Bar Course Aptitude Test

Example questions, or rather the preamble to each section of the test which comes to the same thing:

http://www.barstandardsboard.org.uk/media/1344440/watsonglaser_form_ab_example_questions.pdf

No idea how the scoring system will work though, -1.34 sounds a pretty low bar, I haven't done that badly in an exam in years. I wonder if it is 1.34 standard deviations below the mean score of those trialists who took the test already in the pilot scheme. That would only eliminate the worst 9% of all candidates though, I doubt they intend to eliminate so few?

I didn't like the inference section.

The standard for PT and PF is the civil standard of proof and any judge who found statements 1 and 2 proved on the basis of either the evidence in the specimen or judicial notice, is likely to have his judgement take a quick trip to the Court of Appeal.

if you decide that there are INSUFFICIENT DATA; that you cannot tell from the facts given whether the inference is likely to be true or false; if the facts provide no basis for judging one way or the other.

Sometimes, in deciding whether an inference is probably true or probably false, you will have to use certain commonly accepted knowledge or information that practically every person has.

I don't like those questions either. I agree with your complaint and an example came immediately to mind.



Suppose there was a sixth 'inference'. 6) The examiner's first name is Mark.

Clearly if there was ever insufficient data for anything, it is this. The inference has nothing whatsoever to do with the facts provided. But we are also told:



Well in that case, it is common knowledge that most people are not called Mark. Practically every person is aware that there are a whole host of possible names, and that while Mark is quite common it in no way accounts for more than a couple of percent of names. And there is no reason to suspect that examiners are more likely to be called Mark than anyone else. So on that basis statement 6) is clearly 'Probably False'.

The example seems absurd but I think it is difficult to distinguish between the logic there and the examples they give as PT and PF. As you say there is certainly no basis that a court could use to find the statements proved either way on the balance of probabilities.

However, context is all. This is an examination for intending lawyers taken by people who have already studied law to a high level, some of whom will have studied evidence. Moreover, it uses a key evidentiary concept, the civil standard of proof. It is unreasonable to expect candidates to answer the question except as lawyers, predicting the decision of a judge.