Bar Exam Bait
This trap appears as a wrong-answer choice in 54 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
- CRIMINAL27
- Real Property10
- Contracts9
- Evidence4
- Constitutional Law3
- Civil Procedure1
Example wrong choices
first 2014068_retreat_canoe · CIVIL_PROCEDURE · Choice BYes, Paul has a right to a jury trial as to every claim, regardless of whether they are equitable in nature.
Why it's attractive
Students see the legal damages claim and swing to a blanket yes.
Why it's wrong
CUT: the rule is not jury for every claim regardless of equitable nature.
14397_fish_keychains · CONTRACTS · Choice AYes, because Lydia relied on an implied promise to pay when she brought the keychains to Daniel.
Why it's attractive
The choice talks about seller reliance, but the call asks enforceability against a buyer who refused the goods.
Why it's wrong
The choice talks about seller reliance, but the call asks enforceability against a buyer who refused the goods.
14397_fish_keychains · CONTRACTS · Choice BNo, because the parties never agreed on the price of the keychains.
Why it's attractive
Gold Key: missing price alone does not defeat a sale-of-goods contract.
Why it's wrong
Gold Key: missing price alone does not defeat a sale-of-goods contract.
14397_fish_keychains · CONTRACTS · Choice CYes, because leaving the price open does not prevent a valid sale-of-goods contract when the parties otherwise intended to contract.
Why it's attractive
Silver Key: the choice answers formation, not the enforceability writing gate.
Why it's wrong
Silver Key: the choice answers formation, not the enforceability writing gate.
14400_mechanical_camel · CONTRACTS · Choice AAfter the camel had completed four Advent tours for Daniel, it was discovered that, because of a clerical error unknown to both parties, the maker’s certificate listed an obscure prop shop as the builder rather than the famous Jerusalem Stageworks workshop that had actually built it.
Why it's attractive
The actual maker is better than the listed maker; that does not hurt Daniel.
Why it's wrong
The actual maker is better than the listed maker; that does not hurt Daniel.
14400_mechanical_camel · CONTRACTS · Choice BA week after the sale, while Daniel was testing the camel, it suddenly jerked, threw him from its platform, and injured him so severely that he was hospitalized for seven months and needed eighteen months for full recovery.
Why it's attractive
The later harm matches the warning that the camel jerks.
Why it's wrong
The later harm matches the warning that the camel jerks.
14400_mechanical_camel · CONTRACTS · Choice DThe camel earned Daniel $4.8 million over a four-year touring career, but when retired it was found to have nonstandard internal electronics and to be useless as a template for manufacturing replica camels.
Why it's attractive
The camel already delivered four years of the bought-for use.
Why it's wrong
The camel already delivered four years of the bought-for use.
14401_psalm_van_repair · CONTRACTS · Choice AYes, because Ruth's promise to Peter was oral.
Why it's attractive
The answer stops at the first oral promise and ignores the later signed note.
Why it's wrong
The answer stops at the first oral promise and ignores the later signed note.
14401_psalm_van_repair · CONTRACTS · Choice BNo, because the amount of the repair bill was less than $5,000.
Why it's attractive
The call is about a guarantor's writing, not a dollar safe harbor.
Why it's wrong
The call is about a guarantor's writing, not a dollar safe harbor.
14401_psalm_van_repair · CONTRACTS · Choice CYes, because Matthew's promise to Peter was oral.
Why it's attractive
Peter sued Ruth; Matthew's oral promise is not the dispositive writing question.
Why it's wrong
Peter sued Ruth; Matthew's oral promise is not the dispositive writing question.
14406_advent_lanterns · CONTRACTS · Choice ANo contract was formed, because Lydia Supply’s purchase order was merely a revocable offer.
Why it's attractive
The choice points to pre-acceptance revocability, but the stem gives acceptance and no cancellation.
Why it's wrong
The choice points to pre-acceptance revocability, but the stem gives acceptance and no cancellation.
14406_advent_lanterns · CONTRACTS · Choice BA contract was formed, but before August 12 it was an option contract cancelable only at Lydia Supply’s election.
Why it's attractive
The choice reaches for a familiar label after seeing one-sided cancellation.
Why it's wrong
The choice reaches for a familiar label after seeing one-sided cancellation.
14406_advent_lanterns · CONTRACTS · Choice DA contract was formed, but before August 12 it was terminable at the election of either party.
Why it's attractive
The cancellation right belongs only to Lydia Supply.
Why it's wrong
The cancellation right belongs only to Lydia Supply.
14412_gospel_puzzle_invoice · CONTRACTS · Choice AYes, because a promise allowing Lydia to postpone payment of a past-due fee is enforceable without consideration.
Why it's attractive
The choice says the delay promise works without consideration; the Gold Key says same debt later is not new consideration.
Why it's wrong
The choice says the delay promise works without consideration; the Gold Key says same debt later is not new consideration.
14412_gospel_puzzle_invoice · CONTRACTS · Choice CYes, because Lydia bargained for Stephen’s forbearance.
Why it's attractive
The choice proves Lydia wanted forbearance, but the call needs new consideration from Lydia.
Why it's wrong
The choice proves Lydia wanted forbearance, but the call needs new consideration from Lydia.
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 ANo, because the tour logistics job Ruth took was not substantially comparable to the puzzle-writer job she had agreed to take.
Why it's attractive
The choice compares the second job instead of answering whether Ruth had a duty to stay.
Why it's wrong
The choice compares the second job instead of answering whether Ruth had a duty to stay.
14417_scripture_puzzle_job · CONTRACTS · Choice BYes, because Ruth's failure to give Barnabas a chance to match the higher salary breached an implied right of first refusal.
Why it's attractive
The stem never creates a matching right.
Why it's wrong
The stem never creates a matching right.
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.
14424_christmas_pageant_lantern_bid · CONTRACTS · Choice APaul was negligent in erroneously calculating the amount of his sub-bid.
Why it's attractive
A talks about Paul's math fault; it does not show Esther was trapped in her own bid before acceptance.
Why it's wrong
A talks about Paul's math fault; it does not show Esther was trapped in her own bid before acceptance.
Practice the questions that use this trap as a distractor and get full Wrong Answer Forensics on submit.
Practice questions using this trap →