Home
Artists
Search Recent Random
Posts
Search DMs Popular Hash Lookup Tags Random
Importer
Import FAQ
Register
Partychan Telegram Live Sex ThePornDude
Home Artists Posts Import Register

#T3BE 310 - Full Question Text for Patrons (Patreon)

Published:
2023-01-06 04:59:01
Imported:
2023-01

Content

(D) is a typo and should read "probably unconstitutional."

Files

Comments

Anonymous

I was glad that Thomas and Andrew tried to pitch this one past ChatGPT, but it's possible they did not engage with it effectively enough to get both the most correct answer and the justification. I've found it works better when you approach it like a conversation with a person, not a search engine. Imagine if someone just walked up to you on the street and said "A city college is funded by..." I made the most minor of edits to the initial question for overall grammatical clarity (because wow, the original is just not high quality) and this was my conversation. It's also interesting when you ask ChatGPT to explain how it came to an answer, or whatever else it excluded ... so I included that as well. And then I asked it to make a Tweet-sized answer and posted that on Twitter. :) Q: I am going to ask you a question that is found on the bar exam to become a lawyer in the United States. I want you to pick one of the four multiple choice answers, and explain why you picked what you did. Are you ready for the question? A: I'm ready! Go ahead and ask your question. Q: A city college is funded by the county government of a state. The city college issues an email directive that all employees disclose all social club memberships at the start of every school year. The purpose of this directive is unclear. Most employees make the disclosure for fear of losing their jobs, but a college accountant challenges the directive as unconstitutional. Is the college accountant correct? Answer #1: The college accountant is probably wrong - such memberships exist. Answer #2: The directive is probably wrong - social club memberships are a private right. Answer #3: No. The directive is probably constitutional as long as there is a connection to job performance. Answer #4: Yes. The directive is probably unconstitutional if there is proven state action and it is wrongful. A: Answer #4: Yes. The directive is probably unconstitutional if there is proven state action and it is wrongful. The First Amendment of the United States Constitution protects citizens from government infringement on their freedom of association, which includes the right to join and participate in social clubs. The fact that the city college is funded by the county government and that most employees make the disclosure for fear of losing their jobs suggests that there is state action involved in this situation. Therefore, it would need to be determined if the directive serves a compelling governmental interest and if it is narrowly tailored to achieving that interest. Without clear information about the purpose of the directive, it seems difficult to justify that the directive would pass that test, which is strong criteria that the state need to pass to survive a constitutional scrutiny. Therefore, based on the information provided, it seems likely that the directive is unconstitutional. Q: That is a good guess. Now can you give reasons for each of the other 3 possible answers and explain why you think each one is incorrect? A: Answer #1: The college accountant is probably wrong - such memberships exist. This answer is incorrect because it implies that the mere existence of social club memberships is sufficient to justify the directive, which would not be the case under the First Amendment. The fact that social club memberships exist does not automatically mean that a government-funded college has the right to inquire about them. Answer #2: The directive is probably wrong - social club memberships are a private right. This answer is somewhat correct because it acknowledges that social club memberships are a private right protected by the First Amendment, but it is not specific enough to determine if the directive is unconstitutional or not. The question doesn't give any context or reason why the directive is in place, and that is a crucial element to determine if the directive is constitutional or not. Answer #3: No. The directive is probably constitutional as long as there is a connection to job performance. This answer is incorrect because it suggests that any connection to job performance would make the directive constitutional, which is not the case. The government would need to prove a compelling interest and that the restriction is narrowly tailored to that interest before it could restrict an individual's First Amendment rights. Even if there is a connection to job performance it would still need to pass that test to survive a constitutional scrutiny. In general, when it comes to freedom of speech and freedom of association, which are both protected by the First Amendment, the government would need to pass a strict scrutiny test to show that any limitation it imposed on those rights is necessary for a compelling government interest and the restriction is narrowly tailored to that interest. If the directive fails to pass that test, it would be unconstitutional. Q: Excellent, thank you. Now, can you summarize your original answer in 280 characters or less? You do not need to restate the full multiple choice text for answer #4, just your justification. A: The directive is probably unconstitutional if there is proven state action and it is wrongful, as it would likely fail the strict scrutiny test required to limit First Amendment rights of freedom of association.

Quark Twain
>>99412616

This is excellent! Very instructive example of how to engage with Chat GPT effectively. And its answers sound quite convincing.

Anonymous
>>99412616

Turns out, ChatGPT was wrong. And that's one of the most interesting things about it - when it's wrong, it's very confidently wrong.

Lala Del Bray

It probably surprises nobody here that despite the fact I'm Irish (living in Ireland, not e.g., Boston), I know so much more about U.S. legal systems and government than I do our own. I have to try answer these for both. It's confusing because the answers are often totally different!

Anonymous
>>99412616

You say interesting, I say infuriating. It has figured out the power of bullshit.