Expansion After Move In Analysis
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
18592_shiloh_campground · TORTS · Choice BIt is a complete defense because the camp was there first.
Why it's attractive
The student reaches for the 'was there first' intuition. The Gold Key rejects the overclaim: the doctrine is a reasonableness factor, not a complete defense, and the *expansion* after the move-in cuts against the intuition.
Why it's wrong
The student reaches for the 'was there first' intuition. The Gold Key rejects the overclaim: the doctrine is a reasonableness factor, not a complete defense, and the *expansion* after the move-in cuts against the intuition.
18592_shiloh_campground · TORTS · Choice CIt converts the claim from nuisance to strict liability only.
Why it's attractive
The student reads the 'coming to the nuisance' doctrine as changing the tort's category. The breaker: timing does not convert a private nuisance claim into a strict-liability claim.
Why it's wrong
The student reads the 'coming to the nuisance' doctrine as changing the tort's category. The breaker: timing does not convert a private nuisance claim into a strict-liability claim.
18592_shiloh_campground · TORTS · Choice DIt is irrelevant in every nuisance case.
Why it's attractive
The student overclaims the irrelevance frame. The breaker: timing *can* matter to reasonableness and remedy; the doctrine is not always irrelevant.
Why it's wrong
The student overclaims the irrelevance frame. The breaker: timing *can* matter to reasonableness and remedy; the doctrine is not always irrelevant.
Practice the questions that use this trap as a distractor and get full Wrong Answer Forensics on submit.
Practice questions using this trap →