Dispute Excludes Testimony
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
17458_harbor_net · EVIDENCE · Choice ACompel Lydia to add the claimed words, because Rule 106 removes every foundation requirement for completing statements.
Why it's attractive
'removes every foundation requirement' — absolute 'every' on a rule that was liberalized, not emptied
Why it's wrong
'removes every foundation requirement' — absolute 'every' on a rule that was liberalized, not emptied
17458_harbor_net · EVIDENCE · Choice BStrike Lydia's original testimony because Peter disputes the remainder of the conversation.
Why it's attractive
A dispute over the unproven remainder goes to weight, not admissibility; striking the heard words answers a different call
Why it's wrong
A dispute over the unproven remainder goes to weight, not admissibility; striking the heard words answers a different call
17458_harbor_net · EVIDENCE · Choice DCompel Lydia to add the claimed words, because any accused person is entitled to complete an accusation made against him.
Why it's attractive
'any accused person is entitled' — completion is never automatic by status
Why it's wrong
'any accused person is entitled' — completion is never automatic by status
Practice the questions that use this trap as a distractor and get full Wrong Answer Forensics on submit.
Practice questions using this trap →