Doctrine Conflation
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
14833_peter-harp-luthier · EVIDENCE · Choice Ainadmissible, because the soundboard was produced and examined as part of settlement negotiations.
Why it's attractive
The choice names a real rule (FRE 408) but applies it to the wrong evidentiary gate — witness competency, not claim validity
Why it's wrong
The choice names a real rule (FRE 408) but applies it to the wrong evidentiary gate — witness competency, not claim validity
14833_peter-harp-luthier · EVIDENCE · Choice Binadmissible, because Paul did not establish that the disappearance was not his fault.
Why it's attractive
No rule requires a witness to prove non-fault for a lost item before testifying from personal knowledge — the requirement is fabricated
Why it's wrong
No rule requires a witness to prove non-fault for a lost item before testifying from personal knowledge — the requirement is fabricated
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
Practice the questions that use this trap as a distractor and get full Wrong Answer Forensics on submit.
Practice questions using this trap →