ArchitectureObserved in bank

Bait Doctrine

This trap appears as a wrong-answer choice in 366 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

CRIMINAL88
Evidence70
Contracts64
Real Property56
Constitutional Law32
Criminal Law25
Torts21
Civil Procedure10

Example wrong choices

first 20

14132_lydia_vineyard_smj · CIVIL_PROCEDURE · Choice ANo, because Lydia is not entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
Why it's attractive
Choice correctly senses that JMOL is not ready while Barnabas is still presenting evidence, but it answers the wrong procedural question.
Why it's wrong
Choice correctly senses that JMOL is not ready while Barnabas is still presenting evidence, but it answers the wrong procedural question.
14229_daily-bread-depot · CONSTITUTIONAL_LAW · Choice AUnconstitutional, because the burden was on the city to demonstrate that this condition was necessary to vindicate a compelling governmental interest, and the city failed to meet that burden.
Why it's attractive
Strict scrutiny language answers a neighboring constitutional question, not this exaction.
Why it's wrong
Strict scrutiny language answers a neighboring constitutional question, not this exaction.
14229_daily-bread-depot · CONSTITUTIONAL_LAW · Choice CConstitutional, because the burden was on Daniel to demonstrate that there was no rational relationship between this condition and a legitimate governmental interest, and Daniel could not do so because the condition is reasonably related to improving the lives of families and children in the city.
Why it's attractive
Rational basis is the wrong lane once the city demands a give-back for a permit.
Why it's wrong
Rational basis is the wrong lane once the city demands a give-back for a permit.
14231_hymn-trailer-premium · CONSTITUTIONAL_LAW · Choice ANo, because the different theft rates in the two areas provide a rational basis for the different premiums.
Why it's attractive
A reaches scrutiny before asking whether equal protection reaches this private defendant.
Why it's wrong
A reaches scrutiny before asking whether equal protection reaches this private defendant.
14242_lydia_linen_kiosk · CONSTITUTIONAL_LAW · Choice CConstitutional, because it is narrowly tailored to implement the city's compelling interest in reducing pedestrian congestion and therefore satisfies the strict scrutiny test applicable to such cases.
Why it's attractive
The answer uses strict scrutiny even though the stem shows an ordinary commercial classification.
Why it's wrong
The answer uses strict scrutiny even though the stem shows an ordinary commercial classification.
14263_good_samaritan_market · CONSTITUTIONAL_LAW · Choice AYes, because the Full Faith and Credit Clause requires the court to enforce the budget section according to its terms.
Why it's attractive
No other-state law, record, or judgment appears in the stem.
Why it's wrong
No other-state law, record, or judgment appears in the stem.
14263_good_samaritan_market · CONSTITUTIONAL_LAW · Choice DYes, because the Eleventh Amendment gives the state legislature plenary authority to decide how state funds for the institute will be spent.
Why it's attractive
The answer talks about immunity-style state power instead of the named-person punishment problem.
Why it's wrong
The answer talks about immunity-style state power instead of the named-person punishment problem.
14294_bible_quiz_uprising · CONSTITUTIONAL_LAW · Choice Creverse the decision of the state supreme court, because incitement to imminent crowd violence is not speech protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
Why it's attractive
The choice decides incitement protection instead of Supreme Court jurisdiction.
Why it's wrong
The choice decides incitement protection instead of Supreme Court jurisdiction.
14294_bible_quiz_uprising · CONSTITUTIONAL_LAW · Choice Daffirm the state supreme court's decision, because Peter's heated festival outburst was commonplace hyperbole that cannot, consistently with the First and Fourteenth Amendments, be punished.
Why it's attractive
The state judgment survives, but not because the United States Supreme Court affirms the federal merits.
Why it's wrong
The state judgment survives, but not because the United States Supreme Court affirms the federal merits.
14324_lydia_illuminated_psalter · CONSTITUTIONAL_LAW · Choice CSend the case to federal court, because the psalter crossed state lines and therefore presents a federal question.
Why it's attractive
The object crossed state lines, but the call asks what the State A court should do with a prior judgment.
Why it's wrong
The object crossed state lines, but the call asks what the State A court should do with a prior judgment.
14327_hatteras_ferry_preemption · CONSTITUTIONAL_LAW · Choice Adirect the removal of the case to federal court, because this suit involves a substantial federal question.
Why it's attractive
Plaintiff pleads a state-law claim; the federal issue is a defense. The well-pleaded complaint rule bars federal question jurisdiction on a federal defense (Franchise Tax Bd. v. Constr. Laborers Vacation Trust, 463 U.S. 1 (1983)). State courts share concurrent jurisdiction over federal claims absent congressional exclusivity (Tafflin v. Levitt, 493 U.S. 455 (1990)). Removal is improper; the choice does not address the question actually being asked of the state court.
Why it's wrong
Plaintiff pleads a state-law claim; the federal issue is a defense. The well-pleaded complaint rule bars federal question jurisdiction on a federal defense (Franchise Tax Bd. v. Constr. Laborers Vacation Trust, 463 U.S. 1 (1983)). State courts share concurrent jurisdiction over federal claims absent congressional exclusivity (Tafflin v. Levitt, 493 U.S. 455 (1990)). Removal is improper; the choice does not address the question actually being asked of the state court.
14339_good_shepherd_science_kit · CONSTITUTIONAL_LAW · Choice CNo, because the law impairs the obligations of the contracts between the outside kit makers and the in-state stores.
Why it's attractive
The same facts are organized around market exclusion and out-of-state competitors.
Why it's wrong
The same facts are organized around market exclusion and out-of-state competitors.
14365_imitation_honey · CONSTITUTIONAL_LAW · Choice DThe spending power.
Why it's attractive
Anchor: no money/condition in the statute, so the spending power doesn't answer this call.
Why it's wrong
Anchor: no money/condition in the statute, so the spending power doesn't answer this call.
14378_prayer_journal_discount · CONTRACTS · Choice ABarnabas's notice retracting his earlier waiver controls, and Lydia is entitled to no discount.
Why it's attractive
The invoice had no discount term to waive, and the note came after the delivery procedure.
Why it's wrong
The invoice had no discount term to waive, and the note came after the delivery procedure.
14379_psalm_lightshow · CONTRACTS · Choice BNo, because the legal effect of Lydia’s signature cannot be changed by evidence of prior understandings.
Why it's attractive
The choice treats the proffer as changing a clear legal effect, not as explaining ambiguous capacity.
Why it's wrong
The choice treats the proffer as changing a clear legal effect, not as explaining ambiguous capacity.
14381_scripture_journal_discount · CONTRACTS · Choice CYes, because Lydia's early payment was a good-faith modification that needed no consideration.
Why it's attractive
This choice moves from evidence of prior practice to a later modification theory.
Why it's wrong
This choice moves from evidence of prior practice to a later modification theory.
14382_bethlehem_lanterns · CONTRACTS · Choice DBefore the written agreement was signed, a representative of Peter’s told Lydia Lantern Works that the arrangement would be “exclusive.”
Why it's attractive
The exact word 'exclusive' is tempting, but it comes from the wrong source.
Why it's wrong
The exact word 'exclusive' is tempting, but it comes from the wrong source.
14385_esther_engraver · CONTRACTS · Choice BYes, because a merger clause does not bar evidence of fraud.
Why it's attractive
The stem gives no fraud facts, so the fraud exception is not the reason to admit the evidence.
Why it's wrong
The stem gives no fraud facts, so the fraud exception is not the reason to admit the evidence.
14391_noble_fir_nativity · CONTRACTS · Choice DIf a contract was formed, it is unenforceable because of supervening impracticability.
Why it's attractive
This is the dominant trap. The federal PPA quarantine does make performance illegal, but the NCBE's framed key is mutual mistake; the Gold Key resolves the axis.
Why it's wrong
This is the dominant trap. The federal PPA quarantine does make performance illegal, but the NCBE's framed key is mutual mistake; the Gold Key resolves the axis.
14394_lydia_puppet_stage · CONTRACTS · Choice DPaul’s conditional promise to Barnabas was not to be performed in less than one year from the time it was made.
Why it's attractive
This grabs a different Statute of Frauds lane instead of the guaranty lane.
Why it's wrong
This grabs a different Statute of Frauds lane instead of the guaranty lane.

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

Practice questions using this trap →