Admission Overrides Policy
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
- Evidence1
Example wrong choices
17194_wedding_album · EVIDENCE · Choice AAdmit the statement because it is a statement by an opposing party and therefore cannot be excluded by a policy rule.
Why it's attractive
A C3 student who knows that hearsay-admission rules and FRE 408 are separate doctrines can identify this as a category-confusion trap.
Why it's wrong
A C3 student who knows that hearsay-admission rules and FRE 408 are separate doctrines can identify this as a category-confusion trap.
17194_wedding_album · EVIDENCE · Choice CAdmit the percentage-of-fault statement because Rule 408 protects only the dollar check, not factual statements made during the meeting.
Why it's attractive
A C3 student with the FRE 408(a)(2) text internalized can spot the trap: the rule covers 'conduct or a statement,' not just dollar offers.
Why it's wrong
A C3 student with the FRE 408(a)(2) text internalized can spot the trap: the rule covers 'conduct or a statement,' not just dollar offers.
17194_wedding_album · EVIDENCE · Choice DExclude only the dollar check but admit the percentage-of-fault statement for liability.
Why it's attractive
There is no doctrine that lets a court peel factual content out of a protected negotiation context. The C3 student who reads FRE 408(a)(2) holistically can CUT this.
Why it's wrong
There is no doctrine that lets a court peel factual content out of a protected negotiation context. The C3 student who reads FRE 408(a)(2) holistically can CUT this.
Practice the questions that use this trap as a distractor and get full Wrong Answer Forensics on submit.
Practice questions using this trap →