The problems' catalogue (the exam's honest list): (1) the language barrier (the laws' untranslatability — the terms' false friends: the "trust," the "consideration," the "Rechtssicherheit"); (2) the context's absence (the foreign law's social-and-historical soil — the text without the culture); (3) the sources' access (the materials' availability — the practice's invisibility: the law-in-books' trap); (4) the bias-and-ethnocentrism (the own system's lens — the "better-law" prejudice); (5) the comparability problem (the institutions' functional mismatch — the apparent similarity's surface trap); (6) the change's chase (the laws' motion — the comparison's obsolescence); (7) the expertise's demand (the multi-system competence's difficulty); (8) the terminology's standardisation lack (the comparative vocabulary's immaturity). The remedies: the functional method's discipline; the local-expert collaboration; the deep-context study; the humility's craft (the "comparing to learn, not to rank").
Exam Focus Long questions (the unit is the paper's methodological foundation): (i) The functions-and-importance (the six-fold craft — the banker); (ii) The method's steps (the procedural answer); (iii) The globalisation-era position (the convergence-transplant essay); (iv) The problems-and-remedies. Short questions: the 1900 Paris Congress; micro-vs-macro; the functional method; the false friends. Trick areas: (i) The comparative law is a METHOD, not a law (the "there is no rule of comparative law" point); (ii) The FUNCTIONAL method compares the problems' SOLUTIONS, not the texts' words (the praesumptio's craft); (iii) The 1900 Paris Congress = the discipline's formal birth (Saleilles-and-Lambert); (iv) The ethnocentrism is the COMPARATOR's disease (the bias's self-awareness — the remedies' question).