Common Student Myth
This trap appears as a wrong-answer choice in 53 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
- CRIMINAL31
- Real Property10
- Contracts5
- Evidence5
- Civil Procedure2
Example wrong choices
first 2014068_retreat_canoe · CIVIL_PROCEDURE · Choice ANo, Paul does not have a right to a jury trial as to any claim because the case is essentially equitable because of the request for injunctive relief.
Why it's attractive
Students remember injunctions are equitable and overextend that memory to the whole case.
Why it's wrong
CUT: one equitable remedy cannot swallow the legal damages claim.
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.
14694_factual-impossibility-hunter · CRIMINAL · Choice DNot guilty of attempted murder, or any lesser included offense, because under the circumstances it was impossible for Peter to have killed Barnabas.
Why it's attractive
Factual impossibility is NOT a defense to attempt. This is one of the most commonly tested MBE traps. If the defendant didn't know the facts made it impossible, the intent is still there.
Why it's wrong
Factual impossibility is NOT a defense to attempt. This is one of the most commonly tested MBE traps. If the defendant didn't know the facts made it impossible, the intent is still there.
14708_lakeside_retreat_plot · CRIMINAL · Choice CNo, because it would have been impossible for Lydia to kill Stephen by this method.
Why it's attractive
The answer tries to make Timothy's hidden status erase Lydia's believed agreement.
Why it's wrong
The answer tries to make Timothy's hidden status erase Lydia's believed agreement.
14895_ark-ledger · EVIDENCE · Choice BYes, because the testimony tends to show that Daniel was unlikely to have taken money as charged.
Why it's attractive
It says the evidence helps, but admissibility is not decided by relevance alone.
Why it's wrong
It says the evidence helps, but admissibility is not decided by relevance alone.
15012 · REAL_PROPERTY · Choice Athe owner of Building 1, because the owner of Building 2 has no rights in the stairway.
Why it's attractive
A says deed silence means no stairway rights. The anchor tells the student that an easement can be implied even when the deed is silent.
Why it's wrong
A says deed silence means no stairway rights. The anchor tells the student that an easement can be implied even when the deed is silent.
15014 · REAL_PROPERTY · Choice Binvalid, because it conflicts with the applicable zoning code.
Why it's attractive
The stem says zoning authorizes the farmer's plan; it does not say zoning requires the plan. A stricter private restriction can coexist with more permissive zoning.
Why it's wrong
The stem says zoning authorizes the farmer's plan; it does not say zoning requires the plan. A stricter private restriction can coexist with more permissive zoning.
15015_advent_lantern · REAL_PROPERTY · Choice AEsther, because a personal representative may remove only trade fixtures from real property.
Why it's attractive
The word only adds a restriction the taught Gold Key does not contain.
Why it's wrong
The word only adds a restriction the taught Gold Key does not contain.
15015_advent_lantern · REAL_PROPERTY · Choice CEsther, because the Advent lantern could not be legally removed after Martha died.
Why it's attractive
The choice reverses the taught timing rule by treating death as an instant cutoff.
Why it's wrong
The choice reverses the taught timing rule by treating death as an instant cutoff.
15023 · REAL_PROPERTY · Choice Cthe neighbor, because Lots 1 and 2 are urban land, as distinguished from rural land and, therefore, under the circumstances the landowner had the duty to protect any improvements on Lot 1.
Why it's attractive
The choice changes the test to urban versus rural land and a duty to protect improvements. That is not the lateral-support rule.
Why it's wrong
The choice changes the test to urban versus rural land and a duty to protect improvements. That is not the lateral-support rule.
15026_solar-barn · REAL_PROPERTY · Choice AAward Peter damages measured by the increased operating costs, but not an injunction.
Why it's attractive
No property right + no tort = no remedy at all, not even damages
Why it's wrong
No property right + no tort = no remedy at all, not even damages
15026_solar-barn · REAL_PROPERTY · Choice BGrant Peter the requested injunction.
Why it's attractive
No easement, no covenant, no statute → no right to sunlight → no injunction
Why it's wrong
No easement, no covenant, no statute → no right to sunlight → no injunction
15026_solar-barn · REAL_PROPERTY · Choice DGrant judgment for Daniel, because he had secured all necessary governmental approvals for the new structure.
Why it's attractive
Governmental approvals are not the legal basis; the absence of a property right is
Why it's wrong
Governmental approvals are not the legal basis; the absence of a property right is
15081_cedar_ridge_apiary_notice · REAL_PROPERTY · Choice Aprevail, because Naomi's later conveyance to Barnabas revoked the earlier gift to Timothy.
Why it's attractive
Later deed does not revoke a completed earlier deed.
Why it's wrong
Later deed does not revoke a completed earlier deed.
16025_calligraphy_studio · CRIMINAL · Choice CAt the time of the shooting, Martha did not know whether Lydia was about to stab her with a craft knife.
Why it's attractive
Not knowing whether danger exists is not the same as believing danger is imminent.
Why it's wrong
Not knowing whether danger exists is not the same as believing danger is imminent.
Practice the questions that use this trap as a distractor and get full Wrong Answer Forensics on submit.
Practice questions using this trap →