Intoxication Always Requires Bac Evidence
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
17228_harvest_supper_lay_intoxication · EVIDENCE · Choice AOverrule the objection only if Lydia first states Barnabas's blood-alcohol level.
Why it's attractive
The choice adds a chemical-number condition the call did not require.
Why it's wrong
The choice adds a chemical-number condition the call did not require.
17228_harvest_supper_lay_intoxication · EVIDENCE · Choice BSustain the objection because only an expert may testify about intoxication.
Why it's attractive
The choice turns an ordinary appearance opinion into an expert-only matter.
Why it's wrong
The choice turns an ordinary appearance opinion into an expert-only matter.
17228_harvest_supper_lay_intoxication · EVIDENCE · Choice DSustain the objection because lay witnesses may never give opinions.
Why it's attractive
The word never is too absolute for an evidence rule that has a named allowance.
Why it's wrong
The word never is too absolute for an evidence rule that has a named allowance.
Practice the questions that use this trap as a distractor and get full Wrong Answer Forensics on submit.
Practice questions using this trap →