Accomplice Threats Dont Count
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
- CRIMINAL1
Example wrong choices
20108_smuggling_boat_esther · CRIMINAL · Choice ADuress succeeds because Esther did not plan to steer the boat.
Why it's attractive
the rule's voluntary-association element is about the criminal enterprise, not the specific compliance act
Why it's wrong
the rule's voluntary-association element is about the criminal enterprise, not the specific compliance act
20108_smuggling_boat_esther · CRIMINAL · Choice CDuress fails because threats by accomplices never count as human threats.
Why it's attractive
the choice invents a categorical rule (never) that the duress framework does not state
Why it's wrong
the choice invents a categorical rule (never) that the duress framework does not state
20108_smuggling_boat_esther · CRIMINAL · Choice DDuress succeeds because Marcus threatened Esther with a fishing knife.
Why it's attractive
the rule has a second half that the choice omits; a yes-on-the-threat-half is not a yes-on-duress
Why it's wrong
the rule has a second half that the choice omits; a yes-on-the-threat-half is not a yes-on-duress
Practice the questions that use this trap as a distractor and get full Wrong Answer Forensics on submit.
Practice questions using this trap →