Moral Common Sense Answer
This trap appears as a wrong-answer choice in 18 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
- CRIMINAL12
- Real Property4
- Evidence2
Example wrong choices
first 2014723_worship_van_collision · CRIMINAL · Choice Bconvicted, because they made no effort to intervene.
Why it's attractive
The choice turns nonintervention into accomplice liability without a duty fact.
Why it's wrong
The choice turns nonintervention into accomplice liability without a duty fact.
14723_worship_van_collision · CRIMINAL · Choice Cconvicted, because they urged Daniel to run away.
Why it's attractive
The words came after the victim fell, not as aid to commit manslaughter.
Why it's wrong
The words came after the victim fell, not as aid to commit manslaughter.
14723_worship_van_collision · CRIMINAL · Choice Dacquitted, because Daniel was not convicted of the offense.
Why it's attractive
The choice makes the hung jury the reason, not the companions' conduct.
Why it's wrong
The choice makes the hung jury the reason, not the companions' conduct.
14726_lantern_retreat · CRIMINAL · Choice DYes, because the eight members did not try to get help after Daniel was struck.
Why it's attractive
The choice makes failure to rescue enough without a legal duty.
Why it's wrong
The choice makes failure to rescue enough without a legal duty.
14761_harvest_festival_ladder · EVIDENCE · Choice CNo, because it is not relevant to the issue of liability.
Why it's attractive
An apology + payment offer tends to show fault; relevance bar is a mere tendency.
Why it's wrong
An apology + payment offer tends to show fault; relevance bar is a mere tendency.
14847_outreach_van_clerk · EVIDENCE · Choice Ahad a pounding headache and wanted to leave before the courthouse garage closed.
Why it's attractive
The choice is about why the juror personally rushed his vote.
Why it's wrong
The choice is about why the juror personally rushed his vote.
15012 · REAL_PROPERTY · Choice Dthe owner of Building 2, because he has a right to take whatever action is necessary to protect himself from possible tort liability to persons using the stairway.
Why it's attractive
D says 'whatever action is necessary.' That is an overclaim. Easement repair rights are limited, not unlimited self-help.
Why it's wrong
D says 'whatever action is necessary.' That is an overclaim. Easement repair rights are limited, not unlimited self-help.
15026_solar-barn · REAL_PROPERTY · Choice AAward Peter damages measured by the increased operating costs, but not an injunction.
Why it's attractive
No property right + no tort = no remedy at all, not even damages
Why it's wrong
No property right + no tort = no remedy at all, not even damages
15026_solar-barn · REAL_PROPERTY · Choice BGrant Peter the requested injunction.
Why it's attractive
No easement, no covenant, no statute → no right to sunlight → no injunction
Why it's wrong
No easement, no covenant, no statute → no right to sunlight → no injunction
15026_solar-barn · REAL_PROPERTY · Choice DGrant judgment for Daniel, because he had secured all necessary governmental approvals for the new structure.
Why it's attractive
Governmental approvals are not the legal basis; the absence of a property right is
Why it's wrong
Governmental approvals are not the legal basis; the absence of a property right is
15081_cedar_ridge_apiary_notice · REAL_PROPERTY · Choice Close, because the equities favor Timothy.
Why it's attractive
The answer gives a sympathy reason, not the statute's notice reason.
Why it's wrong
The answer gives a sympathy reason, not the statute's notice reason.
16028_lydia_holy_cloth · CRIMINAL · Choice Bneither attempted murder nor obtaining property by false pretenses.
Why it's attractive
Lydia knew the cloth was fake, told Timothy it was real, got $800, Timothy relied. 'Neither' is flatly wrong because one crime is demonstrably complete from the stem.
Why it's wrong
Lydia knew the cloth was fake, told Timothy it was real, got $800, Timothy relied. 'Neither' is flatly wrong because one crime is demonstrably complete from the stem.
17375_fishing-charter-asportation · CRIMINAL · Choice CNo crime was committed, because Mary boarded the vessel and entered the cabin voluntarily
Why it's attractive
Stem shows Peter deliberately locking the hatch 'so Mary cannot leave' — visible evidence of intentional confinement that contradicts 'no crime' without needing any doctrine.
Why it's wrong
Stem shows Peter deliberately locking the hatch 'so Mary cannot leave' — visible evidence of intentional confinement that contradicts 'no crime' without needing any doctrine.
17776_hannah-delivery · CRIMINAL · Choice BYes, because fear alone makes alternatives unreasonable
Why it's wrong
Choice B is not the credited answer for this item.
18156_orchard-harvest-false-pretenses · CRIMINAL · Choice BNo, because Naomi should have demanded a written agreement or references before paying cash.
Why it's attractive
Criminal liability is not reduced by victim carelessness. This choice answers 'should Naomi have been more careful?' not 'is Stephen guilty?'
Why it's wrong
Criminal liability is not reduced by victim carelessness. This choice answers 'should Naomi have been more careful?' not 'is Stephen guilty?'
18500_naomi-scattered-flock · CRIMINAL · Choice BNo offense, because Bartholomew voluntarily placed the silver
Why it's attractive
Applies common-sense 'voluntary' rather than the legal test. A transfer made under a wrongful threat is coerced — not voluntary in the sense that negates criminal liability.
Why it's wrong
Applies common-sense 'voluntary' rather than the legal test. A transfer made under a wrongful threat is coerced — not voluntary in the sense that negates criminal liability.
18610_retreat_clinic_threat · CRIMINAL · Choice DYes, because Ruth genuinely believed the threat.
Why it's attractive
It treats sincere fear as the whole defense.
Why it's wrong
It treats sincere fear as the whole defense.
19064_joel-dose · CRIMINAL · Choice AYes, because the medication was prescribed
Why it's wrong
Choice A is not the credited answer for this item.
19345_daniel-pesticide-field · CRIMINAL · Choice CDaniel is not guilty because he acted in good faith and exercised reasonable care.
Why it's attractive
Replaces the legal test (strict liability = act alone) with a fairness/care standard (good faith + reasonable diligence). The statute announces strict liability, making this immediately falsifiable once the student holds the Gold Key anchor.
Why it's wrong
Replaces the legal test (strict liability = act alone) with a fairness/care standard (good faith + reasonable diligence). The statute announces strict liability, making this immediately falsifiable once the student holds the Gold Key anchor.
19572_gideon-oxen-stampede · CRIMINAL · Choice CNo homicide liability, because the workers could have stepped aside
Why it's attractive
Substitutes victim's ability to move (common-sense autonomy) for the legal standard (proximate causation). A victim's failure to avoid an extreme risk created by the defendant is not a superseding cause that negates liability.
Why it's wrong
Substitutes victim's ability to move (common-sense autonomy) for the legal standard (proximate causation). A victim's failure to avoid an extreme risk created by the defendant is not a superseding cause that negates liability.
Practice the questions that use this trap as a distractor and get full Wrong Answer Forensics on submit.
Practice questions using this trap →