Intent To Kill Requirement Myth
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
20931_candlestick_strikes · CRIMINAL · Choice BYes, for first-degree murder, because the repeated striking shows premeditation.
Why it's attractive
The stem says nothing about thinking about killing before hitting. Premeditation = prior reflection about killing, not just many hits.
Why it's wrong
The stem says nothing about thinking about killing before hitting. Premeditation = prior reflection about killing, not just many hits.
20931_candlestick_strikes · CRIMINAL · Choice CYes, for involuntary manslaughter, because Peter did not intend to kill.
Why it's attractive
The call asks 'murder?' — involuntary manslaughter is a different charge. That alone makes it non-responsive.
Why it's wrong
The call asks 'murder?' — involuntary manslaughter is a different charge. That alone makes it non-responsive.
20931_candlestick_strikes · CRIMINAL · Choice DNo, because Peter lacked intent to kill, which is required for murder.
Why it's attractive
The Gold Key explicitly says GBH intent = malice = murder. D reverses that: it says only intent to kill counts, which is false.
Why it's wrong
The Gold Key explicitly says GBH intent = malice = murder. D reverses that: it says only intent to kill counts, which is false.
Practice the questions that use this trap as a distractor and get full Wrong Answer Forensics on submit.
Practice questions using this trap →