First Party Vs Liability Conflation
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
- Evidence1
Example wrong choices
19903_daniel_star_of_the_sea · EVIDENCE · Choice AAdmit the evidence only if the prosecution first proves the insurer paid Daniel.
Why it's attractive
A student who picks A is treating 'insurer paid' as a foundation precondition. The relevance turn on the defendant's incentive at the time of the act, not on later payment.
Why it's wrong
A student who picks A is treating 'insurer paid' as a foundation precondition. The relevance turn on the defendant's incentive at the time of the act, not on later payment.
19903_daniel_star_of_the_sea · EVIDENCE · Choice BExclude the evidence; marine hull insurance can never be relevant to prove a vessel's loss.
Why it's attractive
The word 'never' is the tell. A categorical exclusion is the loudest signal in the answer array; the next move is to check the rule's text for a carve-out.
Why it's wrong
The word 'never' is the tell. A categorical exclusion is the loudest signal in the answer array; the next move is to check the rule's text for a carve-out.
19903_daniel_star_of_the_sea · EVIDENCE · Choice DExclude the evidence; motive evidence must prove the charged act by itself.
Why it's attractive
A student who picks D is treating relevance as if it were sufficiency. The relevance floor is 'any tendency'; sufficiency is a different test, applied at the close of the evidence.
Why it's wrong
A student who picks D is treating relevance as if it were sufficiency. The relevance floor is 'any tendency'; sufficiency is a different test, applied at the close of the evidence.
Practice the questions that use this trap as a distractor and get full Wrong Answer Forensics on submit.
Practice questions using this trap →