← All traps
ArchitectureMisconceptionObserved in bank

Backwards

This trap appears as a wrong-answer choice in 143 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

  • CRIMINAL35
  • Real Property30
  • Contracts23
  • Evidence21
  • Constitutional Law12
  • Criminal Law9
  • Civil Procedure8
  • Torts5

Example wrong choices

first 20
  • 14068_retreat_canoe · CIVIL_PROCEDURE · Choice DNo, Paul does not have a right to a jury trial as to any claim because none of them bear exclusively upon equitable relief.

    Why it's attractive

    The phrase 'exclusively upon equitable relief' sounds technical and law-like.

    Why it's wrong

    CUT: the reason points the wrong way.

  • 14108_ebike_delivery_sign · CIVIL_PROCEDURE · Choice BNo, because a motion for judgment as a matter of law must first be made at the close of the plaintiff's case-in-chief.

    Why it's attractive

    It says the motion must be made at the close of the plaintiff's case, but the motion came before submission to the jury.

    Why it's wrong

    It says the motion must be made at the close of the plaintiff's case, but the motion came before submission to the jury.

  • 14227_priscilla_treasurer · CONSTITUTIONAL_LAW · Choice CPriscilla must demonstrate that the statute is not necessary to achieve a compelling state interest.

    Why it's wrong

    Choice C is not the credited answer for this item.

  • 14229_daily-bread-depot · CONSTITUTIONAL_LAW · Choice DConstitutional, because the burden was on Daniel to demonstrate that this condition was not necessary to vindicate a compelling governmental interest, and Daniel failed to meet that burden.

    Why it's attractive

    The owner does not carry the city's exaction burden.

    Why it's wrong

    The owner does not carry the city's exaction burden.

  • 14327_hatteras_ferry_preemption · CONSTITUTIONAL_LAW · Choice Ddismiss the action, because Lydia lacks standing to sue.

    Why it's attractive

    Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560–61 (1992): injury in fact, causation, redressability. Lydia has a direct economic injury (loss of customers), caused by the discontinuance, redressable by an injunction. The choice treats individualized economic harm as defeat of standing; in fact, individualized economic harm is the threshold showing Lujan requires.

    Why it's wrong

    Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560–61 (1992): injury in fact, causation, redressability. Lydia has a direct economic injury (loss of customers), caused by the discontinuance, redressable by an injunction. The choice treats individualized economic harm as defeat of standing; in fact, individualized economic harm is the threshold showing Lujan requires.

  • 14334_bethany_fig_goat_bounty · CONSTITUTIONAL_LAW · Choice Dunconstitutional, because the Tenth Amendment reserves to the state the traditional power to protect its residents' property from destructive wild animals.

    Why it's attractive

    The answer makes local property protection defeat the federal ownership hook.

    Why it's wrong

    The answer makes local property protection defeat the federal ownership hook.

  • 14344_lydia_marketplace · CONSTITUTIONAL_LAW · Choice CNo, because regulation of ordinary business dealings is reserved to the states by the Tenth Amendment.

    Why it's attractive

    Reserved powers do not defeat a power expressly delegated to Congress.

    Why it's wrong

    Reserved powers do not defeat a power expressly delegated to Congress.

  • 14378_prayer_journal_discount · CONTRACTS · Choice DThe custom of the trade controls, and Lydia is entitled to take a 2% discount if she pays within 10 days.

    Why it's attractive

    The answer chooses the broader trade custom even though the stem gives a specific repeated pattern between these parties.

    Why it's wrong

    The answer chooses the broader trade custom even though the stem gives a specific repeated pattern between these parties.

  • 14391_noble_fir_nativity · CONTRACTS · Choice CNo contract was formed, because Paul's June 10 sale of the firs to another merchant revoked the offer to Mary.

    Why it's attractive

    Revocation of an offer requires receipt of notice by the offeree. The resale to a third party is not, by itself, notice to Mary.

    Why it's wrong

    Revocation of an offer requires receipt of notice by the offeree. The resale to a third party is not, by itself, notice to Mary.

  • 14392_tutor-typist-land · CONTRACTS · Choice AThere is no enforceable contract, because Timothy is entitled to rescission due to a mutual mistake as to a basic assumption of the contract.

    Why it's attractive

    The stem says only Timothy was mistaken. Peter was not mistaken about anything. 'Mutual' requires both.

    Why it's wrong

    The stem says only Timothy was mistaken. Peter was not mistaken about anything. 'Mutual' requires both.

  • 14412_gospel_puzzle_invoice · CONTRACTS · Choice DNo, because there was no consideration to support Lydia’s promise to pay $1,840 on November 15.

    Why it's attractive

    The choice points the missing-consideration problem at Lydia’s promise instead of Stephen’s promise.

    Why it's wrong

    The choice points the missing-consideration problem at Lydia’s promise instead of Stephen’s promise.

  • 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.

  • 14427_peter_john_boat_inquiry · CONTRACTS · Choice ANo, because the offer lapsed before John accepted.

    Why it's attractive

    Did the offer state a time limit? No. So lapse requires reasonable time. The whole exchange was minutes. Reasonable time? Yes. No lapse. CUT.

    Why it's wrong

    Did the offer state a time limit? No. So lapse requires reasonable time. The whole exchange was minutes. Reasonable time? Yes. No lapse. CUT.

  • 14438_nativity_ornament_kits · CONTRACTS · Choice BLydia’s cancellation right was a condition subsequent, and its failure made the contract enforceable.

    Why it's attractive

    The answer gives the missed cancellation deadline the wrong legal label.

    Why it's wrong

    The answer gives the missed cancellation deadline the wrong legal label.

  • 14451_psalm_trail_quitclaim · CONTRACTS · Choice Blose, because Barnabas knew before the agreement with Lydia that his claimed access right was doubtful.

    Why it's attractive

    The choice points the Gold Key backward: doubt is treated as the reason the bargain fails.

    Why it's wrong

    The choice points the Gold Key backward: doubt is treated as the reason the bargain fails.

  • 14481_ruth_nativity_music_box · CONTRACTS · Choice AOnly Ruth's claim for the contract price will succeed.

    Why it's attractive

    This answer makes the buyer pay even though the stem says risk had not passed to him.

    Why it's wrong

    This answer makes the buyer pay even though the stem says risk had not passed to him.

  • 14493_ark_stage · CONTRACTS · Choice CNo, because the contractual obligations were discharged on the ground of impossibility.

    Why it's attractive

    This choice treats Stephen's own transfer as an excuse.

    Why it's wrong

    This choice treats Stephen's own transfer as an excuse.

  • 14497_ruth_psalm_market_cart · CONTRACTS · Choice ARuth was required to accept the cart, because the defect could be readily cured.

    Why it's attractive

    A curable defect does not make the buyer accept the nonconforming tender.

    Why it's wrong

    A curable defect does not make the buyer accept the nonconforming tender.

  • 14544_lydias_parable_puppets · CONTRACTS · Choice CNo, because Martha's purported delegation to Hannah effected a novation.

    Why it's attractive

    The stem has no Lydia agreement to substitute Hannah and discharge Martha.

    Why it's wrong

    The stem has no Lydia agreement to substitute Hannah and discharge Martha.

  • 14551_tent-maker-pledge · CONTRACTS · Choice ANo, because Paul's death terminated Lydia's right to receive payment directly from Timothy.

    Why it's attractive

    Assumes rights existed that were terminated — but no assignment ever took effect

    Why it's wrong

    Assumes rights existed that were terminated — but no assignment ever took effect

Practice the questions that use this trap as a distractor and get full Wrong Answer Forensics on submit.

Practice questions using this trap →
Backwards — Trap Taxonomy | BarMatrix