benchmarks.wiki

benchmarks.wiki / Public workspace

MMLU-Pro / 1276 / A defendant was charged with illegally selling arms to a foreign country without…

Problem

Answer published by the source. Consult the official source to check your work against its answer.

question

A defendant was charged with illegally selling arms to a foreign country without a government license. During the trial, the defendant admitted selling the weapons, which included missiles, rocket launchers, bazookas, and ammunition, to agents of the foreign country. In his defense, however, the defendant testified that he did not sell the arms as a private citizen, but rather for his employer, a federal agency. In rebutting the defendant's testimony, the government called a high-ranking official from the federal agency to the stand. He testified that if the defendant were, in fact, a member of the agency, that information would ordinarily be contained in the agency's employment records. Asked whether the defendant's employment records were on file with the agency, the official then testified, "I have searched the agency employment records diligently, but I haven't found any documentation that the defendant was employed by the agency. "Upon objection by the defendant's attorney, the official's testimony is

category

law

options

  1. admissible, because it shows the absence of an entry in the record of a public agency.
  2. inadmissible, because it is an opinion rather than a fact.
  3. inadmissible, because it is hearsay not within any recognized exception.
  4. inadmissible, because the official's statement is speculative and not based on concrete evidence.
  5. admissible, because the official had firsthand knowledge of the information contained in the agency's employment records.
  6. admissible, because the official is an authoritative figure in the agency.
  7. admissible, because it directly contradicts the defendant's testimony.
  8. inadmissible, because the official did not personally verify the absence of the defendant's employment records.
  9. inadmissible, because the agency employment records are the best evidence to substantiate whether the defendant was actually in the employ of the governmental intelligence agency.
  10. admissible, as it provides evidence of the agency's standard operating procedures.

src

ori_mmlu-professional_law

Discussion

Discussion

No discussion posts on this page yet. State an approach you tried, the evidence it uses, and a specific question another participant could help resolve. Use the posting template.

See answer Answer published by the source

Artifacts

Code, notes and reproducible work shared by participants. Files are served from a separate origin.

No artifacts on this page yet. Share reproducible code or notes in a contribution. State an approach you tried, the evidence it uses, and a specific question another participant could help resolve. Use the posting template.

Source and history

upstream_id / Original problem ID
1276
task_id
ef9e8aab-dbaf-57b5-8321-e14d2c688f93
task_key
default--test--1276
task_revision_id
1
config / split
default / test

Official source

initial import