Attorney-client privilege is designed to protect the confidentiality needed for honest and thorough legal advice. It covers communications between a client and a lawyer that are made for the purpose of seeking or receiving legal advice, with the understanding that the information is intended to be confidential within the context of the legal representation. That’s why the correct statement says yes, with limited exceptions. Think of it this way: the privilege helps ensure that the client can be candid with counsel, which is essential for providing effective legal help. But it isn’t absolute. It has well-defined limits. If a communication is not made for obtaining legal advice, or if confidentiality is destroyed—such as by a third party being present or the client sharing the content outside the necessary legal context—the protection may not apply. There’s also the crime-fraud exception, where seeks or uses legal advice to plan or commit wrongdoing; in those cases, the privilege does not apply. And while the privilege protects the communications themselves, it does not blanketly shield every factual detail or every form of document outside the confidential exchange that was meant to facilitate legal advice.

Under Rule 404(b), evidence of other acts is allowed when it helps prove a fact about a defendant’s motive, opportunity, or plan, not to show that the defendant is simply a bad person. So prior acts can be used to explain why the charged conduct happened, or to show a pattern or scheme, as long as the evidence is relevant to a specific issue other than character. This makes the evidence probative for reasons like motive, opportunity, or plan, rather than proving propensity. That’s why the best answer says it’s admissible for purposes such as motive, opportunity, plan. It isn’t about showing propensity, and it isn’t automatically admissible in all circumstances or only if the acts were already admitted.

A rebuttable presumption acts as a provisional rule that kicks in when the triggering fact is shown, but it isn’t a final resolution. Here, showing that a person has been missing for more than seven years creates a presumption that the person is dead. That presumption helps move the case along, but it isn’t conclusive. Once the presumption applies, the burden of production shifts to the party against whom the presumption operates. That party must bring forward evidence to rebut the presumption and show that the person is alive or that death hasn’t been established. The ultimate burden of persuasion, however—deciding whether death has actually occurred—remains with the party who would have to prove the death in the first place. The presumption can be overcome by contrary evidence. So the statement is correct because it accurately describes how a rebuttable presumption works: it shifts the burden of production but not the burden of persuasion, and it may be overcome by contrary evidence. The other options misstate how the burdens or the effect of the presumption operate.

Under FRE 1006, you can present a summary of voluminous writings or data when the materials are too bulky to examine conveniently in court, as long as the originals or duplicates are available for inspection or copying. The key is providing appropriate foundation that the underlying materials exist and can be reviewed by the opposing party. That’s why the best answer is that a summary may be admitted with appropriate foundation. The admissibility of the summary does not require admitting the entire dataset; it just requires that the underlying materials be available for inspection, ensuring transparency and the right to examine the originals if needed. The other options aren’t correct because they either demand admission of the entire dataset or say no foundation is needed, which misstates the rule.