benchmarks.wiki

benchmarks.wiki / Public workspace

MMLU-Pro / 1752 / A city enacted an ordinance prohibiting the singing and chanting of songs from…

Problem

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

question

A city enacted an ordinance prohibiting the singing and chanting of songs from 1:00P. M. to 1:00A. M. by two or more persons if such noise is audible off the premises where the singing takes place. The ordinance expressly exempted from its purview the singing or chanting of religious songs. After the ordinance was enacted and went into effect, several college students were walking down the street on their way to a victory celebration following a big college football game. They began loudly chanting, "We're number 1. . . we're number 1. " One of the residents who lived on the street was greatly disturbed by the noise and reported the incident to the police, who were immediately summoned to the scene. The students who engaged in the chanting were arrested and charged with violating the ordinance. The students who were prosecuted now bring suit challenging the constitutionality of the city ordinance. Which of the following would constitute their WEAKEST argument against enforcement of the city ordinance?

category

law

options

  1. The ordinance deprives persons of their liberty without due process of law because the ordinance is not related to any legitimate community interest.
  2. The ordinance is unjust as it discriminates against those who are not religious.
  3. The ordinance is not fair because it only applies to two or more persons, thus single individuals can create noise without consequence.
  4. The ordinance deprives the persons of the equal protection of the laws by impermissibly distinguishing between religiously inspired singing and all forms of singing.
  5. The ordinance directly contradicts the students' right to celebrate their college's victory.
  6. The ordinance deprives persons of their freedom of expression, in violation of the First andFourteenth Amendments.
  7. The ordinance is biased against persons who can't sing or chant religious songs.
  8. The ordinance is invalid as it fails to consider the cultural importance of chanting and singing in a group.
  9. The ordinance is not applicable because it was after a football game, a special occasion.
  10. The statutory language of the ordinance is vague and overbroad since it attempts to encompass all forms of singing.

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
1752
task_id
17b41f0d-be80-50d6-8ff4-586dae4e34fa
task_key
default--test--1752
task_revision_id
1
config / split
default / test

Official source

initial import