ArchitectureObserved in bank

Dominant Trap

This trap appears as a wrong-answer choice in 36 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

CRIMINAL9
Real Property9
Contracts8
Evidence6
Constitutional Law3
Civil Procedure1

Example wrong choices

first 20

14294_bible_quiz_uprising · CONSTITUTIONAL_LAW · Choice Aremand the case to the state supreme court with directions that it resolve the First and Fourteenth Amendment free-speech issue that it discussed in such detail.
Why it's attractive
The state court already gave a plain state-law ground; the unresolved federal merits do not need a remand.
Why it's wrong
The state court already gave a plain state-law ground; the unresolved federal merits do not need a remand.
14294_bible_quiz_uprising · CONSTITUTIONAL_LAW · Choice Creverse the decision of the state supreme court, because incitement to imminent crowd violence is not speech protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
Why it's attractive
The choice decides incitement protection instead of Supreme Court jurisdiction.
Why it's wrong
The choice decides incitement protection instead of Supreme Court jurisdiction.
14294_bible_quiz_uprising · CONSTITUTIONAL_LAW · Choice Daffirm the state supreme court's decision, because Peter's heated festival outburst was commonplace hyperbole that cannot, consistently with the First and Fourteenth Amendments, be punished.
Why it's attractive
The state judgment survives, but not because the United States Supreme Court affirms the federal merits.
Why it's wrong
The state judgment survives, but not because the United States Supreme Court affirms the federal merits.
14345_ezra-commission · CONSTITUTIONAL_LAW · Choice Aconstitutional, because the Necessary and Proper Clause authorizes Congress to determine the means by which members are appointed to boards created by Congress under its power to regulate commerce among the states.
Why it's wrong
Choice A is not the credited answer for this item.
14345_ezra-commission · CONSTITUTIONAL_LAW · Choice Bconstitutional, because there is a substantial nexus between the power of Congress to legislate for the general welfare and the means specified by Congress in this statute for the appointment of board members.
Why it's wrong
Choice B is not the credited answer for this item.
14345_ezra-commission · CONSTITUTIONAL_LAW · Choice Dunconstitutional, because all members of federal boards having broad powers that are quasi-legislative in nature, such as rulemaking, must be appointed by Congress.
Why it's wrong
Choice D is not the credited answer for this item.
14409_sunken_ark_hall · CONTRACTS · Choice ABarnabas is excused, because the contract is voidable on account of the parties’ mutual mistake concerning an essential underlying fact.
Why it's attractive
Both parties' ignorance is attractive, but the answer omits who carried the risk.
Why it's wrong
Both parties' ignorance is attractive, but the answer omits who carried the risk.
14409_sunken_ark_hall · CONTRACTS · Choice CLydia prevails, because Barnabas did not know that subsurface limestone was present in the area.
Why it's attractive
No actual knowledge is not the reason Lydia wins.
Why it's wrong
No actual knowledge is not the reason Lydia wins.
14409_sunken_ark_hall · CONTRACTS · Choice DBarnabas is excused under the modern doctrine of supervening impossibility, which includes severe impracticability.
Why it's attractive
The added cost is real, but the answer over-extends the excuse.
Why it's wrong
The added cost is real, but the answer over-extends the excuse.
14434_crossed_handbells · CONTRACTS · Choice AAs to both formation and consideration, identical cross-offers are functionally equivalent to an offer followed by a responsive acceptance.
Why it's attractive
It erases the uncertainty by pretending there was a clean responsive acceptance.
Why it's wrong
It erases the uncertainty by pretending there was a clean responsive acceptance.
14434_crossed_handbells · CONTRACTS · Choice BBecause Daniel was a merchant seller and Hannah was not a merchant buyer, Daniel is estopped to deny that their writings created a binding contract.
Why it's attractive
It jumps from status labels to estoppel without a formation bridge.
Why it's wrong
It jumps from status labels to estoppel without a formation bridge.
14434_crossed_handbells · CONTRACTS · Choice DA sale-of-goods contract does not require the acceptance to mirror the offer exactly.
Why it's attractive
It solves a mismatch problem; the stem gives matching terms.
Why it's wrong
It solves a mismatch problem; the stem gives matching terms.
14512_used-boat-sale · CONTRACTS · Choice ANo, because the contract was unconscionable.
Why it's wrong
Choice A is not the credited answer for this item.
14512_used-boat-sale · CONTRACTS · Choice BNo, because the buyer had the opportunity to have the boat inspected by his own mechanic and declined to do so.
Why it's wrong
Choice B is not the credited answer for this item.
14512_used-boat-sale · CONTRACTS · Choice DNo, because the seller did not affirmatively assert that the boat had not been in an accident.
Why it's wrong
Choice D is not the credited answer for this item.
14521_sea_of_galilee_lantern_walk · CONTRACTS · Choice ALydia recovers $35,000, the benefit Lydia conferred on Daniel minus the $25,000 in damages incurred by Daniel.
Why it's attractive
The answer pays the breaching performer after doing precise arithmetic.
Why it's wrong
The answer pays the breaching performer after doing precise arithmetic.
14521_sea_of_galilee_lantern_walk · CONTRACTS · Choice CNeither party recovers anything, because Lydia committed a material, unexcused breach and Daniel received a $60,000 benefit from Lydia for which Lydia has not been paid.
Why it's attractive
The answer treats opposing facts as canceling each other without applying a remedy rule.
Why it's wrong
The answer treats opposing facts as canceling each other without applying a remedy rule.
14521_sea_of_galilee_lantern_walk · CONTRACTS · Choice DLydia recovers $60,000, the benefit conferred on Daniel for which Lydia has not been paid.
Why it's attractive
The answer stops at Lydia's unpaid reasonable-value number and misses the contractor's counterclaim.
Why it's wrong
The answer stops at Lydia's unpaid reasonable-value number and misses the contractor's counterclaim.
14523_psalm_calligraphy_stipend · CONTRACTS · Choice AYes, because Martha's burden of keeping Hannah's aide will be increased if Peter does not contribute his share.
Why it's attractive
The answer talks about Martha's burden, but the call asks whether Peter can be ordered to perform his promise to Hannah.
Why it's wrong
The answer talks about Martha's burden, but the call asks whether Peter can be ordered to perform his promise to Hannah.
14523_psalm_calligraphy_stipend · CONTRACTS · Choice BNo, because Peter's breach of contract has caused no economic harm to Martha.
Why it's attractive
The answer measures Martha's current economic loss, not whether damages are an adequate substitute for Peter's continuing payment promise.
Why it's wrong
The answer measures Martha's current economic loss, not whether damages are an adequate substitute for Peter's continuing payment promise.

Practice the questions that use this trap as a distractor and get full Wrong Answer Forensics on submit.

Practice questions using this trap →