~uestion 1 Question 2<br > In which of the following fact situations does Responding to growing concern about ciga-<br >~)efendant have the best argument that he was rette smoking by minors and seeking to reduce<br >;he y~ctim of an i~earch or s_eizu _re~ the long-term health costs from smoking-relat(<br >~The notice that Defendant s car is diseases, Congress enacted a statute that ad-<br >,/<br > weaving police erratically on the highway. The dressed the problem in several ways. One<br > officers pull Defendant over. Defendant provision focused on federal economic develo<br > emerges fi om the car and appears incoher- ment grants, which were awarded to states to<br > ent and disoriented. Defendant is arrested promote and assist small businesses in urban<br > and charged with driving under the influ- areas. Under this provision, the grants would t<br > ence of alcohol or drugs. The police searcl}~ reduced by 10% for any state that fails to requ<br > Defendant s glove compartment and find~i businesses engaged in the sale of cigarettes to<br > plastic bag containing a large quantity og take specified precautions to avoid sales to<br > minors, including checking drivers licenses o~<br >/-~arijuana. photo ID cards. The state of Raleigh<br > which<br > h~<br > ,B) Vv]ithout a warrant, federal narcotics offic- a lucrative tobacco industry and receives seve~<br >__~ls cross Defendant s fenced-in field and million dollars under the federal grant progran<br > look through a window into Defendant s challenged the constitutionality of the provisic<br > barn. The barn is located about 150 feet in federal district court.<br > from the fence surrounding his house. The<br > federal agents observe a large quantity of Should the court uphold the federal provi-<br > recently harvested marijuana within the sion?<br > barn. The agents then go to a magistrate, <br > swear out a warrant, and arrest Defendant. (A) No, if the federal provision affects state<br > regulation of businesses that do not operz<br >(C) Narcotics officers attached to the State in interstate commerce.<br > Police learn from an informant that the<br > semi-opaque panes of glass on Defendant s (B) No, because state distribution of econom<br > greenhouse, adjacent to his house, are development funds is an integral govern-<br > being replaced during the night w~ a/t ment function.<br > newer type of glass that lets in m~r~Clight<br > without an increase in visibility. Thty fly(~) Yes, because Congress may condition<br > over Defendant s greenhouse in a helicop- grants of money under its spending powe<br > ter that night. One of the officers focuses<br > on the greenhouse with a pair of infrared (D) Yes, because the provision is substantiall<br > "night-vision" binoculars supplied by the related to the important government inter<br > Department of Defense and not available to est of restricting minors access to ciga-<br > the general public. He determines that rettes.<br > marijuana is being grown. The officers then<br > go to a magistrate, swear out a warrant, and<br > arrest Defendant.<br >~,VUsing a small plane of the type used for<br > "N crop-dusting, county sheriff s officers take<br > aerial photographs of the fields surround-<br > ing Defendant s fann. The pictures are later<br > developed and show that there is marijuana<br > growing in Defendant s fields. The sheriff s<br > officers go to a magistrate, swear out a<br > warrant, and arres! Defendant.<br >
评分
评分
评分
评分
如果非要给这本书找一个“优点”,那大概是它成功地让我对市面上所有其他声称是“终极备考指南”的书籍产生了更高的鉴别标准。这本书给我的感觉就像是那种刚学会用软件做排版的学生的作品,充满了技术上的炫技和内容上的空洞。它未能成功地模拟任何一次真实的、有压力的多州测试环境。无论是从试题的难度梯度、对特定知识点陷阱的设置,还是在整体节奏把控上,都与我通过其他官方渠道体验到的测试有着天壤之别。这本书仿佛活在一个与真实考试脱节的平行宇宙中。我甚至无法想象,任何一个通过这本书而取得成功的考生,他们在面对真正的考试时,是依靠这本书提供的知识,还是依靠他们自己此前扎实的、独立于这本书的知识体系。总之,这是一次令人沮丧的购买经历,它不仅没有提供帮助,反而消耗了我大量的精力和时间,让我不得不重新审视并修正自己基于这本书建立起来的片面认知。
评分这本书的排版和编辑质量简直让人怀疑是否经过了任何形式的校对。我发现的错别字和语法错误多到令人发指,它们像跳蚤一样散落在文本的各个角落,每次发现一个,都会瞬间打断我好不容易建立起来的阅读节奏和心流状态。更不用说那些图表和引用的格式,完全是一团糟,有些数据来源模糊不清,有些甚至明显是过时的信息。对于一个声称是“工作坊”材料的书籍来说,这种对细节的漠视是不可原谅的。一个优秀的备考资料,其清晰度和准确性是基石,但这本书恰恰在这两方面都彻底崩塌了。我甚至开始怀疑,如果连最基础的文字工作都如此草率,那么它在构建法律逻辑和推理链条时,又能有多少可信度呢?我花了大量时间去辨别那些显然是印刷错误或编辑疏忽的地方,这些时间本该用来消化更深层次的法律内容。与其说这是为考试准备的材料,不如说它是一份需要读者自行进行“反向编辑”的草稿。
评分我尝试用这本书来梳理我在侵权法(Torts)部分的一些薄弱环节,结果却发现,它提供的“解析”部分与其说是解析,不如说是一堆空洞的总结陈词。当你遇到一个让你感到困惑的案例时,你希望看到的是对判例法演变过程的深入剖析,或者至少是对不同州之间在某一特定规则上的微妙差异的探讨。然而,这本书的解析往往只是简单地重复了正确选项的结论,然后用一句“这是公认的原则”来搪塞过去。对于那些需要理解“为什么是这个答案”的读者来说,这种做法是极具误导性的。它完全扼杀了解题的内在驱动力,将学习过程简化为机械的记忆。我试着用它来辅助我的复习,但很快就放弃了,因为我意识到,我正在浪费宝贵的时间去解读一个只提供表面信息的工具。它没有引导我进行批判性思考,也没有提供任何对比性的视角,完全是一个单向的信息传递,而且传递的质量极低。
评分这本号称“模拟”的工作坊书籍,读起来简直像是在迷雾中摸索一本关于复杂电路图的说明书,但你面前的却是一张关于如何烘焙完美法式面包的食谱。我满心期待能找到一些关于多州考试策略的实战技巧,或者至少是对于那种常年困扰考生的法律概念进行系统性的梳理。然而,我翻开第一页,映入眼帘的却是大量关于时间管理和“积极心态”的陈词滥调,仿佛我买的是一本心灵鸡汤,而不是一个专业的备考工具。更别提书中对某个关键法律原则的解释,其深度和广度完全停留在本科入门阶段,用词晦涩不清,逻辑跳跃得让人怀疑作者是否真的理解自己所写的内容。我试图在这些看似密集的文字中寻找能直接转化为答题得分点的“干货”,结果却像是在沙滩上试图淘金,徒劳无功。如果目标读者是那些连基本法律知识都还没建立起来的新手,这本书也许能提供一个模糊的、甚至可能误导性的框架,但对于任何一个已经接触过LSAT或MBE材料的人来说,这本书的价值几乎为零。它更像是一个出版社为了赶某个市场热点而仓促拼凑出来的产物,缺乏真正的洞察力与专业打磨。
评分老实说,当我合上这本书,我感到的是一种深深的智力上的冒犯。这本书的结构混乱得令人发指,章节之间的衔接就像是随机抽取出来的卡片堆叠在一起。举个例子,它可能在前一页还在讨论证据规则中的“传闻例外”,下一页就毫无预兆地跳到了宪法第一修正案的“公开论坛理论”,中间没有任何过渡或逻辑桥梁,让人完全无法建立起知识点的内在联系。更糟糕的是,它声称提供的是“多州测试”的模拟,但其题目设计——如果那也能称之为题目的话——完全脱离了实际考试的风格与陷阱设置。那些所谓的“情景分析”短得可笑,缺乏必要的细节,使得选择答案的过程完全变成了凭直觉猜测,而不是基于法律推理。这对于任何一个认真准备标准化考试的人来说都是致命的。我期待的是那种能让你在做题时忍不住在草稿纸上画出关系图的精妙设计,而不是这种粗糙的、敷衍了事的文本堆砌。阅读体验极其糟糕,仿佛作者在编写时,脑中已经充满了其他更重要的事情。
评分 评分 评分 评分 评分本站所有内容均为互联网搜索引擎提供的公开搜索信息,本站不存储任何数据与内容,任何内容与数据均与本站无关,如有需要请联系相关搜索引擎包括但不限于百度,google,bing,sogou 等
© 2026 qciss.net All Rights Reserved. 小哈图书下载中心 版权所有