Passing a test proves you can pass a test, not do the thing on the test.
---
Edit, if you don't like this comment, please consider applying Bayesian logic similar to medical tests. You get both false positives and false negatives.
---
Edit, if you don't like this comment, please consider applying Bayesian logic similar to medical tests. You get both false positives and false negatives.
Just like utilities written in C, the fact that they have not shown obvious flaws yet is no guarantee those flaws don't exist.
Nah. The more objectivity, the better.
This modification costs time, and money. It's expensive.
They don't predict the ability to solve any law problem. How could they? How could they guarantee such an algorithmic solution? To an arbitrary law problem?
Is the solution to do away with such testing because of this potential undecidability? No, it is not. Write the bar exam, and pass it. Then move on to law problems that may or may not be solvable.