Call Direction Blindness
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
- CRIMINAL1
Example wrong choices
18106_fish-market-conspiracy · CRIMINAL · Choice APeter is guilty because conspiracy does not require completion of the larceny.
Why it's attractive
Says Peter IS GUILTY — the call asks for Peter's strongest argument; a conclusion that Peter is guilty cannot be his own argument. Silver Key SK-CRIMINAL-CONSPIRACY-CALL-01 cuts this on call-direction alone. On the merits: the no-completion rule is true but addresses the wrong element.
Why it's wrong
Says Peter IS GUILTY — the call asks for Peter's strongest argument; a conclusion that Peter is guilty cannot be his own argument. Silver Key SK-CRIMINAL-CONSPIRACY-CALL-01 cuts this on call-direction alone. On the merits: the no-completion rule is true but addresses the wrong element.
18106_fish-market-conspiracy · CRIMINAL · Choice CPeter is not guilty only because the cashbox held only small-denomination coins.
Why it's attractive
Gives Peter a not-guilty conclusion but bases it on an obviously irrelevant reason. The denomination of coins in the cashbox has no bearing on whether Peter agreed to conspire. Cut heuristically — coin values are not a legal element of conspiracy.
Why it's wrong
Gives Peter a not-guilty conclusion but bases it on an obviously irrelevant reason. The denomination of coins in the cashbox has no bearing on whether Peter agreed to conspire. Cut heuristically — coin values are not a legal element of conspiracy.
18106_fish-market-conspiracy · CRIMINAL · Choice DPeter is guilty because he heard the plan and did not object.
Why it's attractive
Says Peter is guilty — the call asks for Peter's argument; cut on call-direction (Silver Key). On the merits: failure to object is not the legal standard for conspiracy agreement. Peter had no duty to object; silence is not assent.
Why it's wrong
Says Peter is guilty — the call asks for Peter's argument; cut on call-direction (Silver Key). On the merits: failure to object is not the legal standard for conspiracy agreement. Peter had no duty to object; silence is not assent.
Practice the questions that use this trap as a distractor and get full Wrong Answer Forensics on submit.
Practice questions using this trap →