Factual Impossibility
This trap appears as a wrong-answer choice in 5 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
- CRIMINAL5
Example wrong choices
14694_factual-impossibility-hunter · CRIMINAL · Choice AGuilty of attempted murder, because a reasonable person would not have been aware of the limited range of the BB rifle.
Why it's attractive
Attempt uses the defendant's actual intent, not a reasonable-person standard. If you see 'reasonable person' in an attempt question, it's almost certainly wrong.
Why it's wrong
Attempt uses the defendant's actual intent, not a reasonable-person standard. If you see 'reasonable person' in an attempt question, it's almost certainly wrong.
14694_factual-impossibility-hunter · CRIMINAL · Choice BNot guilty of attempted murder, but guilty of assault.
Why it's attractive
The call asks about attempted murder. A choice that says 'not guilty of attempted murder but guilty of assault' is answering a different question — it concedes the premise and pivots to a lesser charge.
Why it's wrong
The call asks about attempted murder. A choice that says 'not guilty of attempted murder but guilty of assault' is answering a different question — it concedes the premise and pivots to a lesser charge.
14694_factual-impossibility-hunter · CRIMINAL · Choice DNot guilty of attempted murder, or any lesser included offense, because under the circumstances it was impossible for Peter to have killed Barnabas.
Why it's attractive
Factual impossibility is NOT a defense to attempt. This is one of the most commonly tested MBE traps. If the defendant didn't know the facts made it impossible, the intent is still there.
Why it's wrong
Factual impossibility is NOT a defense to attempt. This is one of the most commonly tested MBE traps. If the defendant didn't know the facts made it impossible, the intent is still there.
16161_festival_tablets · CRIMINAL · Choice ANeither Barnabas nor Lydia is guilty of attempting to sell MDMA.
Why it's wrong
Choice A is not the credited answer for this item.
16161_festival_tablets · CRIMINAL · Choice BBarnabas is guilty of attempting to sell MDMA, but Lydia is not.
Why it's wrong
Choice B is not the credited answer for this item.
16161_festival_tablets · CRIMINAL · Choice DBoth Barnabas and Lydia are guilty of attempting to sell MDMA.
Why it's wrong
Choice D is not the credited answer for this item.
21413_paul_archery_variance · CRIMINAL · Choice AYes, because attempted murder requires an actual injury.
Why it's attractive
Attempt crimes by definition involve conduct that falls short of completion. Attempted murder requires intent + substantial step, not injury. This choice is factually wrong.
Why it's wrong
Attempt crimes by definition involve conduct that falls short of completion. Attempted murder requires intent + substantial step, not injury. This choice is factually wrong.
21413_paul_archery_variance · CRIMINAL · Choice BNo, but only because Paul was standing close to Timothy.
Why it's attractive
Distance is not the legal test for attempt. The key is intent + substantial step. A defendant who fires from 200 yards with intent to kill is still guilty of attempted murder. This choice proves a non-dispositive element.
Why it's wrong
Distance is not the legal test for attempt. The key is intent + substantial step. A defendant who fires from 200 yards with intent to kill is still guilty of attempted murder. This choice proves a non-dispositive element.
21413_paul_archery_variance · CRIMINAL · Choice DYes, because a crossbow with no string cannot cause death.
Why it's attractive
A crossbow with no string truly cannot cause death. But factual impossibility is not a defense to attempt. The Gold Key — 'if the facts were as the defendant believed, would it be a crime?' — kills this trap.
Why it's wrong
A crossbow with no string truly cannot cause death. But factual impossibility is not a defense to attempt. The Gold Key — 'if the facts were as the defendant believed, would it be a crime?' — kills this trap.
21690_psalms_archive · CRIMINAL · Choice AMartha is not guilty because undercover officers cannot be solicited.
Why it's attractive
It tries to make undercover status a legal shield.
Why it's wrong
It tries to make undercover status a legal shield.
21690_psalms_archive · CRIMINAL · Choice BMartha is not guilty because the manuscript was not actually in the archive room.
Why it's attractive
It turns the manuscript's actual location into a defense.
Why it's wrong
It turns the manuscript's actual location into a defense.
21690_psalms_archive · CRIMINAL · Choice DMartha is guilty only if Peter actually entered the archive room.
Why it's attractive
It requires actual entry before solicitation exists.
Why it's wrong
It requires actual entry before solicitation exists.
22285_ruth_naomi · CRIMINAL · Choice ARuth mixed into the dough what she believed was a lethal amount of arsenic, but the white powder was only flour.
Why it's attractive
Ruth still thought she was using poison.
Why it's wrong
Ruth still thought she was using poison.
22285_ruth_naomi · CRIMINAL · Choice BRuth brushed the loaf with what she believed was rat poison, but the pharmacist had accidentally given her baking soda instead.
Why it's attractive
Ruth still thought she was using poison.
Why it's wrong
Ruth still thought she was using poison.
22285_ruth_naomi · CRIMINAL · Choice DRuth coated the loaf with real arsenic, but Naomi had already died from a heart attack before the supper began.
Why it's attractive
Naomi was dead, but Ruth believed she was alive.
Why it's wrong
Naomi was dead, but Ruth believed she was alive.
Practice the questions that use this trap as a distractor and get full Wrong Answer Forensics on submit.
Practice questions using this trap →