Misfit
This trap appears as a wrong-answer choice in 212 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
- CRIMINAL38
- Civil Procedure37
- Evidence30
- Contracts27
- Constitutional Law25
- Real Property25
- Torts23
- Criminal Law7
Example wrong choices
first 2014014_scripture_cart_jury_poll · CIVIL_PROCEDURE · Choice AYes, because contributory negligence is not a defense in a federal negligence action.
Why it's attractive
The answer talks about contributory negligence as a defense, but the call asks whether the appeal will be heard.
Why it's wrong
The answer talks about contributory negligence as a defense, but the call asks whether the appeal will be heard.
14090_federal_military_property_duty_defense · CIVIL_PROCEDURE · Choice DNo, because federal choice-of-law rules require application of State A tort law, which provides Ruth a valid claim.
Why it's wrong
Choice D is not the credited answer for this item.
14132_lydia_vineyard_smj · CIVIL_PROCEDURE · Choice ANo, because Lydia is not entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
Why it's attractive
Choice correctly senses that JMOL is not ready while Barnabas is still presenting evidence, but it answers the wrong procedural question.
Why it's wrong
Choice correctly senses that JMOL is not ready while Barnabas is still presenting evidence, but it answers the wrong procedural question.
14150_livestock_trailer_rancher · CIVIL_PROCEDURE · Choice DYes, because the manufacturer may not be held liable for the actions of the service center.
Why it's wrong
Choice D is not the credited answer for this item.
14188_homeschool_discipleship_kit_files · CIVIL_PROCEDURE · Choice DNo, because Ruth did not define the words "advertising strategy" in her request for the documents.
Why it's wrong
Choice D is not the credited answer for this item.
14231_hymn-trailer-premium · CONSTITUTIONAL_LAW · Choice CYes, because the higher theft rate in Martha's neighborhood shows that the county sheriff is not giving residents there the equal protection of the laws.
Why it's attractive
The suit targets the insurer, but C turns the case into a sheriff-protection claim.
Why it's wrong
The suit targets the insurer, but C turns the case into a sheriff-protection claim.
14233_galilee_nets_fieldhouse · CONSTITUTIONAL_LAW · Choice CThe issues presented by this case are nonjusticiable political questions because the fieldhouse grant followed a partisan legislative fight and there is a lack of judicially manageable standards to resolve the dispute.
Why it's attractive
The choice reacts to legislative heat instead of the concrete equal protection suit.
Why it's wrong
The choice reacts to legislative heat instead of the concrete equal protection suit.
14250_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
14311_psalm_slides_field_kit · CONSTITUTIONAL_LAW · Choice CYes, because exempting federal employees from this tax would deny other residents the equal protection of the laws.
Why it's attractive
It changes the permission rule from tax immunity to equal protection.
Why it's wrong
It changes the permission rule from tax immunity to equal protection.
14314_christian_campground_permits · CONSTITUTIONAL_LAW · Choice BThe privileges and immunities clause of Article IV, Section 2.
Why it's wrong
Choice B is not the credited answer for this item.
14314_christian_campground_permits · CONSTITUTIONAL_LAW · Choice DThe takings clause of the Fifth Amendment.
Why it's wrong
Choice D is not the credited answer for this item.
14321_grace_harbor_sanctuary_candles · CONSTITUTIONAL_LAW · Choice BA tax on the manufacturer of sanctuary candles may be imposed only by the state in which the manufacturing occurs and, therefore, it is not likely to create the danger of a multiple tax burden on interstate commerce.
Why it's wrong
Choice B is not the credited answer for this item.
14334_bethany_fig_goat_bounty · CONSTITUTIONAL_LAW · Choice Bunconstitutional, because the Full Faith and Credit Clause requires federal courts to give effect to the state's authorization of the bounty payments.
Why it's attractive
The clause named in the answer does not fit a federal prosecution under a federal land statute.
Why it's wrong
The clause named in the answer does not fit a federal prosecution under a federal land statute.
14352_mercy_timing_act · CONSTITUTIONAL_LAW · Choice Bconstitutional, because Congress enacted it over the President's veto by a two-thirds vote of each house.
Why it's attractive
The answer talks about how the bill passed, not whether Congress may regulate presidential pardons.
Why it's wrong
The answer talks about how the bill passed, not whether Congress may regulate presidential pardons.
14390_stephens-inherited-violin · CONTRACTS · Choice AAt the time of the sale, Stephen was angry and distraught over a quarrel earlier that morning in which a relative had insulted his late grandfather.
Why it's attractive
Emotional upset with no wrongful threat; duress doctrine not in play.
Why it's wrong
Emotional upset with no wrongful threat; duress doctrine not in play.
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.
14396_easter_handbell_plan · CONTRACTS · Choice CNo, because the protection agreement is not a divisible contract.
Why it's attractive
Divisibility has no matching fact in the stem.
Why it's wrong
Divisibility has no matching fact in the stem.
14417_scripture_puzzle_job · CONTRACTS · Choice ANo, because the tour logistics job Ruth took was not substantially comparable to the puzzle-writer job she had agreed to take.
Why it's attractive
The choice compares the second job instead of answering whether Ruth had a duty to stay.
Why it's wrong
The choice compares the second job instead of answering whether Ruth had a duty to stay.
14422_scripture_journal_arbitration · CONTRACTS · Choice CArbitration would resolve the quality dispute more efficiently than court litigation.
Why it's attractive
Efficiency does not answer whether the clause became part of the contract.
Why it's wrong
Efficiency does not answer whether the clause became part of the contract.
Practice the questions that use this trap as a distractor and get full Wrong Answer Forensics on submit.
Practice questions using this trap →