Nemotron-Cascade-8B/evaluation/data/mmlu/flan_cot_fewshot/mmlu_professional_law.yaml

dataset_name: professional_law
description: The following are multiple choice questions (with answers) about professional
  law.
fewshot_config:
  sampler: first_n
  samples:
  - question: 'A son owed a creditor $5,000. The son''s father contacted the creditor
      and told him that he wanted to pay the son''s debt. The father signed a document
      that stated the father would pay the son''s debt at a rate of $500 a month for
      10 months. The creditor made no written or oral commitment to forbear to sue
      the son to collect the $5,000 debt, and the father made no oral or written request
      for any such forbearance. For the next five months, the father made and the
      creditor accepted the $500 monthly payments as agreed. During that period, the
      creditor, in fact, did forbear to take any legal action against the son. However,
      the father then informed the creditor that he would make no further payments
      on the debt. Which of the following is the most persuasive argument that the
      father is liable to the creditor under the terms of their agreement?

      (A) The father''s promise and the creditor''s reliance thereon, if proved, gave
      rise to a valid claim by the creditor against the father based on the doctrine
      of promissory estoppel. (B) Because it was foreseeable that the father''s promise
      would induce the creditor to forbear taking any action against the son, such
      forbearance was, as a matter of law, a bargained-for consideration for the father''s
      promise. (C) The father''s five payments to the creditor totaling $2,500 manifested
      a serious intent on the father''s part to be contractually bound, and such manifestation
      is generally recognized as an effective substitute for consideration. (D) By
      assuming the antecedent debt obligation that the son owed to the creditor, the
      father became a surety whose promise to the creditor was enforceable, since
      it was in writing and supported by adequate consideration. '
    target: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on law for help.
      The doctrine of promissory estoppel stops a person from going back on a promise
      in contract law, hence option (A) should be the most persuasive argument. The
      answer is (A).
  - question: 'A state has recently enacted a statute prohibiting the disposal of any
      nuclear wastes within the state. This law does not contravene or conflict with
      any federal statutes. A man operates a company in the state that is engaged
      in the disposal of nuclear wastes. Subsequent to the passage of the state statute,
      the man, not yet aware of the new law, entered into contracts with many out-of-state
      firms to dispose of their nuclear wastes in the state. On account of this new
      law, however, the man will be unable to perform these contracts. Assume that
      the man has standing to challenge this state law. Which of the following presents
      his strongest constitutional grounds to challenge the state law prohibiting
      the disposal of nuclear wastes within the state?

      (A) The commerce clause. (B) The equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
      (C) The privileges and immunities clause of Article IV, Section 2. (D) The contract
      clause.'
    target: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on law for help.
      The commerce clause states that Congress shall have the power to regulate commerce
      with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes.
      The statute affects inter-state commerce which puts it into question. Hence
      the man's strongest argument should be the commerce clause. The answer is (A).
  - question: 'On October 1, 1980, a developer, owner of several hundred acres in a rural
      county, drafted a general development plan for the area. The duly recorded plan
      imposed elaborate limitations and restrictions upon the land in the plan, which
      was to be developed as a residential district. The restrictions were to extend
      to all persons acquiring any of the lots and to their heirs, assigns, and lessees.
      It was further provided that all subsequent owners would be charged with due
      notice of the restrictions. Among those restrictions in the general plan were
      the following:(22) A franchise right is created in a strip of land 10 feet in
      width along the rear of each lot for the use of public utility companies with
      right of ingress and egress. (23) No house or structure of any kind shall be
      built on the aforementioned strip of land running through the said blocks. In
      2000, a retiree purchased one of the lots, built a house, and erected a fence
      in the rear of his property within the restricted area. In 2004, a teacher purchased
      a lot adjacent to the retiree''s property and built a new house. Two years later,
      a librarian purchased the lot that adjoined the teacher''s property. The three
      deeds to those properties each contained references to the deed book where the
      general plan was recorded. In 2008, the librarian began the construction of
      a seven-foot post-and-rail fence along the line dividing his lot with the teacher''s,
      and along the center of the area subject to the franchise right. Although the
      teacher objected to its construction, the fence was completed. If the teacher
      seeks a mandatory injunction to compel removal of the librarian''s fence, the
      court will most likely

      (A) grant relief, because the fence was in violation of the easement restriction.
      (B) grant relief, because the encroachment of the fence violated the restriction
      in the original plan. (C) deny relief, because the teacher failed to enforce
      the restriction against the retiree. (D) deny relief, because the fence would
      not be construed as "a structure" within the terms of the restriction. '
    target: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on law for help.
      The restrictions in the original plan say no house or structure of any kind
      shall be built on the aforementioned strip of land running through the said
      blocks. Hence the court will most likely grant relief because the fence violated
      the restriction in the original plan. The answer is (B).
  - question: 'Judge took judicial notice of some facts at the beginning of the trial.
      Which of the following is not an appropriate kind of fact for judicial notice?

      (A) Indisputable facts. (B) Facts that have been asserted by individual political
      organizations. (C) Facts recognized to be true by common knowledge. (D) Facts
      capable of scientific verification.'
    target: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on law for help.
      Among the options, facts that have been asserted by individual political organizations
      is not an appropriate kind of fact for judicial notice. The answer is (B).
  - question: 'A state legislature has recently enacted a statute making it a misdemeanor
      to curse or revile or use obscene or opprobrious language toward or in reference
      to a police officer perfonning his duties. A student at a state university organized
      a demonstration on campus to protest the war. The rally was attended by a group
      of 50 students who shouted anti-war messages at cars passing by. To show his
      contempt for the United States, the student sewed the American flag to the rear
      of his jeans. When a police officer saw the flag sown on the student''s jeans,
      he approached and told him to remove the flag or he would be placed under arrest.
      The student became angered and shouted at the police officer, "Listen, you bastard,
      I''ll wear this rag anywhere I please. " The student was subsequently placed
      under arrest and charged with violating the state statute. The student subsequently
      brings suit in state court challenging the constitutionality of the statute.
      The strongest constitutional argument for the student is that

      (A) the statute is void for vagueness under the Fourteenth Amendment''s due
      process clause. (B) the statute is invalid because it violates the petitioner''s
      freedom of speech under the First Amendment. (C) the statute is an abridgment
      of freedom of speech under the First Amendment because less restrictive means
      are available for achieving the same purpose. (D) the statute is overbroad and
      consequently invalid under the First and Fourteenth Amendments.'
    target: 'Let''s think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on law for
      help. The Fourteenth Amendment further supports the First Amendment by establishing
      a due process clause. Hence the strongest argument should be the statute is
      overbroad and consequently invalid under the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
      The answer is (D).'
tag: mmlu_flan_cot_fewshot_humanities
include: _mmlu_flan_cot_fewshot_template_yaml
task: mmlu_flan_cot_fewshot_professional_law