Examinees in the Common Law Admission Test (CLAT) 2012 have pointed out at least 10 errors worth 10 marks in the question paper’s answer key that was released by the CLAT committee on Friday. The key was released exactly a week after this year’s convenor NLU Jodhpur published a reshuffled university allotment list to replace an earlier list that contained errors.
“CLAT 2012 has become more like a scam than an exam,” fretted a candidate observing that "a lot of students have got marks much lower than expected by them. This has put students in a dilemma whether the OMR checked by the authorities were also done in the same manner as allotment of first university list”.
According to the answer key, Priyanka Chopra is the Indian national ambassador of UNESCO, whereas she is really the ambassador of UNICEF, while Ashok Amritraj, and not Vijay Amritraj as the key suggested, is the tennis player-turned-filmmaker.
A candidate told Legally India that the logical reasoning section contained some questions which were lifted unchanged from preparatory books by MK Pandey and R S Aggarwal. The answer keys displayed incorrect answers for these questions, alleged the candidate.
Several CLAT takers said they would file Right to Information (RTI) requests with NLU Jodhpur, and formed a Facebook group organising a “mass RTI campaign” on Sunday afternoon. Around 39 people were members of the group at the time of going to press.
“Is it possible that if my marks are found to increase after the formulation of this
RTI application I would be upgraded to a University higher in my ranking as per
my score?” asked a prospective applicant in his draft RTI application uploaded on the Facebook page of CLAT preparation forum Clathacker.
According to the already marked CLAT 2012 answer sheets, as many as 37 candidates secured scores in the range of the top 12 marks, while another 25 scored in the next range of 12 marks.
A total of 25,769 aspirants participated in this year’s competition for 1,702 undergraduate national law university (NLU) seats.
The first criticism surrounding this year’s examination process began on the day of the examination (13 May). Unhappy that questions were allegedly inconsistent with the official CLAT syllabus, some candidates vowed to initiate public interest litigations (PIL) against the committee.
On 28 May, the result and first university allotment list was released by NLU Jodhpur, but several candidates claimed they were not allotted universities according to their preference, even after securing the requisite cut-off marks.
Evidently, NLIU Bhopal – traditionally a lesser preferred law school than NUJS Kolkata, had outranked the Kolkata law school in terms of CLAT preferences depicted in the flawed list.
A revised university allotment list was released last week, after NLU Jodhpur vice chancellor NN Mathur admitted that the earlier list contained errors that would be fixed in June.
Meanwhile, on 4 June the Delhi high court admitted that the first writ should not have been dismissed, and allowed a letters patent appeal against the CLAT convenor, the Bar Council of India (BCI) and the Human Resource and Development Ministry.
The court will look into the issue of a permanent CLAT committee, replacing the present rotational system between the 14 NLUs.
List of incorrect answers pointed out by an examinee
General Knowledge
1. Identify the Indian Tennis player who has turned Hollywood filmmaker?
A) Vijay Amritraj (B) Mahesh Bhupathi
(C) Leander Paes (D) Ashok Amritraj
Answer according to NLU J Answer key- Vijay Amritraj but correct Answer is Ashok Amritraj.
2. Priyanka Chopra has been named National Ambassador of
(A) WHO (B) UNICEF (C)UNESCO (D)International Red Cross Society
Ans according to NLU J answer key- UNESCO, but correct answer is UNICEF
3. Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA) completed how many years of operation in 2011?
(A) 3 years (B) 4 years (C) 5 years (D) 6 years
Ans according to NLU J Answer key is 6 years, but they have asked how many years in operation in 2011. In 2011 it completed 5 YEARS.
Legal aptitude
4.The Right to Equality is guaranteed by-
(A) Article 14 to 18 (B) Article 14
(C) Article 14 and 15 (D) Article 14, 15 and 16
Answer according to NLU J Ans key is Article 14,15 and 16 but Correct answer is 14 to 18.
5. X went to Y’s house and forgot his bag which contained 1 kg sweets. Y’s children consumed the sweets. Decide the liability of Y.
(A) Y is bound to pay the price of sweets to X
(B) Y is not bound to pay anything
(C) Y is bound to pay half the price of sweets.
(D) Y would not have to pay anything because X loves Y’s children.
Due to the ambiguous nature of question and no legal principle, two options have the equal opportunity to be right, option A and B. But the CLAT committee has marked only option B as correct.
6.Principle: Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who, at the time of doing it, by reason of unsound state of mind, is incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or something that he is doing is either wrong or contrary to law.
Fact: X takes his son Y who is three years old, for bathing to the well. He throws his son inside the well so that the son can have a good bath. After 10 minutes he also jumps into the well to take bath and get his son out of the well. Both were rescued by the villagers but his son was found dead.
(A) X has committed culpable homicide amounting to murder
(B) X has committed murder
(C) X has done no offence as he can plead the defense of unsound state of mind
(D) X’s family should be held responsible for allowing him to take the child to the well
By applying principle to the question it s cut and dry that Answer should be "C" but CLAT key says it to be "A" [Correction: This question appears to be correctly answered in the answer key]
12. Statements:
I. Cheese is bad for people with high-cholesterol.
II. Sumeet does not eat cheese.
Assuming that (i) and (ii) are true, which of the following statement follows?
(A)Sumeet has high-cholesterol.
(b)Cheese is bad for Sumeet.
(c)People with high-Cholesterol do not eat cheese.
(d)None of the above
Answer given by CLAT committee says it be C. But correct answer should be None.
LOGICAL REASONING
8. Statement One: All researchers are sociologists
Statement Two: Some researchers are professors.
Conclusions:
I. All researchers are professors.
II. Some researchers are professors.
III. Some professors are sociologists.
IV. Some sociologists are researchers.
(A) Only III and II follow.
(B) Only II and IV follow.
(C) Only III follows.
(D) None follows.
Answer should be None of the above. Even if i take re-statement then also B should not be the answer. But again B was the best option here. 9.Statement: Should students’ union in colleges and universities be abolished?
Arguments:
(i) Yes, it detracts students from academic and career development.
(ii) No, all great leaders have been students’ union leaders.
(A) Argument (i) is strong. (B)Argument (ii) is strong.
(C) Both (i) and (ii) are strong. (D) Neither (i) nor (ii) is strong.
CLAT Answer- A, But correct Answer is-D.
10.Statement:
I One who has squared a circle is not a mathematician
II Therefore -----------------------
(A) No one who has squared a circle is a mathematician
(B) All non-mathematicians have squared a circle
(C) Some mathematicians have squared a circle
(D) All mathematicians square a circle
None of the options is correct. But as per the committee, if we take the answer as A then:- If I haven't squared the circle then does that mean that I mustn't be a mathematician? Of course not. A would be inappropriate. [Correction: This question appears to be correctly answered in the answer key]
threads most popular
thread most upvoted
comment newest
first oldest
first
To that extent I admit the fault of the clat committee but as for the other questions, they are correctly marked and so for those who are congregating at facebook to file a mass RTI campaign my advice is to stop asserting admission in these colleges as your right because you do not deserve it especially if you think the same way about the answer key as that examinee who has posted this list with his own set of "wrong" answers and negativing the correct ones provided in the key.
Coming to LI seriously kian not expected from you to have published such a report without having done a background check on the truth of the statements and without consulting the opinion of experts on the correct answers to these impugned questions.I think it should be rubbished immediately.
Below is the same list of questions with the correct answers in my right opinion:
q.2 it should be unesco. for proof, check the following links:
piggy chops was appointed but in 2010 and was replaced by aamir khan in 2011. She was appointed as ambassador to unesco in 2012. entertainment.oneindia.in/bollywood/news/2010/priyanka-unicef-brand-090810.html
articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2011-11-30/news/30458855_1_aamir-khan-taare-zameen-par-unicef
currentaffairs-businessnews.com/2012/05/12/gk-quiz-12-may-2012/
q.3 mnrega was enacted by legislation in 2005 so clearly it had completed 6 years of operation by 2011 as asked.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahatma_Gandhi_National_Rural_Employment_Guarantee_Act
q.4 its rightly marked option 'd'. how can abolition of royal titles and abolition of untouchability as enshrined in articles 18 and 17 respectively confer right to equality
q.5 its definitely option 'b' because it was X's double fault for having forgotten the sweets box firstly and not communicating the same to Y so he could not have reasonably prevented form the same being consumed by his children. there is no liability of Y because he was kept in the dark as to whereabouts of the misplaced box belonging to X.
q.6 & 7 both are exactly the same to the last letter so i'll answer commonly. Provided the question has been reproduced accurately by the examinee (and if not here lies LI's mistake)since there's a very thin line of difference between culpable homicide and murder and which has been subject to much debate in the legal fraternities, admittedly for not providing clarifications on culpable homicide and murder as to what meaning they hold in the context of the present question candidates may be given the leverage but how can one arrive at the absurd conclusion that it is option 'c' as opined by our examinee who has given vague justifications such as that the man himself jumped in the well too. So according to the examinee every person who jumps in the well should have his mind checked for unsoundness. How can he deduce insanity from circumstances mentioned in the student's answer when he must have been taught not to do so and base one's answer from the facts explicitly mentioned. I am purposefully not commenting as to what should be the right answer because i am myself perplexed over a and b but definitely its not c as stipulated by the examinee.
q.9 participating in student elections will definitely impact one's academic performance adversely as he would be devoting more time to the union when he should have been studying. However,there is no proof supplied in the question that all great leaders had been student's union leaders.. obviously how can one generalize that all political leaders had been student leaders as well at some time so argument (ii) is not strong. So the correct answer as correctly marked in the key is A. May be the examinee was not in his right senses when he marked D besides this question in his OMR.
q.10 Statement I provides that if one squares a circle (lets abbreviate the activity as C) he's not a mathematician ( suppose being a mathematician means being D) so this means that no one who has squared a circle will be a mathematician i.e. no one who has done C will be D as doing C would immediately disqualify you from being D. Clearly option 'A' fills the blank given in statement II. How can the examinee say that answer given is wrong reasoning that it will mean that if you have not squared a circle you'll not be a mathematician. Question does not contemplates what a person will be or will not be if he does not fulfills the task of squaring of circle so how can the examinee presume that all those who have not squared the circle will necessarily have to be mathematicians especially when he has been taught to believe that if A = B it does not means that not A = not B.. its basic logic which the examinee has fallen short of applying and is now venting his frustration by resorting to legal remedies in a sly but feeble and illegal attempt to cover up his own committed mistakes. I seriously condemn this attempt of similarly thinking CLAT candidates as the examinee who have now come up with another technique (after the out-of syllabus questions hype) to halt the rightful admissions going underway and forcibly trying to gain admission into these colleges where they don't deserve to be for the simple reason that they were incompetent. I think this RTI thing is a sheer abuse of process of law.
To all such candidates or shall i say 'losers' my only piece of advice would be to stop fretting, stop complaining and at the least stop using the process of law to try getting yourselves admitted in the NLus' ,where you don't deserve to be, every time by coming up with unreal flaws and using terms such as fiasco or disaster. It will be of no use as no judge in his right mind would allow that as evident from the dismissal of the writ petition by the single judge of Delhi HC. It has been admitted by the division bench only on broader issues such as setting up of a permanent clat exam committee and not leaving it at the hands of individual universities by turn and they will not rule on whether people like you should be awarded grace marks for your own faults or shortcomings in your prep or on re-examination. So it snot good news for you. Better start prepping for next year exams on a bright note and consolidating on your basics and logic which is required the most in a lawyer.
It is submitted that they should stop bringing any further disgrace to the organizing university on grounds as fallacious as this. Its only contributing to the disrepute of the institute for no mistake of its own.
- A NLU student
Thank you for your feedback.
You are right about questions 6 and 10, and we agree we should have checked more closely.
We regret question 7 was published in duplicate, and have now reproduced the other question which the examinee seems to be right about, while the answer key suggests the wrong answer.
Best regards,
Prachi
Prachi, please remove the questions where the answer key answer is not incorrect from your story. Why are they still there?
Also, the NLU student is correct about some other answers as well (2, 3, 5 and 9). She's also possibly correct about 4, though that's arguable (17 and 18 deal with very specific types of discrimination, but are connected to equality)
With respect to question number 5, I believe that due to the absence of a principle, the correct answer can be either A or B( though I am more inclined towards A).
And now I am too bored to read your remarks on other questions and to answer them. Anyway, I don't think you are an NLU student. You appear to be one of those students who have made it to a lower ranked college by just 1 or 2 marks and are therefore concerned about losing their seat in case an RTI is filed.
If you have squared the circle (whatever that is), you're definitely not a mathematician.
Question 10: Definitely A
(A) Rs. 175000 (B) Rs. 200000 (C) Rs. 250000 (D) Rs.190000
The answer given is (B) 2,00,000 where as the exemption limit for the persons between 60 and 80 years of age is Rs 2.50 lakh and below 60 years is Rs. 2,00,000 . Hene both the question and answer is wrong.
Question 9: (A) is the right answer. Why? Because while I gives an argument as to why students unions are bad, II merely states a fact without substantiating the linkage between being a great leader and being involved in a students' union. So, we don't really know if all great leaders were incidentally also involved in students unions, or if students unions actually helped them become great leaders. Hence II is a weak argument.
Question 5: May be it was a bit unfair that no legal principle was stated, but the correct answer is B. The finder of the goods were Y's children who (i) if they are majors would have to reimburse X or (ii) if they are minors, X would be entitled to be reimbursed from their property. Y, in both cases albeit their guardian is not liable to reimburse X, as the goods were not kept in Y's custody. The obligations under a quasi contract are only applicable against the finder of the goods.
Question 4: This was a tricky question. The key word here in "guaranteed". While Articles 14-18 of the constitution fall under the head "Right to Equality", it is "guaranteed" to citizens only under 14, 15 and 16. Articles 17 and 18 are more of obligations on the state to take actions in furtherance of the right to equality.
"Some researchers are professors" could either mean there is an overlap between the catergories called researchers (who are also sociologists) and the category called professors (in which case III would be true); or "professors could be a sub set of the category called "researchers" in which case "all professors are sociologists" would be true. Since neither of the above two can be conclusively determined, III does not follow.
Quoting ...:
And the entire process of reworking of merit list, allocation of institutions to the satisfaction of one and all should not take more than 10 days.
threads most popular
thread most upvoted
comment newest
first oldest
first