ArchitectureObserved in bank

Ear Distortion

This trap appears as a wrong-answer choice in 94 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

CRIMINAL43
Contracts17
Evidence11
Real Property8
Constitutional Law6
Torts6
Civil Procedure3

Example wrong choices

first 20

14236_sacred-grove · CONSTITUTIONAL_LAW · Choice AThe burden on the community's religious exercise from the logging operation outweighs the government's interest in permitting commercial timber harvesting.
Why it's attractive
This choice asks you to weigh burden against government interest. That's the pre-Smith Sherbert test, which Smith rejected for neutral, generally applicable laws.
Why it's wrong
This choice asks you to weigh burden against government interest. That's the pre-Smith Sherbert test, which Smith rejected for neutral, generally applicable laws.
14293_mootness-live-stream · CONSTITUTIONAL_LAW · Choice ADefer action until after the state Supreme Court rules on the proper disposition, because the state law of mootness governs suits in federal court when the federal case is inexorably intertwined with a state proceeding.
Why it's attractive
Federal courts apply federal justiciability doctrines — there is no 'state law of mootness' governing federal courts.
Why it's wrong
Federal courts apply federal justiciability doctrines — there is no 'state law of mootness' governing federal courts.
14355_zion-embassy · CONSTITUTIONAL_LAW · Choice DYes, because Congress has no jurisdiction over matters outside U.S. borders.
Why it's wrong
Choice D is not the credited answer for this item.
14369_congressional-exception · CONSTITUTIONAL_LAW · Choice BThe proper means of federal judicial review of state quasi-criminal matters is by writ of habeas corpus, not by direct appeal.
Why it's attractive
Is habeas the same as direct appellate review? No. Does this choice say anything about Congress's authority? No.
Why it's wrong
Is habeas the same as direct appellate review? No. Does this choice say anything about Congress's authority? No.
14392_tutor-typist-land · CONTRACTS · Choice DThere is a contract formed at a price of $80,000.
Why it's attractive
Timothy *meant* $80,000, but his letter *said* $85,000. The law binds him to what he communicated, not what he intended.
Why it's wrong
Timothy *meant* $80,000, but his letter *said* $85,000. The law binds him to what he communicated, not what he intended.
14425_accommodating-shipment · CONTRACTS · Choice ABarnabas may accept the maple, in which case he must pay Timothy the full price, less any damages sustained because of the nonconforming shipment, or he may reject the maple and recover from Timothy for total breach of contract, subject to Timothy's right to cure.
Why it's attractive
choice invokes breach/cure mechanics but the accommodation exception eliminates the breach premise
Why it's wrong
choice invokes breach/cure mechanics but the accommodation exception eliminates the breach premise
14436_telescope-ruth-original · CONTRACTS · Choice B$100.
Why it's attractive
The $100 was the original contract price. Ruth's post-majority promise modified the amount to $75. Only the ratified amount ($75) is enforceable. The $100 obligation was never reconfirmed.
Why it's wrong
The $100 was the original contract price. Ruth's post-majority promise modified the amount to $75. Only the ratified amount ($75) is enforceable. The $100 obligation was never reconfirmed.
14436_telescope-ruth-original · CONTRACTS · Choice DNothing, because Ruth was a minor at the time of the original transaction.
Why it's attractive
The choice says 'nothing' because Ruth was a minor. Infancy is a defense to the original contract, but it disappears once Ruth ratifies the obligation after reaching majority. 'nothing' is an overclaim.
Why it's wrong
The choice says 'nothing' because Ruth was a minor. Infancy is a defense to the original contract, but it disappears once Ruth ratifies the obligation after reaching majority. 'nothing' is an overclaim.
14468_waiver-of-notice-condition · CONTRACTS · Choice ASubstantial performance.
Why it's attractive
The choice names a real doctrine, but it applies to constructive conditions, not express ones
Why it's wrong
The choice names a real doctrine, but it applies to constructive conditions, not express ones
14483_rare-bible-atlas · CONTRACTS · Choice CAnticipatory repudiation, as a deliberate disruption without legal excuse of an ongoing contractual relationship between the parties, may be treated by the repudiatee at his election as a present tort, actionable at once.
Why it's attractive
This sounds right — Paul did deliberately disrupt the relationship, and Daniel can sue now. But is this a tort or a contract issue?
Why it's wrong
This sounds right — Paul did deliberately disrupt the relationship, and Daniel can sue now. But is this a tort or a contract issue?
14499_impossibility-restitution · CONTRACTS · Choice DBoth parties' contractual duties are discharged, and Timothy can recover nothing from Lydia.
Why it's attractive
This feels clean and fair — contract is dead, nobody owes anything. But Timothy already built half a bookshelf in Lydia's home. She received a real benefit. Letting her keep it for free is unjust enrichment. Restitution survives discharge.
Why it's wrong
This feels clean and fair — contract is dead, nobody owes anything. But Timothy already built half a bookshelf in Lydia's home. She received a real benefit. Letting her keep it for free is unjust enrichment. Restitution survives discharge.
14559_warrant-esther · CRIMINAL · Choice DNo — officer reasonably relied on manager's apparent authority
Why it's wrong
Choice D is not the credited answer for this item.
14585_boathouse_fire · CRIMINAL · Choice AYes, because Peter effectively asserted the right to counsel, and the question "Why would you want to talk with a lawyer?" constituted custodial interrogation.
Why it's attractive
Treats the ambiguous lawyer remark as if it were a clear invocation.
Why it's wrong
Treats the ambiguous lawyer remark as if it were a clear invocation.
14601_connelly-church · CRIMINAL · Choice Binadmissible, because under these circumstances, there was no valid waiver of Miranda warnings.
Why it's attractive
A Miranda waiver must be knowing and intelligent, but the Constitution doesn't require suppression without police coercion
Why it's wrong
A Miranda waiver must be knowing and intelligent, but the Constitution doesn't require suppression without police coercion
14601_connelly-church · CRIMINAL · Choice Dinadmissible, because the man's confession was a product of his mental illness and was therefore involuntary.
Why it's attractive
Mental illness alone does not make a confession involuntary under the Constitution
Why it's wrong
Mental illness alone does not make a confession involuntary under the Constitution
14677_prop-gun-rehearsal · CRIMINAL · Choice Bnot guilty of murder or manslaughter.
Why it's attractive
A reasonable mistake negates the mental state for both murder and manslaughter — both are general-intent crimes.
Why it's wrong
A reasonable mistake negates the mental state for both murder and manslaughter — both are general-intent crimes.
14677_prop-gun-rehearsal · CRIMINAL · Choice Dguilty of manslaughter.
Why it's attractive
This choice understands that mistake matters but thinks it only reduces the charge. A reasonable mistake negates intent for ALL general-intent crimes, not just the top one.
Why it's wrong
This choice understands that mistake matters but thinks it only reduces the charge. A reasonable mistake negates intent for ALL general-intent crimes, not just the top one.
14694_factual-impossibility-hunter · CRIMINAL · Choice AGuilty of attempted murder, because a reasonable person would not have been aware of the limited range of the BB rifle.
Why it's attractive
Attempt uses the defendant's actual intent, not a reasonable-person standard. If you see 'reasonable person' in an attempt question, it's almost certainly wrong.
Why it's wrong
Attempt uses the defendant's actual intent, not a reasonable-person standard. If you see 'reasonable person' in an attempt question, it's almost certainly wrong.
14836_picnic_alibi · EVIDENCE · Choice Cinadmissible, because the misstatement by the friend could have been caused by a misunderstanding of the application form.
Why it's attractive
CLASH with A on the stated reason; 'misunderstanding' is a common-sense appeal, not the operative legal rule, and would, taken seriously, cut against impeachment value rather than for inadmissibility.
Why it's wrong
CLASH with A on the stated reason; 'misunderstanding' is a common-sense appeal, not the operative legal rule, and would, taken seriously, cut against impeachment value rather than for inadmissibility.
14844_divorce-to-deacon · EVIDENCE · Choice Ainadmissible, because impeachment on a collateral issue may not be proved by extrinsic evidence.
Why it's attractive
The word 'extrinsic' in the answer should trigger you to check whether the stem is about a question on cross or about outside proof.
Why it's wrong
The word 'extrinsic' in the answer should trigger you to check whether the stem is about a question on cross or about outside proof.

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

Practice questions using this trap →