Answer To Different Question
This trap appears as a wrong-answer choice in 40 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
- CRIMINAL18
- Real Property8
- Contracts7
- Evidence6
- Civil Procedure1
Example wrong choices
first 2014148_vineyard-sanctions · CIVIL_PROCEDURE · Choice CNo, because Barnabas did not allege that any factual assertion in Hannah's complaint was inaccurate.
Why it's attractive
Silver Key: When two No answers survive, lock which reason Rule 11 actually enforces
Why it's wrong
Silver Key: When two No answers survive, lock which reason Rule 11 actually enforces
14400_mechanical_camel · CONTRACTS · Choice AAfter the camel had completed four Advent tours for Daniel, it was discovered that, because of a clerical error unknown to both parties, the maker’s certificate listed an obscure prop shop as the builder rather than the famous Jerusalem Stageworks workshop that had actually built it.
Why it's attractive
The actual maker is better than the listed maker; that does not hurt Daniel.
Why it's wrong
The actual maker is better than the listed maker; that does not hurt Daniel.
14400_mechanical_camel · CONTRACTS · Choice BA week after the sale, while Daniel was testing the camel, it suddenly jerked, threw him from its platform, and injured him so severely that he was hospitalized for seven months and needed eighteen months for full recovery.
Why it's attractive
The later harm matches the warning that the camel jerks.
Why it's wrong
The later harm matches the warning that the camel jerks.
14400_mechanical_camel · CONTRACTS · Choice DThe camel earned Daniel $4.8 million over a four-year touring career, but when retired it was found to have nonstandard internal electronics and to be useless as a template for manufacturing replica camels.
Why it's attractive
The camel already delivered four years of the bought-for use.
Why it's wrong
The camel already delivered four years of the bought-for use.
14401_psalm_van_repair · CONTRACTS · Choice AYes, because Ruth's promise to Peter was oral.
Why it's attractive
The answer stops at the first oral promise and ignores the later signed note.
Why it's wrong
The answer stops at the first oral promise and ignores the later signed note.
14401_psalm_van_repair · CONTRACTS · Choice BNo, because the amount of the repair bill was less than $5,000.
Why it's attractive
The call is about a guarantor's writing, not a dollar safe harbor.
Why it's wrong
The call is about a guarantor's writing, not a dollar safe harbor.
14401_psalm_van_repair · CONTRACTS · Choice CYes, because Matthew's promise to Peter was oral.
Why it's attractive
Peter sued Ruth; Matthew's oral promise is not the dispositive writing question.
Why it's wrong
Peter sued Ruth; Matthew's oral promise is not the dispositive writing question.
14406_advent_lanterns · CONTRACTS · Choice ANo contract was formed, because Lydia Supply’s purchase order was merely a revocable offer.
Why it's attractive
The choice points to pre-acceptance revocability, but the stem gives acceptance and no cancellation.
Why it's wrong
The choice points to pre-acceptance revocability, but the stem gives acceptance and no cancellation.
14406_advent_lanterns · CONTRACTS · Choice BA contract was formed, but before August 12 it was an option contract cancelable only at Lydia Supply’s election.
Why it's attractive
The choice reaches for a familiar label after seeing one-sided cancellation.
Why it's wrong
The choice reaches for a familiar label after seeing one-sided cancellation.
14406_advent_lanterns · CONTRACTS · Choice DA contract was formed, but before August 12 it was terminable at the election of either party.
Why it's attractive
The cancellation right belongs only to Lydia Supply.
Why it's wrong
The cancellation right belongs only to Lydia Supply.
14417_scripture_puzzle_job · CONTRACTS · Choice ANo, because the tour logistics job Ruth took was not substantially comparable to the puzzle-writer job she had agreed to take.
Why it's attractive
The choice compares the second job instead of answering whether Ruth had a duty to stay.
Why it's wrong
The choice compares the second job instead of answering whether Ruth had a duty to stay.
14417_scripture_puzzle_job · CONTRACTS · Choice BYes, because Ruth's failure to give Barnabas a chance to match the higher salary breached an implied right of first refusal.
Why it's attractive
The stem never creates a matching right.
Why it's wrong
The stem never creates a matching right.
14417_scripture_puzzle_job · CONTRACTS · Choice DYes, because Ruth's acceptance of a permanent position meant that she agreed to stay with Barnabas for a reasonable time.
Why it's attractive
The choice reads permanent in the opposite legal direction.
Why it's wrong
The choice reads permanent in the opposite legal direction.
14424_christmas_pageant_lantern_bid · CONTRACTS · Choice APaul was negligent in erroneously calculating the amount of his sub-bid.
Why it's attractive
A talks about Paul's math fault; it does not show Esther was trapped in her own bid before acceptance.
Why it's wrong
A talks about Paul's math fault; it does not show Esther was trapped in her own bid before acceptance.
14424_christmas_pageant_lantern_bid · CONTRACTS · Choice BAfter Paul's notice of revocation, Esther made a reasonable effort to subcontract with another lighting installer at the lowest possible price.
Why it's attractive
B happens after revocation and helps the substitute-price story; it does not explain why Paul's offer stayed open.
Why it's wrong
B happens after revocation and helps the substitute-price story; it does not explain why Paul's offer stayed open.
14424_christmas_pageant_lantern_bid · CONTRACTS · Choice DEsther dealt with all of her subcontractors in good faith and without seeking to renegotiate lower prices they had bid.
Why it's attractive
D shows clean dealing in general; it still does not show Esther was bound to her prime bid when Paul revoked.
Why it's wrong
D shows clean dealing in general; it still does not show Esther was bound to her prime bid when Paul revoked.
14460_fish_loaves_mosaic · CONTRACTS · Choice A{'text': 'Promissory estoppel.', 'why_wrong_or_correct': 'Attractive because Mary relied; not responsive because the call and signed writing point to a breach-of-contract waiver concept.'}
Why it's attractive
The call says breach of contract and the stem gives a detailed writing.
Why it's wrong
The call says breach of contract and the stem gives a detailed writing.
14460_fish_loaves_mosaic · CONTRACTS · Choice C{'text': 'Unjust enrichment.', 'why_wrong_or_correct': 'Attractive because Peter received a benefit; not responsive because unjust enrichment is a backup recovery lane, not the best support for this breach-of-contract claim.'}
Why it's attractive
The answer tracks benefit received, not the contract concept assigned by the call.
Why it's wrong
The answer tracks benefit received, not the contract concept assigned by the call.
14460_fish_loaves_mosaic · CONTRACTS · Choice D{'text': 'Substantial performance.', 'why_wrong_or_correct': 'Attractive because Mary partly performed; not responsive because the issue is waiver of a failed express approval condition, not substantial completion.'}
Why it's attractive
The stem's decisive facts are condition failure and order to proceed, not completion level.
Why it's wrong
The stem's decisive facts are condition failure and order to proceed, not completion level.
14826_mary_scooter_fundraiser_bias · EVIDENCE · Choice Aimproper, because Lydia has not been given an opportunity to explain or deny the incident.
Why it's wrong
Choice A is not the credited answer for this item.
Practice the questions that use this trap as a distractor and get full Wrong Answer Forensics on submit.
Practice questions using this trap →