Moonlight MCQA - Vietnamese Law

$13–16/hrrate as listed

Write original exam-style multiple-choice questions on Vietnamese law, each with ten answer options and a worked solution, for use in an AI evaluation dataset. Work is remote and self-paced, with observed pay in the $12.92–15.80/hr range.

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

What the work involves

You draft original multiple-choice questions drawn from your own practice and study of Vietnamese law — civil, criminal, commercial, labour, administrative, land, or whichever areas you can defend under scrutiny. Each item needs a clear stem, ten answer options, one defensible correct answer, and a worked solution that explains the reasoning and cites the governing provision (a specific article of the Civil Code, a decree, a circular, or a guiding resolution of the Supreme People's Court). Distractors are the hard part: they must be plausible to someone who half-knows the law and wrong for a reason you can articulate. Items that a competent model can answer from surface pattern-matching get rejected; items where the "correct" answer is contested in Vietnamese practice also get rejected unless the ambiguity is handled explicitly.

What the platform screens for

Mercor's screening is AI-led and follows up on specifics. Expect to name your degree, institution, and bar or practising status, then to be pushed into substance — what provision governs a scenario, how a 2015 code differs from what it replaced, where practice diverges from text. Native-level Vietnamese is non-negotiable because items are authored in Vietnamese and legal terminology has to be exact. Reviewers also look for calibration: whether you can say plainly that a question is too easy, that a provision was amended, or that you are outside your area.

Logistics

Fully remote and asynchronous; no fixed hours or meetings
Paid hourly within an observed band of $12.92–15.80/hr — rates are set by the platform and are not guaranteed
Throughput expectations are usually stated per batch rather than per week; volume can be uneven
Written and rewritten work goes through reviewer feedback, so budget time for revisions on early batches

What they look for

Law degree from a Vietnamese institution or recognised equivalent
Native-level written Vietnamese, including legal terminology
2+ years practising Vietnamese law (preferred)
Educated in or currently based in Vietnam
Ability to cite governing codes, decrees, and circulars accurately
Clear technical writing and self-editing under 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 from a Vietnamese university, or a law degree from another jurisdiction supplemented by professional qualification or practice in Vietnamese law?
Vietnamese law qualification · required
Have you spent at least 2 years in professional legal practice (as a lawyer, in-house counsel, legal advisor, or equivalent) involving Vietnamese law?
Professional practice experience · preferred
Is Vietnamese your native language, or have you lived and worked professionally in Vietnam for a sustained period to achieve native-level fluency in Vietnamese-language legal writing?
Native-level Vietnamese fluency · required
Are you currently based in Vietnam, or were you educated in Vietnam, or have you worked professionally in Vietnam within the last 5 years?
Vietnam residence or education · 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 have hands-on practising experience beyond classroom study, and whether you can articulate the genuine technical challenges that should surface in an MCQA.
A strong answer: Name a concrete practice area (contract law, family law, administrative law, etc.), describe a real client problem or document you drafted, and identify a specific legal rule or ambiguity that made it non-trivial. Vague reference to 'learning a lot' signals no practice.
Where people lose it: Listing theory without a single real case or transaction; talking only about law school coursework; claiming expertise in an area but unable to name a single practical complexity or document type you've handled.