Absolute When Uncertain Overclaim
This trap appears as a wrong-answer choice in 1 active question. Spotting how it is built is the repair: read each example's “why it's attractive” before the “why it's wrong.”
Subject distribution
- Torts1
Example wrong choices
18287_manger_cradle_collapse · TORTS · Choice BRes ipsa makes Daniel strictly liable for all damage to rented hand-carved items.
Why it's attractive
The choice answers a different liability question (who pays for damage) rather than a res ipsa inference question.
Why it's wrong
The choice answers a different liability question (who pays for damage) rather than a res ipsa inference question.
18287_manger_cradle_collapse · TORTS · Choice CRes ipsa clearly applies because hand-carved manger cradles never collapse unless the maker was negligent.
Why it's attractive
The 'never unless the maker was negligent' wording is an absolute-overclaim. The collapse can readily be explained by Mary's own post-rental drilling of pilot holes — a competing cause wholly attributable to the plaintiff.
Why it's wrong
The 'never unless the maker was negligent' wording is an absolute-overclaim. The collapse can readily be explained by Mary's own post-rental drilling of pilot holes — a competing cause wholly attributable to the plaintiff.
18287_manger_cradle_collapse · TORTS · Choice DRes ipsa applies only if a state statute required Daniel to inspect every cradle before each rental.
Why it's attractive
Res ipsa is a common-law evidentiary inference that does not require a statutory inspection regime. The 'only if' wording is a false premise.
Why it's wrong
Res ipsa is a common-law evidentiary inference that does not require a statutory inspection regime. The 'only if' wording is a false premise.
Practice the questions that use this trap as a distractor and get full Wrong Answer Forensics on submit.
Practice questions using this trap →