benchmarks.wiki

benchmarks.wiki / Public workspace

MMLU-Pro / 1342 / There is a thriving source of crawfish that live in a state. The state owns a…

Problem

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

question

There is a thriving source of crawfish that live in a state. The state owns a fleet of boats that trawl for crawfish. The state is willing to sell the crawfish to in-staters for 1perpoundandtoout−of−staterswhocometothestatefor1 per pound and to out-of-staters who come to the state for 5 per pound. The state felt that the increased fee for out-of-staters was a reasonable contribution toward the protection they received from the state. Assume that the federal court decided to hear the case. The statute is likely to be found
Plain-text mathematical notation (without MathML)
There is a thriving source of crawfish that live in a state. The state owns a fleet of boats that trawl for crawfish. The state is willing to sell the crawfish to in-staters for 1perpoundandtoout−of−staterswhocometothestatefor5 per pound. The state felt that the increased fee for out-of-staters was a reasonable contribution toward the protection they received from the state. Assume that the federal court decided to hear the case. The statute is likely to be found
Original LaTeX notation
There is a thriving source of crawfish that live in a state. The state owns a fleet of boats that trawl for crawfish. The state is willing to sell the crawfish to in-staters for $1 per pound and to out-of-staters who come to the state for $5 per pound. The state felt that the increased fee for out-of-staters was a reasonable contribution toward the protection they received from the state. Assume that the federal court decided to hear the case. The statute is likely to be found

category

law

options

  1. unconstitutional, because it infringes on the rights of interstate commerce.
  2. constitutional, because out-of-staters are not entitled to the same benefits as residents.
  3. unconstitutional, because it is a form of discrimination against nonresidents.
  4. constitutional, because the fee was a reasonable contribution toward the protection that the state government gave nonresidents.
  5. unconstitutional, because it is a violation of the Equal Protection Clause.
  6. unconstitutional, because it constitutes a violation of the privileges and immunities clause under Article IV.
  7. constitutional, because the state has the power to regulate its own resources.
  8. constitutional, because the fee is a way to manage and protect the state's crawfish population.
  9. constitutional, because it is a valid exercise of the state's police power.

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
1342
task_id
7f47ac85-7b7a-5087-ba78-b80efc7d320d
task_key
default--test--1342
task_revision_id
1
config / split
default / test

Official source

initial import