The CLAT committee’s Dr. JD Gangwar has announced that 6 questions on the postgraduate papers had incorrect model answers in the 2015 paper and two undergraduate questions were cancelled completely (see image).
Each candidate would get access to personalised answer sheets on the official website.
One mark will now be given to all undergraduate candidates for the following two
But… here are just a few obviously impossible questions that were not fixed (with hat-tip to Rajneesh Singh)
As per annual revenue, Amazon is a larger e-commerce company; but as per market capital, Alibaba is a larger e-commerce company. Thus the answer becomes debatable.
The word “FASHION” is a seven-letter word, but the corresponding code has 6 alpha-numericals. Thus, the question is unsolvable. Typo error in question – z64t7uw is required
Wrong answer. B cannot be necessarily concluded from A and C. All Infotech employees may not be knowledge workers.
The correct answer has been marked as ‘C’. Ideally, the word “change” should be replaced with “exchange” to get the correct answer. Thus there is no correct option.
The answer is incorrect. For the second sentence the correct option is censured and not censored. Critics censure and not censor. No other option is correct.
In this question, in statement ‘B’ the word ‘wealth’ is misspelled and should be written as ‘health’, otherwise the question is unsolvable. If we consider the question with wealth treated as health in statement B, then a better option would be “D” instead of “A”.
However, actually it is still possible from the premises given, that all traffic congestion – even that which doesn’t cause a carbon monoxide increase – is still hazardous. LI would argue that no answer here is correct.
There are many more bizarre questions, plus several where the previously published model answers were definitely wrong…
And that’s not even getting into the ridiculous legal issues expected to be solved by pre-law schoolers…
Here’s the original model answer sheet for your reference.
Comments
Initial reaction: on my part has been that students have been hard done by.
Media driven reaction: on my part has been that an astounding number of questions are wrong and hence consequential outrage etc.
Then I saw the 'more wrong/debatable' thing posted up there. Again I haven't gone through all because I don't give a damn about it. However, atleast the law section a number of questions that this Rajneesh is calling into question are not wrong at all!
Now I don't know who he is apart from the fact that he is an exalted tuition teacher. Maybe he isn't a lawyer and therefore has made errors. I would suggest LI to get a second opinion from a non-interested person in this deal. Atleast vis-a-vis law questions, because your posts do help drum up hysteria.
The ones we've listed in the story, I'm personally 90% sure are incorrect and basically unsolvable to the extent that keeping them in the paper is pretty unfair.
Of the questions listed by Singh in the PDF, I'd agree that roughly 50% or more are ridiculous.
Particular the legal reasoning questions are more or less impossible without a first-year law education, which is not what this test is about. And even with a basic understanding of the common law of tort, some of these questions are basically impossible to answer.
Try this one on for size. I spent 15 minutes arguing with a senior lawyer about what the answer should be, whether it's possible to answer it on the basis of the given 'principle', and even if the answer were phrased correctly whether it's possible to give even a 'best' answer without more information.
[img]http://snag.gy/NqC39.jpg[/img]
1. The principle says nothing about what effect unsoundness of mind actually has, it only explains how to determine whether someone has an unsound mind. This is not at all relevant to the rest of the question.
2. Even if you were to actually know that the effect of unsound mind could be rescission of the contract, then you've got to examine the following.
3. Why would Y want to rescind? Usually, unsound mind is something for the person of unsound mind to claim...
4. A could be correct on pure principle, since it sets out the position that unsound mind can vitiate a contract.
5. C could be correct because in this case it seems that Y (who is of sound mind) wants to file against X (who was of unsound mind). Question is, for what? Specific performance or damages? Or rescission? If we are talking about defences available to X to get out of the contract, then C could be correct.
6. B could be correct if we are talking about Y wanting to rescind, for example, a joint venture agreement entered into with X who was of unsound mind and therefore not a suitable business partner because he had no rational intention of entering into the joint venture. Then Y could claim rescission of the contract ab initio presumably, but he'd have to independently produce evidence that X was of unsound mind.
7. D could be correct because all the answers are similarly dubious...
I think these kind of legal reasoning questions are unfair and impossible to answer, since all of these involve complicated questions of law that depend on a complicated set of facts. 2 sentences are not enough information to take a call.
.
what is been happening in clat committe.
where they given me score 51. Is it a fun they r making of us.. waste of 4000