answer.

However, sometimes the stem will reverse the question, and ask, “Which of the following is the least likely to be a breach of the contract?” Restate the stem as, “Would this be a breach of the contract?” then, you would end up with only one “F” and the rest “T’s”. The “F” is the correct answer.

In looking at options, there are some particular kinds of options for which to have specific game plans.

Overlapping Options

Sometimes some of the options contain parts of others. For example: “John is guilty of (A) Burglary only; (B) Robbery only; (C) Burglary and Robbery; (D) Neither Burglary nor Robbery.” Break the options into the individual components (here, burglary and robbery). Give each individual choice a “T” or an “F”, and then find the option, which contains the correct combination.

Three to One Options

Here, three of the options offer the same conclusion coupled with a different reason, and one option offers the opposite conclusion. Thus, in Evidence, often you will see the following: “The statement is: (A) Hearsay, without any exception; (B) Hearsay, but admissible as an excited utterance; (C) Hearsay, but admissible as a present sense impression; (D) Hearsay, but admissible as a dying declaration.”

Three of the conclusions (that the evidence is admissible) give a reason—a particular exception to the hearsay rule. The fourth conclusion doesn’t give a reason. Always confront the odd option last, and individually evaluate each of the other three first. The odd option can only be true if all the others are eliminated first.

What-if Options

Sometimes the options offer additional facts, and the stem asks you to select the fact pattern which is most likely to bring about a particular result. Here, the typical stem reads, “Which of the following additional facts, if it was the only one true, would be most likely to result in a judgment for …?”

Combine the stem with each “what if” option in turn, accepting as true the facts it contains. Then determine if the existence of these additional inferences or facts would be likely to bring about the particular result.

Selecting the Correct Option

There are perhaps five types of options in multiple-choice questions (1 simple option and 4 complex options), and differing strategies for each type. However, and this bears repeating, in each case, you must begin with a thorough knowledge of the law.

Simple Options

By this, we mean “simple” rather than “complex” in describing the structure of the options, not “simple” rather than “difficult.” These options only state possible conclusions, after what may be a long fact pattern. For example, after such a fact pattern, the stem may read, “Which of the following crimes has the Defendant most likely committed?” The options would then list the possible crimes: (A) Larceny; (B) Embezzlement; (C) Larceny by trick; and (D) Obtaining by false pretenses.

In order to answer the question, you must know the elements of each of these crimes. You would then check the root to see if every element is satisfied by the facts given in the root.

Complex Options

In complex options, a conclusion is given, along with a reason or condition giving rise to the conclusion. Usually, each reason or condition is connected to the conclusion by a conjunction: “because;” “if;” “only if;” and “unless.” Each of these conjunctions is handled differently.

“Because” as a conjunction

This applies to options built around either the word “because,” or the word “since.” This option makes two statements. If the statement is, “The street is wet because it is raining,” the conclusion is that the street is wet, and the reason is that it is raining. The full statement is valid only if: (1) the street is wet; (2) it is raining; and (3) the rain caused the street to be wet.

Thus, to decide whether to give an option worded in this way a “T” or an “F”, you must first decide if the reason given is based on an accurate statement. Evaluate the accuracy of the statement by looking at the facts, if the reason given is a factual one, and by looking at the law, if the reason given is a supposed legal principle. If the facts don’t support the reason, the option is false. Similarly, if the reason is not a correct statement of the law, the option is false.

Still, even if the reason is based on an accurate statement of fact or law, you can’t give the option a “T” unless the reason logically justifies the conclusion. In the example I just used, since rain does make a street wet, the reason justifies the conclusion. On the other hand, if the statement were, “The street is wet because the sun is shining,” the conclusion does not logically follow from the reason.

“If ” as a conjunction

This applies to options built around the conjunction “if,” and couples a conclusion with a condition. This option makes only one statement: “The street is wet if it is raining. The conclusion is that the street is wet, and the condition is that it is raining. It doesn’t matter if it is really raining, but merely that, if it is raining, the street would be wet. Thus, in this type of question, the danger is in deciding that the condition hasn’t occurred. For the purposes of the question, you must assume it has. Your only job in deciding if an option is “T” is to determine if the condition justifies the conclusion. Usually, this means knowing the law to determine, for example, whether under the assumed condition, a duty exists, or a crime has been committed, or something similar.

“Only if” as a conjunction

An option built around the conjunction “only if,” couples a conclusion with an exclusive condition. Not only must the conclusion logically follow from the condition, but the condition must be the only cause of the conclusion. The statement, “The street is wet only if it is raining,” suggests that the only thing in the world that can cause the street to be wet is if it is raining. Again, to decide if an option is “T”, you do not need to determine if the condition is true. You assume it is true. Your next step is to determine if the condition logically causes the conclusion, just as you do with “if” options. Then, you have one final step: determining if the condition is the only thing in the world justifying the conclusion. Since, in the example we just used, the street can get wet from other causes than rain (such as a flood, or someone hosing it down), the option is not correct. Once again, this often means knowing the law to determine if the condition is the only cause for a conclusion.

“Unless” as a conjunction

An option built around the conjunction “unless” is the opposite of an option built around the conjunction “only if.” It couples a conclusion with a negative exclusive condition. The statement, “The street is dry unless it is raining,” suggests that the only thing in the world that can keep the street from being dry is the existence of the condition: rain. Thus, to decide if an option is “T”, you do not need to determine if the condition is true. You assume it is true. Your next step is to determine if the condition is the only thing in the world, which will cause the conclusion to be false. If it is, then you would give the option a “T”. Since, in the example we just used, the street can get wet even if the sun is shining (such as in the event of a flood, or someone hosing it down), the option is not correct. Once again, this often means knowing the law to determine if the condition is the only cause for a conclusion.

SUMMARY

Answering multiple-choice questions requires a strategy, but it fundamentally requires knowing the law. There is no substitute for memorizing the law.

My source for multiple choice questions is from the practice books for the MBE (Multistate Bar Examination). Thus, I have multiple-choice questions in the following subjects: Constitutional Law; Contracts; Criminal Law and Procedure; Evidence; Property and Torts. Feel free to come in and obtain practice questions.

If you have any questions about any aspect of the Academic Success Program, please feel free to call or stop by, or e-mail me at mmainero@law.whittier.edu. I would be delighted to assist you in any way I can.

Professor Mario Mainero
Director, Academic Success Program