Absolute Bar Overclaim
This trap appears as a wrong-answer choice in 2 active questions. Spotting how it is built is the repair: read each example's “why it's attractive” before the “why it's wrong.”
Subject distribution
- CRIMINAL1
- Torts1
Example wrong choices
18356_sentencing-enhancement-habeas · CRIMINAL · Choice ANo, because having litigated one habeas petition to final judgment, Daniel is barred from ever filing a second habeas petition on any ground.
Why it's attractive
The word 'ever' is the tell. AEDPA bars successive petitions by default but provides two exceptions. An absolute bar doesn't exist.
Why it's wrong
The word 'ever' is the tell. AEDPA bars successive petitions by default but provides two exceptions. An absolute bar doesn't exist.
18356_sentencing-enhancement-habeas · CRIMINAL · Choice CYes, because a new Supreme Court decision always entitles a prisoner to reopen a previously decided habeas petition regardless of whether the Court declared the rule retroactive.
Why it's attractive
The word 'always' is the structural tell. A new Supreme Court decision does not automatically apply retroactively on habeas. The Court must declare retroactivity.
Why it's wrong
The word 'always' is the structural tell. A new Supreme Court decision does not automatically apply retroactively on habeas. The Court must declare retroactivity.
18356_sentencing-enhancement-habeas · CRIMINAL · Choice DNo, because Daniel waived the jury-trial argument by failing to raise it in the 2019 habeas petition, and AEDPA's abuse-of-writ doctrine bars claims that could have been raised in prior petitions.
Why it's attractive
The abuse-of-writ doctrine bars claims that could have been raised in a prior petition. But the constitutional rule didn't exist in 2019. Daniel couldn't have raised it.
Why it's wrong
The abuse-of-writ doctrine bars claims that could have been raised in a prior petition. But the constitutional rule didn't exist in 2019. Daniel couldn't have raised it.
21331_naomi_paper_cutter_anxiety · TORTS · Choice AThe anxiety is recoverable only if Naomi witnessed a close family member being injured.
Why it's attractive
Naomi is the directly injured person, not a witness to a relative's injury.
Why it's wrong
Naomi is the directly injured person, not a witness to a relative's injury.
21331_naomi_paper_cutter_anxiety · TORTS · Choice BThe anxiety is recoverable only if the instructor intended to cause emotional distress.
Why it's attractive
The stem says negligent, and the call asks about damages after a physical injury.
Why it's wrong
The stem says negligent, and the call asks about damages after a physical injury.
21331_naomi_paper_cutter_anxiety · TORTS · Choice DThe anxiety is automatically barred because emotional distress is never recoverable in negligence.
Why it's attractive
The word never overclaims once a physical injury appears.
Why it's wrong
The word never overclaims once a physical injury appears.
Practice the questions that use this trap as a distractor and get full Wrong Answer Forensics on submit.
Practice questions using this trap →