General Intent Misclassified As Specific Intent
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
- CRIMINAL1
Example wrong choices
17370_fishing-retreat · CRIMINAL · Choice BNathan is not guilty because his intoxication prevented him from forming the intent to injure Philip.
Why it's attractive
Embeds false premise that battery requires intent to injure the specific victim. Gold Key: battery is a general-intent crime — the intent to do the act is enough. B's premise misstates the element.
Why it's wrong
Embeds false premise that battery requires intent to injure the specific victim. Gold Key: battery is a general-intent crime — the intent to do the act is enough. B's premise misstates the element.
17370_fishing-retreat · CRIMINAL · Choice CNathan is guilty only if the prosecution proves he specifically intended to harm Philip.
Why it's attractive
Adds 'specifically intended to harm Philip' as a required element of battery. That element does not exist. Fabricated requirement → NOT_TRUE.
Why it's wrong
Adds 'specifically intended to harm Philip' as a required element of battery. That element does not exist. Fabricated requirement → NOT_TRUE.
17370_fishing-retreat · CRIMINAL · Choice DNathan is not guilty because a reasonable person in his condition might also have believed the casting area was clear.
Why it's attractive
Imports a reasonable-person / objective standard into battery intent analysis. That standard is not in play. Misfit → NOT_RESPONSIVE.
Why it's wrong
Imports a reasonable-person / objective standard into battery intent analysis. That standard is not in play. Misfit → NOT_RESPONSIVE.
Practice the questions that use this trap as a distractor and get full Wrong Answer Forensics on submit.
Practice questions using this trap →