Contradiction
This trap appears as a wrong-answer choice in 23 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
- Real Property7
- Torts4
- Contracts3
- Criminal Law3
- CRIMINAL2
- Evidence2
- Civil Procedure1
- Constitutional Law1
Example wrong choices
first 2014438_nativity_ornament_kits · CONTRACTS · Choice ABecause Lydia reserved the right to cancel the order before May 1, Martha’s May 12 shipment was only an offer.
Why it's attractive
The answer relies on a right that ended before the shipment date.
Why it's wrong
The answer relies on a right that ended before the shipment date.
14511_worship_studio_delay · CONTRACTS · Choice DNothing, because by paying the purchase price on April 30, Paul waived whatever cause of action he may have had.
Why it's attractive
The stem says Paul reserved his rights when he paid. A choice that says he waived by paying contradicts that visible fact.
Why it's wrong
The stem says Paul reserved his rights when he paid. A choice that says he waived by paying contradicts that visible fact.
14639_prayer_walk_self_defense · CRIMINAL_LAW · Choice Ddenied, because Daniel was not defending his home and therefore had to retreat or use less than deadly force.
Why it's attractive
It invokes the familiar home/retreat side-frame and was the dominant original wrong answer.
Why it's wrong
D says Daniel had to retreat or use less force; the stem says deadly force was his only way to survive.
Spot it next time
Compare 'had to retreat/use less force' against 'deadly force was his only way to survive.'
14654_fellowship_trail · CRIMINAL_LAW · Choice DEven if the jurisdiction has abolished the insanity defense, so long as the jury believes that the compulsion was irresistible.
Why it's attractive
It echoes the irresistible-compulsion fact and lets expert testimony do too much work.
Why it's wrong
The answer says the insanity defense is abolished but still lets the jury acquit based on the insanity fact.
Spot it next time
Expert testimony supplies facts; the jurisdiction supplies the defense.
14833_peter-harp-luthier · EVIDENCE · Choice Dadmissible, because Peter's expert had been able to examine the soundboard carefully.
Why it's attractive
The expert's examination is irrelevant to Paul's competency — a witness's personal knowledge is established by their own perception, not someone else's
Why it's wrong
The expert's examination is irrelevant to Paul's competency — a witness's personal knowledge is established by their own perception, not someone else's
14914_olive_branch_alley_order · REAL_PROPERTY · Choice Bmutual mistake.
Why it's attractive
Esther knew because the city had already advised her.
Why it's wrong
Esther knew because the city had already advised her.
15039_psalm_studio_judgment · REAL_PROPERTY · Choice DMartha's continued possession gave Daniel constructive notice of Timothy's interest.
Why it's attractive
Martha's possession points to Martha, not Timothy.
Why it's wrong
Martha's possession points to Martha, not Timothy.
15197_christian_calligraphy_cart · TORTS · Choice BYes, because Daniel was inside the zone of danger.
Why it's attractive
The stem puts Daniel on the far side of the courtyard when the cart hit the courier.
Why it's wrong
The stem puts Daniel on the far side of the courtyard when the cart hit the courier.
15238_church-fireworks-timothy · TORTS · Choice Cprevail, because Timothy acted reasonably to retrieve his dog from a dangerous area.
Why it's attractive
Sympathetic motivation does not equal legally reasonable conduct.
Why it's wrong
Sympathetic motivation does not equal legally reasonable conduct.
16031_prayer_room_bookshelf · CRIMINAL · Choice Aembezzlement and larceny by trick.
Why it's attractive
If B fails and D fails, A falls with them.
Why it's wrong
If B fails and D fails, A falls with them.
17151_carol_program · CRIMINAL_LAW · Choice ANo, because this battery is a strict-liability offense.
Why it's attractive
It preserves the correct no outcome, so it feels safe after the student rejects the yes answers. The breaker is that the stem itself says this battery requires intentional contact, so strict liability contradicts the call facts.
Why it's wrong
The stem says the offense requires intentional offensive contact, so strict liability contradicts the stem.
Spot it next time
Compare strict liability to the stem's intentional-contact requirement.
17675_psalm_fair_signal_box · TORTS · Choice BHannah loses only because no physical injury occurred.
Why it's attractive
The stem gives medical-device failure and emergency care.
Why it's wrong
The stem gives medical-device failure and emergency care.
19356_counterfeit_immunity · CRIMINAL · Choice CYes, because once a court grants immunity and orders her to testify, a witness loses all Fifth Amendment protection and may be prosecuted based on her own testimony.
Why it's attractive
'grants immunity' yet 'prosecuted based on her testimony' fight each other — visible contradiction
Why it's wrong
'grants immunity' yet 'prosecuted based on her testimony' fight each other — visible contradiction
19502_manna_festival_finals_tax · CONSTITUTIONAL_LAW · Choice Bunconstitutional, because a 40% admission tax is likely to reduce attendance at these final-round competitions and, therefore, is not rationally related to Congress’s legitimate interest in retiring disaster-recovery debt.
Why it's attractive
This sells the economic-impact worry that a high tax might shrink attendance and therefore look self-defeating. The breaker is the non sequitur; a paid-admission excise tax can still be rationally connected to revenue even if attendance drops.
Why it's wrong
The attendance-impact reason does not prove the tax lacks a revenue relationship.
Spot it next time
Say: burdening the taxed activity is not the same as lacking a revenue relation.
20567_psalm_panels_venue · CIVIL_PROCEDURE · Choice BNeither rule, because a diversity case in federal court has no venue requirement.
Why it's attractive
The student may confuse diversity jurisdiction with a free pass from procedural venue analysis. The breaker is that the stem itself gives venue statutes, so the no-venue answer fights the setup.
Why it's wrong
The answer denies venue requirements even though the stem names venue statutes.
Spot it next time
Cut answers that contradict the setup.
20728_star_stable_stall · REAL_PROPERTY · Choice CYes, because Lydia objected within a reasonable time.
Why it's attractive
The student treats Lydia's later declaration as an objection. The breaker is that the stem first gives rent acceptance and silence, not a prompt reservation.
Why it's wrong
The choice claims timely objection, but the stem first gives acceptance and silence.
Spot it next time
Mark the earlier deposit-and-silence fact before evaluating the later termination.
20733_galilee_trails_death_notice · TORTS · Choice BNo, because Lydia was alive, so Timothy cannot have legally cognizable distress from the message.
Why it's attractive
B feels concrete because Lydia was alive, so the report was factually false. The breaker is that the false death notice is the very event the special category is built to address.
Why it's wrong
The fact that Lydia was alive makes the notice erroneous; it does not defeat the distress claim.
Spot it next time
Ask what fact made the notice wrongful and what fact caused Timothy’s distress.
21142_manna_bakery_surplus · REAL_PROPERTY · Choice DPeter Bank should receive $2,400, and Lydia Finance should receive $1,300.
Why it's attractive
The stem says Lydia Finance was already satisfied before the surplus existed.
Why it's wrong
The stem says Lydia Finance was already satisfied before the surplus existed.
22018_lakeside_lodge_risk · REAL_PROPERTY · Choice AStephen had a policy of insurance insuring him against fire damage to the lodge.
Why it's attractive
The seller citing his own coverage argues he is made whole, not that the buyer owes.
Why it's wrong
The seller citing his own coverage argues he is made whole, not that the buyer owes.
22103_lydia_lakeside_retreat_fire · REAL_PROPERTY · Choice DNo, because the jurisdiction does not recognize the doctrine of equitable conversion.
Why it's attractive
uses rejection of equitable conversion to reach the opposite result
Why it's wrong
uses rejection of equitable conversion to reach the opposite result
Practice the questions that use this trap as a distractor and get full Wrong Answer Forensics on submit.
Practice questions using this trap →