A fair trial, and the Wonderland court that gets it all wrong

Tests: 8 of 12 right · Exam: 0 of 4 right · Kind: ★★ · Understood: 10 of 16 · Run: 2026-10-18, commit f3c23ea72

Lesson 191 of the world course of Mova's primary school, as Mova's small model took its tests: it had read this lesson and the ones before it and learned from their exercises. Each test shows the options in the order the student saw them, its choice, the right answer, the score of every option and why it chose. The lesson itself, sentence by sentence with trees and pragmatics: the lesson in the corpora.

Every question of this lesson and each of its options parsed by Mova, with trees and pragmatics: the lesson's questions in the corpora.

Test 1 · ★★ · right ✓

«The teacher said Jake broke the window, so he must have, end of» What would a fair trial say?

1. First look at the evidence and hear Jake; being accused is not being guilty — ← Mova's choice · ✓ the right answer · no support
2. Teachers are always right, so Jake is guilty and should be punished — no support
3. Ask the class to vote on whether Jake did it — no support
4. Jake must prove he was at home that day, or he is guilty — no support

Why: No option found support in what it remembers, so it guessed: it took the first option shown. · the question and its options parsed, with trees and pragmatics

Test 2 · ★★ · right ✓

A boy is blamed for stealing biscuits, and his mum says, «Right, no telly for a week, now tell me what happened». Which Wonderland mistake is she making?

1. Sentence first, verdict afterwards — ← Mova's choice · ✓ the right answer · no support
2. Calling an unsigned poem proof — no support
3. Inventing a brand-new Rule Forty-two — no support
4. Letting a juror forget his name — no support

Why: No option found support in what it remembers, so it guessed: it took the first option shown. · the question and its options parsed, with trees and pragmatics

Test 3 · ★★ · wrong ✗

«ref's mum is the captain of the other team, mate, that's well dodgy» Which rule of fair trials is this like?

1. A judge must not judge a case his own family is in — ✓ the right answer · no support
2. A judge must always wear a wig and a robe — no support
3. Witnesses must always be threatened first, to make sure they talk — ← Mova's choice · score 1
4. A jury must always have twelve people in it — no support

Why: It took the question to ask who or what does it. It chose option 3 with score 1, the only option with support. Its support: lesson 39, line 1: «First aid is the help you give someone straight away, before a doctor comes. The first rule is to keep yourself safe, and the second is to get help from an adu…», reached through the option's own match among the sentences about the question's things. What matched: it fills the role the question asks for (+1). The right option, 1, found no support in what it remembers. · the question and its options parsed, with trees and pragmatics

Test 4 · ★★ · right ✓

In a playground game, the losing side suddenly says, «New rule: anyone with red trainers is out». Which part of the trial is it like?

1. The Hatter forgetting which day of the month it is — no support
2. The King inventing Rule Forty-two — ← Mova's choice · ✓ the right answer · score 8
3. The Queen's tarts going missing — no support
4. The jury writing their names — no support

Why: It took the question to ask who or what does it. It chose option 2 with score 8, the only option with support. Its support: lesson 191, line 3: «The Queen shouts «Sentence first, verdict afterwards!», the judge is her own husband, the King, the witnesses are threatened, the King invents a rule on the sp…», reached through the option's own match among the sentences about the question's things. What matched: the same thing acted on «rule» (+4); the same action «invent» (+3); it fills the role the question asks for (+1). · the question and its options parsed, with trees and pragmatics

Test 5 · ★★ · right ✓

The King says the Knave's poem is unsigned, «so he must have meant some mischief». Why is that bad thinking?

1. Unsigned poems are always written by the Queen — no support
2. Having no name on it proves nothing about who wrote it — ← Mova's choice · ✓ the right answer · score 4
3. Poems are never used as evidence in any court — no support
4. The Knave could not write at all, because he was only a playing card — no support

Why: It took the question to ask why something happens (its cause). It chose option 2 with score 4, the only option with support. Its support: lesson 191, line 14: «The King says that if the Knave did not sign the poem, that «only makes the matter worse»; but an unsigned paper that names nobody proves nothing about who wro…», reached through the same lesson line as the sentence the question matched. What matched: the same action «prove» (+4); the same thing acted on «nothing» (+2). Against it: a different doer (counts against) (-2). · the question and its options parsed, with trees and pragmatics

Test 6 · ★★ · right ✓

The King tells the Hatter, «Don't be nervous, or I'll have you executed on the spot». Why would that be wrong in a real court?

1. Witnesses must never be told to stay calm — no support
2. Only the jury may speak to witnesses — no support
3. Threatening a witness is a crime, and scared witnesses may not tell the truth — ← Mova's choice · ✓ the right answer · score 2
4. Hatters are not allowed to be witnesses in court — no support

Why: It took the question to ask why something happens (its cause). It chose option 3 with score 2, the only option with support. Its support: lesson 191, line 3: «The Queen shouts «Sentence first, verdict afterwards!», the judge is her own husband, the King, the witnesses are threatened, the King invents a rule on the sp…», reached through the option's own match among the sentences about the question's things. What matched: the same action «threaten» (+1); the same thing acted on «witnesses» (+1). · the question and its options parsed, with trees and pragmatics

Test 7 · ★★ · right ✓

Which is the right order in a real trial?

1. Evidence, then verdict, then sentence if guilty — ← Mova's choice · ✓ the right answer · no support
2. Sentence first, then the verdict, then all the evidence at the end — no support
3. Sentence, then evidence, then verdict — no support
4. Verdict, then evidence, then sentence — no support

Why: No option found support in what it remembers, so it guessed: it took the first option shown. · the question and its options parsed, with trees and pragmatics

Test 8 · ★★ · wrong ✗

Mia says, «they wear wigs cos the law says the wig makes them fair». What is true?

1. Wigs are just an old tradition; fairness comes from the rules — ✓ the right answer · no support
2. The wig really does make a judge fairer — no support
3. Only the Queen can decide who wears a wig — ← Mova's choice · score 5
4. Judges without wigs are not allowed to give a verdict, so they must always wear them — score 5

Why: It took the question to ask which statement is true. It chose option 3 with score 5, tied with another option at 5 (the first shown, or the one claiming less beyond what it knows, wins). Its support: lesson 191, line 15: «British judges have worn wigs and robes for hundreds of years as a tradition; in the book the King wears his crown on top of his wig and looks very uncomfortab…», reached through the option's own match among the sentences about the question's things. What matched: the same action «wear» (+3); the same thing acted on «wigs» (+2). The right option, 1, found no support in what it remembers. · the question and its options parsed, with trees and pragmatics

Test 9 · ★★ · right ✓

Alice says Rule Forty-two «ought to be Number One» if it is the oldest. Why is that a clever answer?

1. Rules are numbered in order, so the oldest rule would be the first — ← Mova's choice · ✓ the right answer · score 6
2. Alice wanted to be the one who wrote and numbered all the rules of the court herself — no support
3. Forty-two is a number that cannot be used for rules — score 1
4. Rule Number One is always about people's height — no support

Why: It took the question to ask why something happens (its cause). It chose option 1 with score 6, against 1 for the next best. Its support: lesson 39, line 1: «First aid is the help you give someone straight away, before a doctor comes. The first rule is to keep yourself safe, and the second is to get help from an adu…», reached through the option's own match among the sentences about the question's things. What matched: the same property (+3); the same light verb (be, have, do, get, go) (+3). · the question and its options parsed, with trees and pragmatics

Test 10 · ★★ · wrong ✗

What would happen in a fair court if there was no real evidence against the Knave?

1. He would have to prove he never ate a tart — ← Mova's choice · score 4
2. He would be found guilty anyway, to be safe — score 3
3. The judge would choose a punishment at random — no support
4. He would be found not guilty and go free — ✓ the right answer · score 3

Why: It took the question to ask what happens next. It chose option 1 with score 4, against 3 for the next best. Its support: lesson 91, line 15: «Scientists change their minds when good new evidence shows they were wrong.», reached through the option's own match among the sentences about the question's things. What matched: the same action «show» (+3); the same doer «good new evidence» (+1). The right option, 4, scored 3. · the question and its options parsed, with trees and pragmatics

Test 11 · ★★ · right ✓

★★★ A juror writes «stupid» on her slate and then can't spell it, so asks her neighbour. In the book, what does this show about the jury?

1. They are not following the trial, so they cannot judge it fairly — ← Mova's choice · ✓ the right answer · no support
2. They have already been told the verdict by the Queen and are only pretending to listen — no support
3. They are writing the sentence before the verdict — no support
4. They are the cleverest people in Wonderland — no support

Why: No option found support in what it remembers, so it guessed: it took the first option shown. · the question and its options parsed, with trees and pragmatics

Test 12 · ★★ · wrong ✗

★★★ The Queen's tarts are on the table in the court at the start of the trial, and the King points to them at the end. Why does that make the whole trial even sillier?

1. The tarts prove the Knave ate them all — ← Mova's choice · no support
2. The tarts show that the Hatter baked them for his never-ending tea-party — no support
3. The tarts were the jury's lunch — no support
4. The tarts were never lost, so there may be no theft at all — ✓ the right answer · no support

Why: No option found support in what it remembers, so it guessed: it took the first option shown. · the question and its options parsed, with trees and pragmatics

Exam question 1 · formal language · wrong ✗

Identify the principle denoted by the expression «innocent until proven guilty».

1. The accused is obliged to demonstrate his own innocence — no support
2. The judge determines guilt prior to hearing the evidence — no support
3. All persons present in court are presumed to be guilty until the conclusion of the proceedings — ← Mova's choice · score 3
4. The burden of proving guilt rests upon the accuser and not the accused — ✓ the right answer · no support

Why: It took the question to ask which statement is true. It chose option 3 with score 3, the only option with support. Its support: lesson 169, line 13: «If the person daring you won't do it themselves, they don't really believe their own claim.», reached through the option's own match among the sentences about the question's things. What matched: the same action «dare» (+3). The right option, 4, found no support in what it remembers. · the question and its options parsed, with trees and pragmatics

Exam question 2 · formal language · wrong ✗

Which of the following statements most accurately characterises the relation between verdict and sentence?

1. A sentence may be pronounced only after a verdict of guilty has been reached — ✓ the right answer · no support
2. A verdict and a sentence are identical terms for the same decision — score 4
3. A sentence is determined by the witnesses and the verdict by the judge alone, without a jury — ← Mova's choice · score 6
4. A sentence must invariably be pronounced before the verdict is considered — no support

Why: It took the question to ask who or what does it. It chose option 3 with score 6, against 4 for the next best. Its support: lesson 191, line 2: «In a fair trial, the person accused is treated as innocent until it is proved, with evidence, that they did it. Witnesses tell what they saw, the jury listens…», reached through the same lesson line as the sentence the question matched. What matched: it fills the role the question asks for (+4); the same doer «witnesses» (+3). Against it: a different action (counts against) (-1). The right option, 1, found no support in what it remembers. · the question and its options parsed, with trees and pragmatics

Exam question 3 · formal language · wrong ✗

Select the response consistent with the established principles of fair adjudication.

1. A judge ought to preside over cases concerning his own household — ← Mova's choice · no support
2. A judge may threaten witnesses who appear nervous — no support
3. A judge may introduce new rules during the proceedings whenever he considers it to be to his own advantage — no support
4. A judge ought not to preside over a case in which his own family has an interest — ✓ the right answer · no support

Why: Nothing it remembers matched the question, so it guessed: it took the first option shown. · the question and its options parsed, with trees and pragmatics

Exam question 4 · formal language · wrong ✗

Ascertain the value, as evidence, of a document which bears no signature and names no person.

1. It establishes that the trial must be abandoned — ← Mova's choice · score 3
2. It establishes that the accused is an honest man — score 3
3. It conclusively establishes the guilt of the accused — score 3
4. It does not in itself establish who composed it — ✓ the right answer · score 3

Why: It took the question to ask which statement is true. It chose option 1 with score 3, tied with another option at 3 (the first shown, or the one claiming less beyond what it knows, wins). Its support: lesson 191, line 7: ««Innocent until proven guilty» means the person accused does not have to prove they are innocent: the accusers must prove they are guilty.», reached through the option's own match among the sentences about the question's things. What matched: the same action «prove» (+3). The right option, 4, scored 3. · the question and its options parsed, with trees and pragmatics

This page in Markdown → https://md.mova.elamur.ai/free/en/school-run/world/191-a-fair-trial-and-the-wonderland-court-that-gets-it-all-wrong/