Correct Conclusion Wrong Reasoning
This trap appears as a wrong-answer choice in 2 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
- Evidence1
- Real Property1
Example wrong choices
15002_condemnation-lease-church-barn · REAL_PROPERTY · Choice AThe operator, because the taking of leased land through eminent domain is not a breach of the rancher's implied warranty of quiet enjoyment.
Why it's attractive
The choice states a correct legal proposition (eminent domain ≠ breach of quiet enjoyment) but the question is about who gets the condemnation award, not whether the landlord breached a warranty. The legal issue doesn't match the call.
Why it's wrong
The choice states a correct legal proposition (eminent domain ≠ breach of quiet enjoyment) but the question is about who gets the condemnation award, not whether the landlord breached a warranty. The legal issue doesn't match the call.
15002_condemnation-lease-church-barn · REAL_PROPERTY · Choice BThe operator, because otherwise the rancher would be unjustly enriched.
Why it's attractive
The facts support the intuition (landlord gets a windfall), but when a valid contract expressly governs the issue, the equitable unjust-enrichment remedy is unavailable. The lease provision controls.
Why it's wrong
The facts support the intuition (landlord gets a windfall), but when a valid contract expressly governs the issue, the equitable unjust-enrichment remedy is unavailable. The lease provision controls.
15002_condemnation-lease-church-barn · REAL_PROPERTY · Choice DThe rancher, because the condemnation superseded and canceled the lease.
Why it's attractive
This choice reaches the correct conclusion (rancher wins) but for the wrong reason. Condemnation does not automatically 'supersede and cancel' a lease with an express provision. The rancher wins because of the lease clause, not because of some automatic legal effect of condemnation.
Why it's wrong
This choice reaches the correct conclusion (rancher wins) but for the wrong reason. Condemnation does not automatically 'supersede and cancel' a lease with an express provision. The rancher wins because of the lease clause, not because of some automatic legal effect of condemnation.
22228_construction-timothy · EVIDENCE · Choice ANo, because the court must independently verify a witness's expertise and cannot allow the parties to stipulate to qualifications.
Why it's attractive
FRE 702 requires the court to find the expert qualified, but the court can base that finding on a party stipulation. The choice says the court 'cannot allow' stipulation — that's simply not the law.
Why it's wrong
FRE 702 requires the court to find the expert qualified, but the court can base that finding on a party stipulation. The choice says the court 'cannot allow' stipulation — that's simply not the law.
22228_construction-timothy · EVIDENCE · Choice BNo, because the qualifications of the expert are no longer in issue.
Why it's attractive
The court's admissibility determination is done, but the jury still needs to assess the expert's credibility. The jury can't weigh expert testimony without knowing qualifications. So qualifications ARE still in issue — just for a different decision-maker.
Why it's wrong
The court's admissibility determination is done, but the jury still needs to assess the expert's credibility. The jury can't weigh expert testimony without knowing qualifications. So qualifications ARE still in issue — just for a different decision-maker.
22228_construction-timothy · EVIDENCE · Choice DYes, because the court's finding that the witness is qualified does not bar further inquiry into the details of his expertise.
Why it's attractive
It's true that the court's finding doesn't bar further inquiry. But the REASON the plaintiff may continue is jury credibility, not the court's non-bar. On the MBE, both conclusion AND reasoning must be correct.
Why it's wrong
It's true that the court's finding doesn't bar further inquiry. But the REASON the plaintiff may continue is jury credibility, not the court's non-bar. On the MBE, both conclusion AND reasoning must be correct.
Practice the questions that use this trap as a distractor and get full Wrong Answer Forensics on submit.
Practice questions using this trap →