benchmarks.wiki

benchmarks.wiki / Public workspace

MMLU-Pro / 1984 / Three friends decided to go bowling together. They made a friendly wager on the…

Problem

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

question

Three friends decided to go bowling together. They made a friendly wager on the match, with the winner receiving a free beer from the other two guys. In the second frame of the first game, the first friend apparently got a strike when he knocked down all 10 pins. However, the second friend accused the first friend of fouling because his foot went over the line. The first friend denied fouling and wanted to mark down a strike on the scorecard. The second friend refused to give the first friend a strike and wrote in a zero on the scoring sheet. The first friend became enraged. The second friend then went to bowl his frame. As the second friend turned his back, the first friend approached from behind with a bowling ball in his hand. The first friend then raised the bowling ball threatening to hit the back of the second friend's head. The second friend, who had his back turned, did not see the first friend's actions. The third friend saw what the first friend was about to do and could easily have warned the second friend; but the third friend remained silent. The first friend then struck the second friend on the back of the head with the bowling ball, causing a deep scalp wound. If the second friend asserts a cause of action against the third friend, he should

category

law

options

  1. not prevail, because the third friend was under no duty to warn the second friend of the danger.
  2. not prevail, as the third friend's silence does not qualify as an act of negligence.
  3. prevail, because the third friend contributed to his injury by remaining silent.
  4. prevail, because the third friend was aware of the danger.
  5. prevail, because the third friend was an accomplice in the first friend's actions.
  6. prevail, on account of the third friend's omission to act.
  7. not prevail, because the first friend was responsible for his injury.
  8. prevail, because the third friend had a moral obligation to warn him.
  9. not prevail, because the third friend could not have predicted the first friend's actions.
  10. not prevail, because the third friend did not directly cause the injury.

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
1984
task_id
a117409e-6afb-5184-bb87-5d1c7813ad21
task_key
default--test--1984
task_revision_id
1
config / split
default / test

Official source

initial import