Issue Sense
This trap appears as a wrong-answer choice in 122 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
- CRIMINAL49
- Contracts25
- Real Property13
- Torts12
- Constitutional Law10
- Evidence10
- Civil Procedure3
Example wrong choices
first 2014250_barnabas-paul-daniel-veterans-affairs · CONSTITUTIONAL_LAW · Choice AThe due process clause.
Why it's attractive
The statute is a legislative act, not an executive deprivation — due process notice/hearing requirements don't constrain Congress
Why it's wrong
The statute is a legislative act, not an executive deprivation — due process notice/hearing requirements don't constrain Congress
14250_barnabas-paul-daniel-veterans-affairs · CONSTITUTIONAL_LAW · Choice BThe takings clause.
Why it's attractive
No physical or recognized property interest was taken — the statute bars employment, not property
Why it's wrong
No physical or recognized property interest was taken — the statute bars employment, not property
14286_human-cannonball-barnabas · CONSTITUTIONAL_LAW · Choice Ahold against the performer, because its action deprives the performer of his property without due process.
Why it's attractive
Due Process restricts government action, not private parties. The station is not the government.
Why it's wrong
Due Process restricts government action, not private parties. The station is not the government.
14345_ezra-commission · CONSTITUTIONAL_LAW · Choice Aconstitutional, because the Necessary and Proper Clause authorizes Congress to determine the means by which members are appointed to boards created by Congress under its power to regulate commerce among the states.
Why it's wrong
Choice A is not the credited answer for this item.
14345_ezra-commission · CONSTITUTIONAL_LAW · Choice Bconstitutional, because there is a substantial nexus between the power of Congress to legislate for the general welfare and the means specified by Congress in this statute for the appointment of board members.
Why it's wrong
Choice B is not the credited answer for this item.
14355_zion-embassy · CONSTITUTIONAL_LAW · Choice ANo, because Congress has the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and therefore the statute is binding on the President.
Why it's wrong
Choice A is not the credited answer for this item.
14369_congressional-exception · CONSTITUTIONAL_LAW · Choice ACriminal and quasi-criminal proceedings are traditionally matters of state concern, and state courts are the final arbiters of their own contempt powers.
Why it's attractive
Does this choice explain why CONGRESS has the power? No — it just says states handle criminal law.
Why it's wrong
Does this choice explain why CONGRESS has the power? No — it just says states handle criminal law.
14369_congressional-exception · CONSTITUTIONAL_LAW · Choice DReview of state court contempt orders does not fall within the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.
Why it's attractive
The call is about appellate jurisdiction. Does this choice address appellate jurisdiction? No.
Why it's wrong
The call is about appellate jurisdiction. Does this choice address appellate jurisdiction? No.
14392_tutor-typist-land · CONTRACTS · Choice BThere is no contract, because the parties attached materially different meanings to the price term.
Why it's attractive
Peter understood $85,000 — the face value of the letter. He didn't attach a 'different meaning.' Timothy's secret intention doesn't create a different meaning Peter attached.
Why it's wrong
Peter understood $85,000 — the face value of the letter. He didn't attach a 'different meaning.' Timothy's secret intention doesn't create a different meaning Peter attached.
14399_shepherd-psalm-transform · CONTRACTS · Choice DDaniel wins, because any mistake involved was unilateral, not mutual.
Why it's attractive
Both parties shared the same knowledge; unilateral mistake doesn't apply
Why it's wrong
Both parties shared the same knowledge; unilateral mistake doesn't apply
14435_tent-maker-paul · CONTRACTS · Choice APaul could not delegate his duty to pay to Martha.
Why it's attractive
The choice says Paul 'could not delegate his duty to pay' — but did Paul actually delegate? He asked Martha to send payments. Lydia insisted on payment only from Paul. No delegation occurred.
Why it's wrong
The choice says Paul 'could not delegate his duty to pay' — but did Paul actually delegate? He asked Martha to send payments. Lydia insisted on payment only from Paul. No delegation occurred.
14435_tent-maker-paul · CONTRACTS · Choice CPaul's conduct was an attempted novation that Lydia could could reject.
Why it's attractive
The choice says this was an 'attempted novation.' But a novation requires the original obligor to be released from the obligation. Paul was never released — Lydia demanded payment from Paul directly.
Why it's wrong
The choice says this was an 'attempted novation.' But a novation requires the original obligor to be released from the obligation. Paul was never released — Lydia demanded payment from Paul directly.
14483_rare-bible-atlas · CONTRACTS · Choice AAlthough the doctrine of anticipatory breach is not applicable under the prevailing view if, at the time of repudiation, the repudiatee owes the repudiator no remaining duty of performance, the doctrine applies in this case because Daniel, the repudiatee, remains potentially liable under an implied warranty that the page advanced to Paul was genuine.
Why it's attractive
This names a real UCC concept (implied warranty) but it doesn't answer whether Daniel can sue before the performance date.
Why it's wrong
This names a real UCC concept (implied warranty) but it doesn't answer whether Daniel can sue before the performance date.
14483_rare-bible-atlas · CONTRACTS · Choice BDaniel's implied duty of good faith and fair dealing in enforcement of the contract required him to mitigate his losses on the rising market by suing promptly, as he did, after becoming reasonably apprehensive of a prospective breach by Paul.
Why it's attractive
Mitigation limits recovery after breach; it doesn't determine whether you can sue before the performance date.
Why it's wrong
Mitigation limits recovery after breach; it doesn't determine whether you can sue before the performance date.
14512_used-boat-sale · CONTRACTS · Choice ANo, because the contract was unconscionable.
Why it's wrong
Choice A is not the credited answer for this item.
14517_tutor-oven · CONTRACTS · Choice BIn all probability, the liquidated damages paid by Peter to the venue are not the same amount as the actual damages sustained by the venue in consequence of the late cake delivery.
Why it's attractive
The question tells you to assume the LD clause is valid. Once validity is assumed, the gap between LD and actual damages is irrelevant.
Why it's wrong
The question tells you to assume the LD clause is valid. Once validity is assumed, the gap between LD and actual damages is irrelevant.
14517_tutor-oven · CONTRACTS · Choice DTime was not of the essence in the contract between Peter and Timothy.
Why it's attractive
'Time of the essence' determines whether delay is a material breach. The breach is conceded — the only issue is the amount of damages.
Why it's wrong
'Time of the essence' determines whether delay is a material breach. The breach is conceded — the only issue is the amount of damages.
14551_tent-maker-pledge · CONTRACTS · Choice BYes, because Lydia is an intended beneficiary of the Paul–Timothy contract.
Why it's attractive
Reframes as third-party beneficiary — but the doctrine doesn't fit the facts
Why it's wrong
Reframes as third-party beneficiary — but the doctrine doesn't fit the facts
14559_warrant-esther · CRIMINAL · Choice CNo — manager had actual authority to allow entry
Why it's wrong
Choice C is not the credited answer for this item.
14585_boathouse_fire · CRIMINAL · Choice CNo, because although Peter effectively asserted the right to counsel, the question "Why would you want to talk with a lawyer?" did not constitute custodial interrogation.
Why it's attractive
Focuses on whether the detective's follow-up was interrogation instead of whether Peter clearly invoked counsel.
Why it's wrong
Focuses on whether the detective's follow-up was interrogation instead of whether Peter clearly invoked counsel.
Practice the questions that use this trap as a distractor and get full Wrong Answer Forensics on submit.
Practice questions using this trap →