Me! A disgraced celebrity! Starting by seeking justice for impoverished students.

Seeing that netizens were still debating the other three options, Jiang Chen didn't forget to explain.

"Okay, I've noticed that many people are still confused about the other three options, so I'll explain them to you here."

"Why not choose option B? Li Si rode an old lady across the road and ran a red light."

"After all... Li Si riding on the old lady's back wouldn't directly cause her death."

"The real fatal risk comes from running a red light, which makes you vulnerable to being hit by passing cars."

"The risk of death came from a third-party vehicle, which was an intervening factor, not from Li Si riding on her, which could have killed the old lady."

"This danger is an indirect, accidental risk; it's not one that will cause immediate death!"

At this point, Jiang Chen changed the subject and added a sentence.

"Furthermore, there is no clue in the question that Li Si wanted the old lady to die. The normal mindset of Li Si in making such an absurd prank is that he knew running a red light was dangerous, but thought he was lucky that the car would avoid him and nothing would happen."

"This is negligence due to overconfidence; negligence can never constitute intentional homicide!"

The viewers in the live stream were confused, but they all understood one thing.

In the end, riding a motorcycle past an elderly woman and running a red light doesn't count as intentional homicide!

[Wow, I'll do that next time!]

[Upstairs, riding an old lady across the street against a red light may not be intentional murder, but it's definitely a crime!]

[Those of you upstairs and downstairs who want to try this, please stop this unethical behavior.]

[So you know how to be immoral! Why doesn't the person who set the question know how immoral they are?!]

It's hard to imagine how someone came up with such a question!

As we all know, humans cannot imagine things that haven't happened, so perhaps this is...

[Don't even mention it, I can already picture it in my mind!]

"Of course, if the question explicitly states that Li Si had long wanted to kill the old lady and deliberately rode her into traffic, hoping she would be hit by a car, then it could be considered intentional homicide."

"Unfortunately, this setting was not given in the original question, so you cannot add your own plot when answering the question."

Some netizens still don't understand, while others have already figured it out.

Jiang Chen then continued to explain.

"Then, option C, Zhang San lets vegetarians eat vegetarians."

"The key point of this question is that Zhang San only fed the other person; he did not take the life away from the person in a vegetative state."

"Eating a person in a vegetative state is an act of desecration of a corpse, or even intentional homicide, provided, of course, that the vegetarian kills the person first."

"Zhang San's act of simply persuading people to eat does not directly create a danger of death. Zhang San did not commit the act of killing, and therefore does not constitute the crime of intentional homicide."

The explanation for this question is much simpler.

As the instigator, Zhang San's actions do not constitute intentional homicide as long as he did not harm the person in a vegetative state.

Many netizens realized what was happening and suddenly understood.

"Finally, option D, Li Si tricked the cosplayer into cosplaying as a speed bump on the national highway."

"We all know that there's heavy traffic and high speeds on national highways. If you lie down on a national highway, the risk of being hit by a car is extremely high!"

"Many people will probably choose option D here, but there's a crucial point."

"Li Si deceived others into lying on the road. Subjectively, he should have encountered danger but believed he could avoid it. This is most likely negligence, negligence due to overconfidence, rather than intentional homicide."

"Unless Li Si clearly intended to run over the cosplayer with his vehicle, then it would be considered intentional homicide."

"The question doesn't specify that Li Si intended to kill the other person, assuming a general mindset, that it was just a prank and he didn't intend to kill anyone."

"Negligent homicide is not the same as intentional homicide, so option D cannot be selected."

After Jiang Chen's explanation, the viewers in the live stream who were seriously analyzing the situation were completely confused.

I just don't understand!

However, some netizens with strong logical thinking skills understood it.

One can't help but marvel at the wonder of the law.

Okay, okay, these bar exam questions are still too tricky!

Can anyone explain why the bar exam questions are so absurd?!

I don't understand either, why is this so outrageous!

No way, this question is way beyond the syllabus, I can't accept it!

[That's right! Attorney Jiang, this question set is way beyond the syllabus. Can't you give me some normal questions instead?]

[I've been watching Attorney Jiang's live streams for so long, his legal awareness should be top-notch, right? I disagree!]

Seeing so many dissatisfied viewers in the live stream, Jiang Chen smiled slowly.

Instead of giving the next question, he began to explain.

"Everyone, do you think these bar exam questions are outrageously absurd, like jokes or nonsense?"

"But these kinds of questions don't actually test real-world cases; they're just a magnified version of legal reasoning tests."

"In this extreme scenario test, we strip away common sense and focus solely on legal logic."

after all……

In real life, almost no one would ride an old lady across the road, or tie ten knots around the neck of a one-armed elderly person.

However, the goal of the bar exam is not to test whether someone would actually do this in reality.

In real-world cases, explanations are often vague.

The question setter exaggerated the scenario and amplified the conflict, cutting off the boundary between the two concepts abruptly.

Simply put, these bizarre cases are the result of removing all distractions and leaving only the single point of reference for judgment.

In reality, the actions of the other options might even lead some judges to determine indirect intentional homicide.

However, there will always be a disconnect between theoretical viewpoints and practical judgments.

This is the most frustrating part.

Using life experience to solve problems will inevitably lead to mistakes; one must abandon intuition and use the textbook formulas set by the test creator.

The key to answering practical questions is not to rely on a sense of justice or morality, but to analyze the question based on its prompt.

If a condition is not given, it means it doesn't exist; you can't imagine the motive.

"Also... this question isn't beyond the scope of the curriculum, nor is it particularly obscure."

Jiang Chen changed the subject.

"Of course, it's okay if you think it's off-limits."

"Let's make another one."

Jiang Chen knows a lot of these bar exam questions.

"This time, let's not talk about intentional homicide, let's talk about suspected endangerment of public safety."

Which of the following behaviors constitutes a crime endangering public safety?

"Option A: Zhang San splashed super glue at the subway turnstile."

Upon hearing the first option, many netizens couldn't hold back their excitement.

This scene spontaneously appeared in my mind.

What kind of despicable person could do something like this!

Isn't this behavior a serious threat to public safety?