Ear Overclaim Fabricated Rule
This trap appears as a wrong-answer choice in 11 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
- Contracts3
- CRIMINAL3
- Evidence3
- Civil Procedure1
- Real Property1
Example wrong choices
14453_tractor_bargain · CONTRACTS · Choice ANo, because Naomi's store manager delivered the tractor to a customer, making it impossible for Naomi to perform her promise.
Why it's attractive
The choice says the contract cannot exist because performance became impossible. But the call asks about breach of contract — breach requires a contract to exist. Impossibility of delivery is a performance defense, not a formation defense.
Why it's wrong
The choice says the contract cannot exist because performance became impossible. But the call asks about breach of contract — breach requires a contract to exist. Impossibility of delivery is a performance defense, not a formation defense.
14806_wedding_cake · EVIDENCE · Choice Cadmissible, provided the court first finds by a preponderance of the evidence that Esther had actual or apparent authority to act for Timothy.
Why it's attractive
The 'sufficient to support a finding' Gold Key defeats the trap: FRE 104(b), not FRE 104(a), governs conditional relevance.
Why it's wrong
The 'sufficient to support a finding' Gold Key defeats the trap: FRE 104(b), not FRE 104(a), governs conditional relevance.
16137_retreat-shuttle-line · CRIMINAL · Choice Anot guilty, because words alone are not enough for criminal liability.
Why it's attractive
This answer quietly adds a categorical speech exception that accomplice law does not contain.
Why it's wrong
This answer quietly adds a categorical speech exception that accomplice law does not contain.
16137_retreat-shuttle-line · CRIMINAL · Choice Bnot guilty, because Barnabas did not physically help Daniel in any way.
Why it's attractive
The answer treats accomplice liability as if touching, weapon-supplying, or other physical aid were mandatory.
Why it's wrong
The answer treats accomplice liability as if touching, weapon-supplying, or other physical aid were mandatory.
17006_barnabas-boatworks · CIVIL_PROCEDURE · Choice ANo, because the company moved to dismiss before the close of discovery and thus raised the jurisdictional challenge at the earliest practicable opportunity.
Why it's attractive
Hangs the result on 'before discovery closed' — a milestone the call never tied to jurisdiction.
Why it's wrong
Hangs the result on 'before discovery closed' — a milestone the call never tied to jurisdiction.
17007_contract-rights-assign-discharge · CONTRACTS · Choice DThe contract between Paul and Silas did not contain a clause permitting assignment.
Why it's wrong
Choice D is not the credited answer for this item.
17279_tractor_field_ruth · CRIMINAL · Choice BVoluntary manslaughter, because Ruth acted under sudden excitement.
Why it's attractive
the rule has a specific trigger (heat of passion from adequate provocation); 'sudden excitement' is invented
Why it's wrong
the rule has a specific trigger (heat of passion from adequate provocation); 'sudden excitement' is invented
17377_transcript_confession · EVIDENCE · Choice DSustain the objection only if Pastor Peter's denomination requires secrecy.
Why it's attractive
Privileges are matters of *law*, not religious policy. Adding a denominational-secrecy condition imports a fact the legal test does not require. Cut.
Why it's wrong
Privileges are matters of *law*, not religious policy. Adding a denominational-secrecy condition imports a fact the legal test does not require. Cut.
17715_motorcycle_restoration · EVIDENCE · Choice AYes, but only because every excluded witness is presumed to support the proponent.
Why it's attractive
The word 'every' is a giveaway absolute, and the 'presumed to support' shortcut is a fabricated rule — FRE 103(a)(2) does not create such a presumption. The deciding question is which Yes-reason names the actual rule.
Why it's wrong
The word 'every' is a giveaway absolute, and the 'presumed to support' shortcut is a fabricated rule — FRE 103(a)(2) does not create such a presumption. The deciding question is which Yes-reason names the actual rule.
18866_esthers_psalm_garden · REAL_PROPERTY · Choice DPaul, because Esther did not obtain a court order before putting him off the parcel.
Why it's attractive
The choice adds a procedural requirement not supplied by the stem.
Why it's wrong
The choice adds a procedural requirement not supplied by the stem.
21504_olive_grove_stephen · CRIMINAL · Choice CYes, but only if Stephen personally picked the olives from the trees himself.
Why it's attractive
the rule asks about the property's status at the time of taking, not the defendant's history with it
Why it's wrong
the rule asks about the property's status at the time of taking, not the defendant's history with it
21504_olive_grove_stephen · CRIMINAL · Choice DNo, because Stephen had ridden the donkey only a short way down the road before the household woke and stopped him.
Why it's attractive
the standard asportation rule is taught in the larceny C3 surface; loading baskets and riding off is movement enough
Why it's wrong
the standard asportation rule is taught in the larceny C3 surface; loading baskets and riding off is movement enough
22416_martha_kitchen_meals · CONTRACTS · Choice AAn offer for a bilateral contract.
Why it's wrong
Choice A is not the credited answer for this item.
Practice the questions that use this trap as a distractor and get full Wrong Answer Forensics on submit.
Practice questions using this trap →