Half Truth Distractor
This trap appears as a wrong-answer choice in 2 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
- Contracts1
- Evidence1
Example wrong choices
22228_construction-timothy · EVIDENCE · Choice ANo, because the court must independently verify a witness's expertise and cannot allow the parties to stipulate to qualifications.
Why it's attractive
FRE 702 requires the court to find the expert qualified, but the court can base that finding on a party stipulation. The choice says the court 'cannot allow' stipulation — that's simply not the law.
Why it's wrong
FRE 702 requires the court to find the expert qualified, but the court can base that finding on a party stipulation. The choice says the court 'cannot allow' stipulation — that's simply not the law.
22228_construction-timothy · EVIDENCE · Choice BNo, because the qualifications of the expert are no longer in issue.
Why it's attractive
The court's admissibility determination is done, but the jury still needs to assess the expert's credibility. The jury can't weigh expert testimony without knowing qualifications. So qualifications ARE still in issue — just for a different decision-maker.
Why it's wrong
The court's admissibility determination is done, but the jury still needs to assess the expert's credibility. The jury can't weigh expert testimony without knowing qualifications. So qualifications ARE still in issue — just for a different decision-maker.
22228_construction-timothy · EVIDENCE · Choice DYes, because the court's finding that the witness is qualified does not bar further inquiry into the details of his expertise.
Why it's attractive
It's true that the court's finding doesn't bar further inquiry. But the REASON the plaintiff may continue is jury credibility, not the court's non-bar. On the MBE, both conclusion AND reasoning must be correct.
Why it's wrong
It's true that the court's finding doesn't bar further inquiry. But the REASON the plaintiff may continue is jury credibility, not the court's non-bar. On the MBE, both conclusion AND reasoning must be correct.
22425_firm-offer-hymnals · CONTRACTS · Choice AYes, because Timothy had not communicated any acceptance to Daniel.
Why it's attractive
Acceptance is irrelevant — the question is whether the revocation was effective, not whether a contract was formed
Why it's wrong
Acceptance is irrelevant — the question is whether the revocation was effective, not whether a contract was formed
22425_firm-offer-hymnals · CONTRACTS · Choice BYes, because there was no consideration to support keeping the offer open.
Why it's attractive
The choice invents a requirement (consideration) that the firm offer rule specifically eliminates
Why it's wrong
The choice invents a requirement (consideration) that the firm offer rule specifically eliminates
22425_firm-offer-hymnals · CONTRACTS · Choice DNo, because Daniel did not communicate his revocation in writing.
Why it's attractive
The writing requirement applies to the offer, not the revocation — even an oral revocation would be ineffective under § 2-205
Why it's wrong
The writing requirement applies to the offer, not the revocation — even an oral revocation would be ineffective under § 2-205
Practice the questions that use this trap as a distractor and get full Wrong Answer Forensics on submit.
Practice questions using this trap →