Moonlight MCQA - Danish Law

$39–47/hrrate as listed

Write original exam-style multiple-choice questions on Danish law — ten options each, with a worked solution — for use in an AI evaluation dataset. Remote and asynchronous, paid hourly in an observed band of $38.59–47.17/hr.

Summary, eligibility guidance and screening preparation are prepared by Sidequest from the platform's posting. Check the source listing before applying.

The work

You draft original multiple-choice questions drawn from your own practice and training in Danish law. Each item needs a fact pattern or doctrinal prompt, ten answer options, one defensible correct answer, and a written solution that explains why the correct option holds and why the strongest distractors fail. The point is to produce questions a competent Danish lawyer would recognise as fair but that a language model can plausibly get wrong — which means distractors have to be genuinely tempting rather than filler.

Expect to work across areas you actually know: obligationsret, forvaltningsret, strafferet, selskabsret, ansættelsesret, lejeret, or whatever your practice covers. Citations to statute (retsinformation, karnovgruppen), preparatory works, or published judgments are normally expected. Reviewers send items back for ambiguity, two-defensible-answers problems, or reasoning that restates the answer instead of justifying it.

What the screening looks for

Verifiable credentials: cand.jur. or jur.kand., where you studied, whether you hold or held advokatbeskikkelse.
Genuine domain depth — the AI interviewer will push past your first answer on a doctrinal point and see whether you can reason rather than recall.
Native-level Danish and comfort with Danish legal register and citation conventions.
Evaluation judgment: whether you can tell a hard-but-fair question from a trick question, and whether you know when an area of Danish law is too unsettled to produce a single correct option.

Logistics

Fully remote, asynchronous, no fixed shifts. Most contributors work in blocks of a few hours.
Hourly, tracked; the $38.59–47.17 range is what has been observed on this listing and is not guaranteed for any individual.
Work volume on Mercor projects fluctuates — treat this as supplemental rather than a replacement for practice income.
Danish residence or a Danish legal education is effectively required; the dataset targets domestic law, not comparative or EU-only material.

What they look for

Danish law degree (cand.jur./jur.kand.) or recognised equivalent
Native-level written Danish
2+ years practising Danish law, in-house or in private practice
Ability to cite statute, forarbejder and case law accurately
Experience writing or reviewing exam-style assessment items
Self-directed async work with written reviewer feedback

Before you apply

Would you pass this screen?

Drawn from what this listing actually requires. Answered in your browser — nothing is sent to us, and we do not store your answers.

Do you hold a law degree (cand.jur., mag.jur., or equivalent qualification) from a Danish or internationally recognized law program?
Law degree or Danish equivalent · required
Is Danish your native language, or were you educated through secondary school in Denmark?
Native-level Danish · required
Are you currently based in Denmark, or were you educated in Denmark through university?
Danish-based or educated · required
Do you have either 2+ years of professional legal practice (in any jurisdiction) or completion of a law degree within the past 5 years?
2+ years practising or recent legal study · preferred

0 of 4 answered

Included with this listing

Interview prep — 11 questions

Matched to what this platform's screening actually measures. Answer each out loud in 60–90 seconds: claim → concrete example → implication.

What it tests: Whether you can articulate Danish legal doctrine with precision and draw on real applied experience, not just textbook knowledge. For an MCQA writer, this proves you understand how practitioners actually encounter and use these rules.
A strong answer: A concrete scenario from your own practice or studies, naming the specific Danish law (e.g., a provision from Straffeloven or a contract principle), explaining the factual context that triggered it, and showing how the rule resolved the issue or created the conflict. Should feel like a case summary, not a generic legal principle.
Where people lose it: Describing a legal concept in abstract terms without anchoring it to a real scenario, or naming a rule but failing to explain how it actually applied. This signals you're reciting rather than drawing on lived understanding—exactly what makes weak MCQA questions.