ArchitectureBarMatrix curated

Legally True But Irrelevant

This trap appears as a wrong-answer choice in 14 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

CRIMINAL8
Contracts2
Evidence2
Real Property2

Example wrong choices

first 20

14397_fish_keychains · CONTRACTS · Choice AYes, because Lydia relied on an implied promise to pay when she brought the keychains to Daniel.
Why it's attractive
The choice talks about seller reliance, but the call asks enforceability against a buyer who refused the goods.
Why it's wrong
The choice talks about seller reliance, but the call asks enforceability against a buyer who refused the goods.
14397_fish_keychains · CONTRACTS · Choice BNo, because the parties never agreed on the price of the keychains.
Why it's attractive
Gold Key: missing price alone does not defeat a sale-of-goods contract.
Why it's wrong
Gold Key: missing price alone does not defeat a sale-of-goods contract.
14397_fish_keychains · CONTRACTS · Choice CYes, because leaving the price open does not prevent a valid sale-of-goods contract when the parties otherwise intended to contract.
Why it's attractive
Silver Key: the choice answers formation, not the enforceability writing gate.
Why it's wrong
Silver Key: the choice answers formation, not the enforceability writing gate.
14517_tutor-oven · CONTRACTS · Choice ABy entering into the contract with the wedding venue while knowing that his oven was being repaired, Peter assumed the risk of any delay loss to the venue.
Why it's attractive
No contract doctrine treats a party who relies on timely performance as 'assuming the risk' of the other party's breach.
Why it's wrong
No contract doctrine treats a party who relies on timely performance as 'assuming the risk' of the other party's breach.
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.
14829_daniel_retreat_supply_room_confession · EVIDENCE · Choice AThe court may grant or deny the request, because preliminary admissibility hearings are generally within the court's discretion as to whether the jury hears them.
Why it's attractive
The answer treats the hearing as generic even though the stem says confession.
Why it's wrong
The answer treats the hearing as generic even though the stem says confession.
14829_daniel_retreat_supply_room_confession · EVIDENCE · Choice BThe court should deny the request and admit the statement, because Daniel's own statement offered against him is an opposing-party statement.
Why it's attractive
The answer talks about hearsay status but skips the Miranda hearing request.
Why it's wrong
The answer talks about hearsay status but skips the Miranda hearing request.
14829_daniel_retreat_supply_room_confession · EVIDENCE · Choice DThe court should deny the request and rule the statement inadmissible, because only signed confessions may be used in criminal trials.
Why it's attractive
The answer invents a signature requirement.
Why it's wrong
The answer invents a signature requirement.
14895_ark-ledger · EVIDENCE · Choice BYes, because the testimony tends to show that Daniel was unlikely to have taken money as charged.
Why it's attractive
It says the evidence helps, but admissibility is not decided by relevance alone.
Why it's wrong
It says the evidence helps, but admissibility is not decided by relevance alone.
15015_advent_lantern · REAL_PROPERTY · Choice DBarnabas, because of the doctrine of accession.
Why it's attractive
The answer supplies a property-law label that does not answer the fixture-removal timing fight.
Why it's wrong
The answer supplies a property-law label that does not answer the fixture-removal timing fight.
15023 · REAL_PROPERTY · Choice Bthe landowner, because a right for support, appurtenant to Lot 1, had been acquired by adverse possession or prescription.
Why it's attractive
The 12-year and 10-year facts are bait. The support right on these facts does not need to be acquired by prescription.
Why it's wrong
The 12-year and 10-year facts are bait. The support right on these facts does not need to be acquired by prescription.
15023 · REAL_PROPERTY · Choice Dthe neighbor, because the construction and the use to be made of the building were both authorized by the applicable law.
Why it's attractive
The choice points to permits and legal authorization. Those facts do not answer the lateral-support question once natural land subsidence is shown.
Why it's wrong
The choice points to permits and legal authorization. Those facts do not answer the lateral-support question once natural land subsidence is shown.
16025_calligraphy_studio · CRIMINAL · Choice AAt the time of the shooting, a reasonable person in Martha's place would have believed that Lydia was about to stab Martha with a craft knife, but Martha did not actually hold that belief.
Why it's attractive
The reasonable-person half appears, but Martha's actual belief is missing.
Why it's wrong
The reasonable-person half appears, but Martha's actual belief is missing.
17345_retreat_cider · CRIMINAL · Choice AYes, because Ruth acted only after Stephen forced the choice on her.
Why it's attractive
The choice talks about compulsion generally, but the call asks whether duress works as a complete defense to murder.
Why it's wrong
The choice talks about compulsion generally, but the call asks whether duress works as a complete defense to murder.
20031_hallelujah_handbells · CRIMINAL · Choice DNo, because the handbells belonged to the concert sponsor, not to Lydia.
Why it's attractive
The choice talks about who owned the property, not whether it was in Lydia's immediate presence.
Why it's wrong
The choice talks about who owned the property, not whether it was in Lydia's immediate presence.
21131 · CRIMINAL · Choice APavel is not guilty because Rosa refused and no agreement formed
Why it's wrong
Agreement is a conspiracy concept. Solicitation is complete when the intentional request is communicated, even if the recipient refuses.
21131 · CRIMINAL · Choice CPavel is not guilty because he did not personally attempt to burn the van
Why it's wrong
Solicitation punishes asking, commanding, or encouraging another to commit the crime. Pavel did not need to personally attempt the arson.
21244 · CRIMINAL · Choice BYes, because Jen's Fourth Amendment rights were violated
Why it's wrong
Fourth Amendment rights are personal and may not be asserted vicariously.
21374_hymn_bell_cabin · CRIMINAL · Choice AYes, because Peter's remaining in the cabin after he decided to steal the handbell is treated as a new entry.
Why it's attractive
The choice tries to reset the entry after Peter formed intent. The common-law call locks the entry moment earlier.
Why it's wrong
The choice tries to reset the entry after Peter formed intent. The common-law call locks the entry moment earlier.

Practice the questions that use this trap as a distractor and get full Wrong Answer Forensics on submit.

Practice questions using this trap →