Absolute Language
This trap appears as a wrong-answer choice in 5 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
- Evidence3
- Civil Procedure1
- Real Property1
Example wrong choices
14905_psalm_riser_still · EVIDENCE · Choice BNo, because Naomi has not produced the original video or a duplicate of it.
Why it's attractive
The missing video fact matters, but this answer treats it as automatic exclusion.
Why it's wrong
The missing video fact matters, but this answer treats it as automatic exclusion.
14905_psalm_riser_still · EVIDENCE · Choice CYes, because a photograph that proves a disputed fact cannot be excluded as unfairly prejudicial.
Why it's attractive
The absolute phrase "cannot be excluded" overclaims the effect of disputed relevance.
Why it's wrong
The absolute phrase "cannot be excluded" overclaims the effect of disputed relevance.
14905_psalm_riser_still · EVIDENCE · Choice DNo, because Naomi has not shown that another duplicate or still image could not be found.
Why it's attractive
The answer adds a requirement the stem never signaled.
Why it's wrong
The answer adds a requirement the stem never signaled.
17357_psalm_herbs_preserve · REAL_PROPERTY · Choice ALydia is not entitled to compensation because regulations protecting land in its natural condition can never be takings.
Why it's wrong
Choice A is not the credited answer for this item.
17357_psalm_herbs_preserve · REAL_PROPERTY · Choice BLydia is entitled to compensation only if the state takes possession of the parcel or authorizes someone else to physically enter it.
Why it's wrong
Choice B is not the credited answer for this item.
17357_psalm_herbs_preserve · REAL_PROPERTY · Choice DLydia is not entitled to compensation unless she proves the parcel lost at least half its market value.
Why it's wrong
Choice D is not the credited answer for this item.
17458_harbor_net · EVIDENCE · Choice ACompel Lydia to add the claimed words, because Rule 106 removes every foundation requirement for completing statements.
Why it's attractive
'removes every foundation requirement' — absolute 'every' on a rule that was liberalized, not emptied
Why it's wrong
'removes every foundation requirement' — absolute 'every' on a rule that was liberalized, not emptied
17458_harbor_net · EVIDENCE · Choice BStrike Lydia's original testimony because Peter disputes the remainder of the conversation.
Why it's attractive
A dispute over the unproven remainder goes to weight, not admissibility; striking the heard words answers a different call
Why it's wrong
A dispute over the unproven remainder goes to weight, not admissibility; striking the heard words answers a different call
17458_harbor_net · EVIDENCE · Choice DCompel Lydia to add the claimed words, because any accused person is entitled to complete an accusation made against him.
Why it's attractive
'any accused person is entitled' — completion is never automatic by status
Why it's wrong
'any accused person is entitled' — completion is never automatic by status
17542_church-pews-letter · CIVIL_PROCEDURE · Choice ADismiss the entire case without prejudice on the ground that harmless-error analysis raises a jurisdictional defect.
Why it's wrong
Choice A is not the credited answer for this item.
17542_church-pews-letter · CIVIL_PROCEDURE · Choice BGrant a new trial automatically because any mistaken evidentiary ruling during trial requires reversal.
Why it's wrong
Choice B is not the credited answer for this item.
17542_church-pews-letter · CIVIL_PROCEDURE · Choice DEnter judgment as a matter of law for Peter because an evidentiary ruling occurred during the trial.
Why it's wrong
Choice D is not the credited answer for this item.
20431_customs-bailiff-affidavit · EVIDENCE · Choice AConsider both statements because the verdict's validity is being challenged.
Why it's attractive
Real power to inquire into validity stretched to swallow the mental-process bar.
Why it's wrong
Real power to inquire into validity stretched to swallow the mental-process bar.
20431_customs-bailiff-affidavit · EVIDENCE · Choice BConsider only Hannah's statement about misunderstanding the instruction, because it directly explains her vote.
Why it's attractive
'Directly explains her vote' is the hallmark of barred mental-process testimony, not a reason to admit it.
Why it's wrong
'Directly explains her vote' is the hallmark of barred mental-process testimony, not a reason to admit it.
20431_customs-bailiff-affidavit · EVIDENCE · Choice DExclude the entire affidavit because jurors may never testify about anything once a verdict is returned.
Why it's attractive
'never... anything' ignores the known external-information carve-out.
Why it's wrong
'never... anything' ignores the known external-information carve-out.
Practice the questions that use this trap as a distractor and get full Wrong Answer Forensics on submit.
Practice questions using this trap →