Any Prior Lie Can Be Proved By Witness
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
14888_hymnbook_alley_propensity · EVIDENCE · Choice Aadmissible, as evidence that Timothy did not act in self-defense during the encounter behind the print shop.
Why it's attractive
Uses the prior attack to prove current conduct through similarity.
Why it's wrong
Uses the prior attack to prove current conduct through similarity.
14888_hymnbook_alley_propensity · EVIDENCE · Choice Cinadmissible, because it is irrelevant to the defense Timothy raised.
Why it's attractive
The evidence relates to the defense; it is excluded for character, not irrelevance.
Why it's wrong
The evidence relates to the defense; it is excluded for character, not irrelevance.
14888_hymnbook_alley_propensity · EVIDENCE · Choice Dadmissible, as evidence of Timothy's untruthfulness.
Why it's attractive
The false-claim detail tempts impeachment, but this is extrinsic proof of a specific act.
Why it's wrong
The false-claim detail tempts impeachment, but this is extrinsic proof of a specific act.
Practice the questions that use this trap as a distractor and get full Wrong Answer Forensics on submit.
Practice questions using this trap →