ArchitectureObserved in bank

Ear Overclaim

This trap appears as a wrong-answer choice in 115 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

CRIMINAL45
Contracts25
Evidence15
Real Property11
Constitutional Law10
Torts8
Civil Procedure1

Example wrong choices

first 20

14236_sacred-grove · CONSTITUTIONAL_LAW · Choice BThe logging operation will have a discriminatory impact on the community's religious practices in relation to the practices of other religious groups.
Why it's attractive
This choice focuses on discriminatory impact. Under Smith, disparate impact on religion is constitutionally irrelevant — the question is intent, not effect.
Why it's wrong
This choice focuses on discriminatory impact. Under Smith, disparate impact on religion is constitutionally irrelevant — the question is intent, not effect.
14236_sacred-grove · CONSTITUTIONAL_LAW · Choice DThe government can serve its legitimate interest in timber harvesting by selecting a logging site that is less burdensome on the community's religious practices.
Why it's attractive
This choice suggests the government must find a less burdensome alternative. That's a strict-scrutiny requirement, but strict scrutiny only applies when the government targets religion.
Why it's wrong
This choice suggests the government must find a less burdensome alternative. That's a strict-scrutiny requirement, but strict scrutiny only applies when the government targets religion.
14250_barnabas-paul-daniel-veterans-affairs · CONSTITUTIONAL_LAW · Choice DThe ex post facto clause.
Why it's attractive
The statute imposes a civil disability, not a criminal penalty — ex post facto doesn't apply
Why it's wrong
The statute imposes a civil disability, not a criminal penalty — ex post facto doesn't apply
14286_human-cannonball-barnabas · CONSTITUTIONAL_LAW · Choice Bhold against the performer, because the First and Fourteenth Amendments authorize press coverage of newsworthy entertainment events.
Why it's attractive
The First Amendment authorizes press coverage of newsworthy events, but that right is not immunity from tort liability. The key distinction: covering news ≠ appropriating the entire commercial value of a performance.
Why it's wrong
The First Amendment authorizes press coverage of newsworthy events, but that right is not immunity from tort liability. The key distinction: covering news ≠ appropriating the entire commercial value of a performance.
14293_mootness-live-stream · CONSTITUTIONAL_LAW · Choice CDeny the motion, because Timothy has raised an important constitutional question: whether his investment in a streaming subscription, purchased solely to view the trial, constitutes property protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Why it's attractive
A federal question does not create jurisdiction if the case is moot. Mootness defeats jurisdiction regardless of the importance of the issue.
Why it's wrong
A federal question does not create jurisdiction if the case is moot. Mootness defeats jurisdiction regardless of the importance of the issue.
14293_mootness-live-stream · CONSTITUTIONAL_LAW · Choice DDefer action on the motion until after any appellate proceedings in the criminal case have concluded, because the defendant might appeal, the conviction might be set aside, a new trial might be ordered, and the streaming issue could resurface.
Why it's attractive
The chance of appellate reversal is too remote. No obvious errors means no strong likelihood of revival. Mootness does not yield to theoretical possibilities.
Why it's wrong
The chance of appellate reversal is too remote. No obvious errors means no strong likelihood of revival. Mootness does not yield to theoretical possibilities.
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.
14355_zion-embassy · CONSTITUTIONAL_LAW · Choice CNo, because Congress has the power to implement treaties, and therefore the statute is binding on the President.
Why it's wrong
Choice C is not the credited answer for this item.
14399_shepherd-psalm-transform · CONTRACTS · Choice BPeter wins, because both parties were mutually mistaken about the ram's fertility when they made the agreement.
Why it's attractive
Both parties knew they didn't know — that's uncertainty with assumed risk, not mistaken belief
Why it's wrong
Both parties knew they didn't know — that's uncertainty with assumed risk, not mistaken belief
14425_accommodating-shipment · CONTRACTS · Choice DBarnabas 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 provided that he promptly covers by obtaining conforming oak from another supplier.
Why it's attractive
choice imposes a cover duty on rejection; cover presupposes breach, and also misstates buyer's obligations even in breach scenarios
Why it's wrong
choice imposes a cover duty on rejection; cover presupposes breach, and also misstates buyer's obligations even in breach scenarios
14435_tent-maker-paul · CONTRACTS · Choice BThe agreement to extend the time for payment was not in writing.
Why it's attractive
The choice claims the modification needed to be in writing. But an oral agreement to modify payment terms on a debt is not within the Statute of Frauds. The defect is not procedural — it's substantive (no consideration).
Why it's wrong
The choice claims the modification needed to be in writing. But an oral agreement to modify payment terms on a debt is not within the Statute of Frauds. The defect is not procedural — it's substantive (no consideration).
14499_impossibility-restitution · CONTRACTS · Choice BOnly Timothy's contractual duty is discharged, and Timothy can recover his reliance damages from Lydia.
Why it's attractive
This choice gets the discharge right (only Timothy) but then picks reliance damages. Reliance damages compensate what you spent preparing to perform. Restitution recovers the value of what you actually gave the other person. After impossibility, the remedy is restitution, not reliance.
Why it's wrong
This choice gets the discharge right (only Timothy) but then picks reliance damages. Reliance damages compensate what you spent preparing to perform. Restitution recovers the value of what you actually gave the other person. After impossibility, the remedy is restitution, not reliance.
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.
14517_tutor-oven · CONTRACTS · Choice ABy entering into the contract with the wedding venue while knowing that his oven was being repaired, Peter assumed the risk of any delay loss to the venue.
Why it's attractive
No contract doctrine treats a party who relies on timely performance as 'assuming the risk' of the other party's breach.
Why it's wrong
No contract doctrine treats a party who relies on timely performance as 'assuming the risk' of the other party's breach.
14551_tent-maker-pledge · CONTRACTS · Choice DYes, because Paul had manifested an intent that Timothy pay the $10,000 directly to Lydia.
Why it's attractive
Intent alone doesn't create an assignment — the writing must effectuate a present transfer
Why it's wrong
Intent alone doesn't create an assignment — the writing must effectuate a present transfer
14677_prop-gun-rehearsal · CRIMINAL · Choice Aguilty of murder.
Why it's attractive
If the jury finds the mistake was reasonable, the defendant lacked the mental state for murder. Guilty of murder contradicts the premise.
Why it's wrong
If the jury finds the mistake was reasonable, the defendant lacked the mental state for murder. Guilty of murder contradicts the premise.
14777_christian-variance · EVIDENCE · Choice Binadmissible, because Daniel is not shown to have firsthand knowledge that the manuscript was stolen.
Why it's wrong
Choice B is not the credited answer for this item.
14793_christian-variation · EVIDENCE · Choice DYes, but only to impeach Stephen's testimony.
Why it's wrong
Choice D is not the credited answer for this item.
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
14841_witness-sequestration-tort · EVIDENCE · Choice BThe judge allows Daniel's attorney to ask Timothy, who was called as an adverse witness, questions on cross-examination that go well beyond the scope of direct examination by Paul.
Why it's attractive
FRE 611(b) says 'the court may, in the exercise of discretion, permit' — this is discretionary, not mandatory
Why it's wrong
FRE 611(b) says 'the court may, in the exercise of discretion, permit' — this is discretionary, not mandatory

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

Practice questions using this trap →