ArchitectureObserved in bank

Not Responsive

This trap appears as a wrong-answer choice in 690 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

CRIMINAL210
Real Property122
Contracts112
Evidence100
Constitutional Law57
Civil Procedure53
Torts36

Example wrong choices

first 20

14014_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.
14062_stephens-orchard-late-changed-charge · CIVIL_PROCEDURE · Choice ANo, because Stephen's objection was untimely and as a result, he waived the appeal of the court's instruction.
Why it's attractive
Rides the buried 'did not separately object to the proposed instruction' fact — a non-dispositive element — and ignores that the GIVEN instruction was different and objected to at once.
Why it's wrong
Rides the buried 'did not separately object to the proposed instruction' fact — a non-dispositive element — and ignores that the GIVEN instruction was different and objected to at once.
14071_threshing-sledge-patent · CIVIL_PROCEDURE · Choice AThe judgment cannot stand because it was an error for the court to have appointed alternate jurors.
Why it's attractive
Stem concedes the error but also says alternates never seated/deliberated → no prejudice → not responsive to 'reversal'.
Why it's wrong
Stem concedes the error but also says alternates never seated/deliberated → no prejudice → not responsive to 'reversal'.
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.
14148_vineyard-sanctions · CIVIL_PROCEDURE · Choice CNo, because Barnabas did not allege that any factual assertion in Hannah's complaint was inaccurate.
Why it's attractive
Silver Key: When two No answers survive, lock which reason Rule 11 actually enforces
Why it's wrong
Silver Key: When two No answers survive, lock which reason Rule 11 actually enforces
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.
14178_choir_robe_credit_good_faith · CIVIL_PROCEDURE · Choice ANo, because Mary's complaint is factually inconsistent regarding whether John lied.
Why it's attractive
The stem's good-faith problem is not merely that John's truthfulness is uncertain; it is Mary's own mutually exclusive reliance allegations.
Why it's wrong
The stem's good-faith problem is not merely that John's truthfulness is uncertain; it is Mary's own mutually exclusive reliance allegations.
14178_choir_robe_credit_good_faith · CIVIL_PROCEDURE · Choice BYes, because Mary stated a claim upon which relief can be granted.
Why it's attractive
The call asks about good-faith pleading, so a claim-sufficiency reason cannot carry the yes answer.
Why it's wrong
The call asks about good-faith pleading, so a claim-sufficiency reason cannot carry the yes answer.
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.
14205_fellowship_hall · CIVIL_PROCEDURE · Choice BNo, because it does not state that an actual judgment was entered.
Why it's wrong
Choice B is not the credited answer for this item.
14229_daily-bread-depot · CONSTITUTIONAL_LAW · Choice AUnconstitutional, because the burden was on the city to demonstrate that this condition was necessary to vindicate a compelling governmental interest, and the city failed to meet that burden.
Why it's attractive
Strict scrutiny language answers a neighboring constitutional question, not this exaction.
Why it's wrong
Strict scrutiny language answers a neighboring constitutional question, not this exaction.
14229_daily-bread-depot · CONSTITUTIONAL_LAW · Choice CConstitutional, because the burden was on Daniel to demonstrate that there was no rational relationship between this condition and a legitimate governmental interest, and Daniel could not do so because the condition is reasonably related to improving the lives of families and children in the city.
Why it's attractive
Rational basis is the wrong lane once the city demands a give-back for a permit.
Why it's wrong
Rational basis is the wrong lane once the city demands a give-back for a permit.
14231_hymn-trailer-premium · CONSTITUTIONAL_LAW · Choice ANo, because the different theft rates in the two areas provide a rational basis for the different premiums.
Why it's attractive
A reaches scrutiny before asking whether equal protection reaches this private defendant.
Why it's wrong
A reaches scrutiny before asking whether equal protection reaches this private defendant.
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.
14242_lydia_linen_kiosk · CONSTITUTIONAL_LAW · Choice CConstitutional, because it is narrowly tailored to implement the city's compelling interest in reducing pedestrian congestion and therefore satisfies the strict scrutiny test applicable to such cases.
Why it's attractive
The answer uses strict scrutiny even though the stem shows an ordinary commercial classification.
Why it's wrong
The answer uses strict scrutiny even though the stem shows an ordinary commercial classification.
14242_lydia_linen_kiosk · CONSTITUTIONAL_LAW · Choice DUnconstitutional, because the relationship between the legitimate purpose of the ordinance and the conduct it regulates is so tenuous and underinclusive that the ordinance fails the substantial relationship test applicable to such cases.
Why it's attractive
The answer treats underinclusiveness as decisive under substantial-relationship review, but the item routes to rational basis.
Why it's wrong
The answer treats underinclusiveness as decisive under substantial-relationship review, but the item routes to rational basis.
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

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

Practice questions using this trap →