← All traps
ArchitectureObserved in bank

Autonomy Appeal

This trap appears as a wrong-answer choice in 20 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

  • CRIMINAL9
  • Constitutional Law4
  • Evidence3
  • Civil Procedure2
  • Contracts1
  • Real Property1

Example wrong choices

first 20
  • 14237_harvest_table_radio_segment · CONSTITUTIONAL_LAW · Choice DYes, because the First and Fourteenth Amendments affirmatively protect the institute's right to employ only instructors who share and communicate its views.

    Why it's attractive

    It grants the motion but changes the reason from Mary's missing state action to an affirmative right for the institute.

    Why it's wrong

    It grants the motion but changes the reason from Mary's missing state action to an affirmative right for the institute.

  • 14275_lantern_launch_observatory · CONSTITUTIONAL_LAW · Choice CNo, because freedom of association under the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits the city from placing any conditions on a private group's use of city facilities.

    Why it's attractive

    The word "any" is too absolute; the answer does not track the plaintiff's sole state-action claim.

    Why it's wrong

    The word "any" is too absolute; the answer does not track the plaintiff's sole state-action claim.

  • 14487_grace_plant_window · CONTRACTS · Choice BYes, because by cashing the check Kingdom Glass impliedly agreed to accept the $1,200 as full payment of its claim.

    Why it's wrong

    Choice B is not the credited answer for this item.

  • 14990_silent-festival-parcels · REAL_PROPERTY · Choice Bnothing, because Martha's present possession gave her the right to decide whether taxes on the empty parcels should be paid.

    Why it's attractive

    The choice makes possession the reason, but the stem's repeated signal is no income.

    Why it's wrong

    The choice makes possession the reason, but the stem's repeated signal is no income.

  • 16063_fishing_death · CRIMINAL · Choice ALydia put a strong emetic in a rival merchant's drink at a market, intending only to make him publicly embarrassed and sick. The rival drank it and had a fatal reaction.

    Why it's attractive

    No intent to kill, but forcing someone to ingest a strong emetic shows conscious disregard of lethal risk — that's depraved-heart malice

    Why it's wrong

    No intent to kill, but forcing someone to ingest a strong emetic shows conscious disregard of lethal risk — that's depraved-heart malice

  • 16063_fishing_death · CRIMINAL · Choice BAndrew's wife had terminal cancer and was in constant, screaming pain. At her repeated request, Andrew gave her a fatal overdose of her prescription pain medication.

    Why it's attractive

    Sympathetic facts don't negate intent. Andrew intentionally caused death. Courts don't recognize mercy as a defense to murder.

    Why it's wrong

    Sympathetic facts don't negate intent. Andrew intentionally caused death. Courts don't recognize mercy as a defense to murder.

  • 16063_fishing_death · CRIMINAL · Choice CPaul discovered that his business partner had embezzled their entire church-building fund. The following day, Paul waited outside the partner's house and killed him with a crossbow.

    Why it's attractive

    Embezzlement is provocation, but 'following day' = cooling time. Heat-of-passion defense requires no reasonable opportunity to cool off.

    Why it's wrong

    Embezzlement is provocation, but 'following day' = cooling time. Heat-of-passion defense requires no reasonable opportunity to cool off.

  • 17426_cedar_ridge_rope_course · CRIMINAL · Choice DNo theft offense, because John chose to send the money.

    Why it's attractive

    The visible reason for payment is fear from a wrongful threat.

    Why it's wrong

    The visible reason for payment is fear from a wrongful threat.

  • 17458_harbor_net · EVIDENCE · Choice DCompel Lydia to add the claimed words, because any accused person is entitled to complete an accusation made against him.

    Why it's attractive

    'any accused person is entitled' — completion is never automatic by status

    Why it's wrong

    'any accused person is entitled' — completion is never automatic by status

  • 17883_choir_potluck_stairwell_fire · CRIMINAL · Choice DYes, because Nathan's real aim was to frighten the neighbors rather than damage property.

    Why it's attractive

    It treats the defendant's stated aim as controlling.

    Why it's wrong

    It treats the defendant's stated aim as controlling.

  • 17913_summit_klaxon · CIVIL_PROCEDURE · Choice BEnforce State C law automatically because the contract names it.

    Why it's attractive

    The contract clause is not self-executing. Klaxon sends the court to the forum's choice rules first.

    Why it's wrong

    The contract clause is not self-executing. Klaxon sends the court to the forum's choice rules first.

  • 18111_camp_stipend_forgery · CRIMINAL · Choice BNo, because Stephen did not actually lose money yet.

    Why it's attractive

    The student reaches for 'no harm, no foul.' The defect is the Gold Key: actual loss is not an element of forgery.

    Why it's wrong

    The student reaches for 'no harm, no foul.' The defect is the Gold Key: actual loss is not an element of forgery.

  • 18438_hannah_david_medicaid · CONSTITUTIONAL_LAW · Choice BThe rule is valid because states may always favor long-term residents over newcomers.

    Why it's attractive

    The student hears 'states may always favor long-term residents' and assumes the state's general police power controls. It does not — the constitutional right to travel limits the state's general police power when the classification operates as a penalty on the right to move.

    Why it's wrong

    The student hears 'states may always favor long-term residents' and assumes the state's general police power controls. It does not — the constitutional right to travel limits the state's general police power when the classification operates as a penalty on the right to move.

  • 18503_barnabas-stipulated-status · EVIDENCE · Choice AAdmit the full judgment because the prosecutor is always entitled to prove every element in the most dramatic way.

    Why it's wrong

    Choice A is not the credited answer for this item.

  • 19000_choir_bus_permit · CRIMINAL · Choice DNo offense, because Lydia chose to pay Daniel rather than wait.

    Why it's attractive

    The stem includes an official threat before the payment.

    Why it's wrong

    The stem includes an official threat before the payment.

  • 19572_gideon-oxen-stampede · CRIMINAL · Choice CNo homicide liability, because the workers could have stepped aside

    Why it's attractive

    Substitutes victim's ability to move (common-sense autonomy) for the legal standard (proximate causation). A victim's failure to avoid an extreme risk created by the defendant is not a superseding cause that negates liability.

    Why it's wrong

    Substitutes victim's ability to move (common-sense autonomy) for the legal standard (proximate causation). A victim's failure to avoid an extreme risk created by the defendant is not a superseding cause that negates liability.

  • 20592_stephen-dock-flight · CRIMINAL · Choice DNo, because Lydia chose to jump into the river

    Why it's attractive

    Lydia's jump was a flight response, not a truly independent act. The autonomy rule for causation breaking requires a genuinely unforeseeable, unrelated voluntary act — not an instinctive escape from a knife threat.

    Why it's wrong

    Lydia's jump was a flight response, not a truly independent act. The autonomy rule for causation breaking requires a genuinely unforeseeable, unrelated voluntary act — not an instinctive escape from a knife threat.

  • 21096_radio-ministry-pledge · EVIDENCE · Choice CAllow Peter to testify broadly in his favor and then invoke the Fifth Amendment to block all cross-examination on the same subject.

    Why it's wrong

    Choice C is not the credited answer for this item.

  • 21422_hayloft-ladder · CIVIL_PROCEDURE · Choice AYes, because the attorney is willing to pay Paul's travel expenses and per diem.

    Why it's wrong

    Choice A is not the credited answer for this item.

  • 21422_hayloft-ladder · CIVIL_PROCEDURE · Choice DYes, because Paul was the only witness to Daniel's knowledge of the danger.

    Why it's wrong

    Choice D 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 →
Autonomy Appeal — Trap Taxonomy | BarMatrix