The Call-of-the-Question Workshop

Learning goals

Write calls of the question that name exactly one decision.
Match the call's verb to the doctrine: rule, apply, distinguish, predict.
Audit your bank's calls for vagueness and double-barrels.

Lesson 1 — The Call Is The Item'S Contract

The call tells the examinee which decision earns the point. "Which of the following is correct?" contracts nothing. "Is the contract enforceable?" contracts everything: the examinee knows to run formation doctrine against these facts and select the best holding. Write the call before the fact pattern — it decides which facts are load-bearing.

Lesson 2 — Verbs That Do Work

Match the call's verb to the cognitive task: "Which rule governs…?" tests doctrine selection. "How should the court rule?" tests application to facts. "Which statement best explains…?" tests reasoning about why. "What is the defendant's best argument?" tests advocacy framing. Vague verbs ("concerning," "regarding," "with respect to") test nothing — they decorate.

Lesson 3 — One Call, One Decision

A call that asks two things ("Did the court have jurisdiction, and was the ruling correct?") is two items wearing one item's clothes. Split it, or commit to the decision the tested point actually targets. The cover-the-options test applies: with options hidden, the examinee should know exactly what decision to make.

Lesson 4 — The Call-Option Handshake

Read the call against each option: every option must be a responsive answer to the call. If the call asks "how should the court rule on the motion?" and an option states a rule without a ruling, that option fails the handshake — it's either a bad distractor or a sign the call is wrong. Fix whichever is actually broken.

Spot-the-flaw drill

(intended key: B)

Fact pattern: An owner conveys Blackacre to Buyer 1, who does not record. The owner then conveys to Buyer 2, who pays fair value, has no knowledge of the earlier conveyance, and records first. Race-notice jurisdiction. Which of the following is correct?

A. Buyer 1 prevails B. Buyer 2 prevails C. The first conveyance is void D. Recording is irrelevant

Flaw: the call ("which of the following is correct?") names no decision — and the opti

the call ("which of the following is correct?") names no decision — and the options are bare conclusions without reasoning, so the item tests guessing, not doctrine.

Correction

Name the decision in the call ("who prevails, and why?") and rebuild the options as parallel holdings-with-reasons so the examinee must apply the race-notice rule.

Model rewrite

— cold-solve verified: 2/2 (solvers chose B, B)

Fact pattern: (same). Who prevails, and why?

A. Buyer 1, because her conveyance was first in time B. Buyer 2, because as a bona fide purchaser without notice who recorded first, she prevails under a race-notice statute C. Buyer 1, because Buyer 2 had constructive notice from the prior conveyance D. Buyer 2, but only if Buyer 1 acted fraudulently

Key: B

Drill key

The call now contracts a specific decision with reasoning; each option is a responsive holding-with-reason. Both solvers chose B and eliminated each distractor doctrinally.

Sources

Haladyna, T. M., Downing, S. M., & Rodriguez, M. C. (2002). A review of multiple-choice item-writing guidelines for classroom assessment. Applied Measurement in Education, 15(3), 309–334.