Automatic Exception
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
20602_davids_harp_projector · EVIDENCE · Choice AAdmit the evidence because the hinge change is relevant and relevant evidence is generally admissible.
Why it's attractive
The student remembers that relevant evidence usually comes in. The breaker is that Rule 407 is a specific public-policy exclusion and the answer never handles the offered purpose.
Why it's wrong
General relevance is true as a background idea but does not answer the specific Rule 407 public-policy exclusion.
Spot it next time
Ask whether the answer addresses the named exclusion, not just relevance.
20602_davids_harp_projector · EVIDENCE · Choice CAdmit the evidence because Rule 407 applies only to negligence claims, not products-liability claims.
Why it's attractive
The student remembers the negligence language in Rule 407 and stops there. The breaker is the Gold Key that Rule 407 also covers product defect, design defect, and warning-need uses.
Why it's wrong
The negligence-only version of Rule 407 is too narrow.
Spot it next time
Recall that Rule 407 includes product defect, design defect, and warning/instruction need.
20602_davids_harp_projector · EVIDENCE · Choice DAdmit the evidence automatically because a later redesign always proves feasibility.
Why it's attractive
Feasibility is a real permitted-purpose word, so the choice feels like it found the exception. The breaker is that feasibility is not automatic and is not the purpose Naomi stated.
Why it's wrong
Feasibility is not automatic; the stem states a barred defect/warning purpose.
Spot it next time
Match the exception word to the actual purpose stated in the stem.
Practice the questions that use this trap as a distractor and get full Wrong Answer Forensics on submit.
Practice questions using this trap →