Circumstantial Chain Insufficient For Relevance
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
- Evidence1
Example wrong choices
14885_honey_jar_harvest_fair · EVIDENCE · Choice BThe fact that the honey jar bears Stephen's Apiary's branded wax seal and registered mark.
Why it's attractive
The seal on the jar tends to show who made it. Evidence tending to show origin is relevant and admissible.
Why it's wrong
The seal on the jar tends to show who made it. Evidence tending to show origin is relevant and admissible.
14885_honey_jar_harvest_fair · EVIDENCE · Choice CThe honey jar itself alongside a jar of concededly genuine Stephen's Apiary honey, offered for the jury's comparison.
Why it's attractive
Comparing the questioned jar with a genuine jar tends to show whether they share a maker. The trier of fact may make this comparison. C IS admissible.
Why it's wrong
Comparing the questioned jar with a genuine jar tends to show whether they share a maker. The trier of fact may make this comparison. C IS admissible.
14885_honey_jar_harvest_fair · EVIDENCE · Choice DTestimony that the honey was purchased from a market vendor to which Stephen's Apiary regularly supplied its products.
Why it's attractive
If the honey traveled through Stephen's regular distribution channel, that places the jar on their supply path — tends to show origin. D IS admissible.
Why it's wrong
If the honey traveled through Stephen's regular distribution channel, that places the jar on their supply path — tends to show origin. D IS admissible.
Practice the questions that use this trap as a distractor and get full Wrong Answer Forensics on submit.
Practice questions using this trap →