Embarrassment Equals Fault
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
- Torts1
Example wrong choices
20123_prayer_card_threat_writers · TORTS · Choice AHumiliation from seeing her prayer card in the episode.
Why it's attractive
The choice feels sympathetic because humiliation is the obvious human harm from the false implication. The breaker is that the call asks for the publisher's mental state, not Hannah's reaction.
Why it's wrong
Humiliation is harm, not the publisher mental-state showing the call asks for.
Spot it next time
Ask whose mind the answer describes.
20123_prayer_card_threat_writers · TORTS · Choice BSpecial damages, because false light is a trade-libel tort.
Why it's attractive
The choice sounds lawyerly because special damages and trade libel are technical labels. The breaker is that it changes the frame from false-light mental state to a damages/category issue.
Why it's wrong
Special damages and trade libel answer a different frame from the false-light mental-state call.
Spot it next time
Return to the call and demand a mental-state showing.
20123_prayer_card_threat_writers · TORTS · Choice DStrict liability, because the episode graphic was misleading.
Why it's attractive
The choice feels efficient because a misleading graphic seems enough for liability. The breaker is the Gold Key: public-concern false light requires constitutional fault, not strict liability.
Why it's wrong
Strict liability is defeated by the public-concern false-light actual-malice Gold Key.
Spot it next time
Ask whether the answer supplies knowledge or reckless disregard.
Practice the questions that use this trap as a distractor and get full Wrong Answer Forensics on submit.
Practice questions using this trap →