Fabricated Requirement
This trap appears as a wrong-answer choice in 6 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
- Constitutional Law2
- Evidence2
- CRIMINAL1
- Real Property1
Example wrong choices
14833_peter-harp-luthier · EVIDENCE · Choice Ainadmissible, because the soundboard was produced and examined as part of settlement negotiations.
Why it's attractive
The choice names a real rule (FRE 408) but applies it to the wrong evidentiary gate — witness competency, not claim validity
Why it's wrong
The choice names a real rule (FRE 408) but applies it to the wrong evidentiary gate — witness competency, not claim validity
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
14833_peter-harp-luthier · EVIDENCE · Choice Dadmissible, because Peter's expert had been able to examine the soundboard carefully.
Why it's attractive
The expert's examination is irrelevant to Paul's competency — a witness's personal knowledge is established by their own perception, not someone else's
Why it's wrong
The expert's examination is irrelevant to Paul's competency — a witness's personal knowledge is established by their own perception, not someone else's
18407_mission_house_refusal · CRIMINAL · Choice DNo, but only if Timothy could prove that he had exclusive possession of the specific area where the laptop was found.
Why it's attractive
CUT
Why it's wrong
CUT
18502_exec-immunity-civil · CONSTITUTIONAL_LAW · Choice AThe former Governor loses immunity if the contractor plausibly alleges the de-prioritization was motivated by personal retaliation.
Why it's attractive
The choice makes motive the test. The rule classifies the act, not the actor's reason.
Why it's wrong
The choice makes motive the test. The rule classifies the act, not the actor's reason.
18502_exec-immunity-civil · CONSTITUTIONAL_LAW · Choice BThe former Governor is immune only if the state legislature expressly authorized the specific bid de-prioritization.
Why it's attractive
The choice adds a requirement (legislative authorization) that the rule does not contain.
Why it's wrong
The choice adds a requirement (legislative authorization) that the rule does not contain.
18502_exec-immunity-civil · CONSTITUTIONAL_LAW · Choice DThe former Governor has no immunity because he is no longer in office.
Why it's attractive
The choice makes current office the test. Immunity attaches to the act, not the actor's current title.
Why it's wrong
The choice makes current office the test. Immunity attaches to the act, not the actor's current title.
21721_presidents-unpaid-banners · CONSTITUTIONAL_LAW · Choice AThe suit is barred because Lydia waited until after the inauguration to sue.
Why it's attractive
timing of filing does not answer official-vs-private
Why it's wrong
timing of filing does not answer official-vs-private
21721_presidents-unpaid-banners · CONSTITUTIONAL_LAW · Choice BThe suit is barred because a sitting President has absolute immunity from all civil litigation while in office.
Why it's attractive
'all civil litigation' = always/all overclaim tell
Why it's wrong
'all civil litigation' = always/all overclaim tell
21721_presidents-unpaid-banners · CONSTITUTIONAL_LAW · Choice DThe suit is barred only if Congress approves the contract.
Why it's attractive
no such approval rule exists; invents a threshold
Why it's wrong
no such approval rule exists; invents a threshold
22100_vineyard_cartpath · REAL_PROPERTY · Choice AYes, because Philip relied on Stephen's assertion when he bought the vineyard.
Why it's attractive
Reaches the right outcome but for a non-operative reason; reliance only matters if the easement had ended, and it did not.
Why it's wrong
Reaches the right outcome but for a non-operative reason; reliance only matters if the easement had ended, and it did not.
22100_vineyard_cartpath · REAL_PROPERTY · Choice BNo, because the easement was revocable at the will of the grantor.
Why it's attractive
States the easement is revocable at will, which is the defining feature of a license, not an easement.
Why it's wrong
States the easement is revocable at will, which is the defining feature of a license, not an easement.
22100_vineyard_cartpath · REAL_PROPERTY · Choice DNo, because there is no indication that Naomi received any benefit from the sale.
Why it's attractive
Conditions the easement's survival on the servient owner profiting from the sale — a requirement no rule imposes.
Why it's wrong
Conditions the easement's survival on the servient owner profiting from the sale — a requirement no rule imposes.
22221_guardian_consultation · EVIDENCE · Choice AYes, because the court's appointment of Hannah as Nora's legal guardian made Hannah's presence at the consultation necessary.
Why it's wrong
Choice A is not the credited answer for this item.
22221_guardian_consultation · EVIDENCE · Choice BNo, because David never agreed to represent Nora and Hannah.
Why it's wrong
Choice B is not the credited answer for this item.
22221_guardian_consultation · EVIDENCE · Choice DNo, because Nora and Hannah are co-defendants in the action.
Why it's wrong
Choice D 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 →