ArchitectureObserved in bank

Not True

This trap appears as a wrong-answer choice in 993 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

CRIMINAL327
Evidence171
Real Property151
Contracts141
Constitutional Law79
Civil Procedure71
Torts53

Example wrong choices

first 20

14014_scripture_cart_jury_poll · CIVIL_PROCEDURE · Choice CNo, because a federal judge may not poll the jurors on the judge's own initiative.
Why it's attractive
The answer attacks the judge's power to poll without a request.
Why it's wrong
The answer attacks the judge's power to poll without a request.
14014_scripture_cart_jury_poll · CIVIL_PROCEDURE · Choice DYes, because the judge was required to send the jurors back for further deliberations once the poll showed no unanimity.
Why it's attractive
The answer turns one available post-poll remedy into the only remedy.
Why it's wrong
The answer turns one available post-poll remedy into the only remedy.
14062_stephens-orchard-late-changed-charge · CIVIL_PROCEDURE · Choice BNo, because Stephen's objection was untimely, and any alleged error would have been upheld under the "clearly erroneous" standard of review.
Why it's attractive
Pairs the same false 'untimely' premise with an appellate buzzword; the 'clearly erroneous' label is the tell.
Why it's wrong
Pairs the same false 'untimely' premise with an appellate buzzword; the 'clearly erroneous' label is the tell.
14062_stephens-orchard-late-changed-charge · CIVIL_PROCEDURE · Choice DYes, because even though Stephen waived his objection to the instruction prior to trial, his objection at trial was timely.
Why it's attractive
Reaches the correct 'Yes' but concedes a pre-trial waiver that never happened — his pre-trial act was objecting to the REFUSAL of his own instruction, which waives nothing.
Why it's wrong
Reaches the correct 'Yes' but concedes a pre-trial waiver that never happened — his pre-trial act was objecting to the REFUSAL of his own instruction, which waives nothing.
14071_threshing-sledge-patent · CIVIL_PROCEDURE · Choice BThe judgment cannot stand because the Seventh Amendment does not apply to patent infringement suits seeking money damages.
Why it's attractive
Says the jury right does NOT reach a money-damages action; that is the opposite of the rule.
Why it's wrong
Says the jury right does NOT reach a money-damages action; that is the opposite of the rule.
14071_threshing-sledge-patent · CIVIL_PROCEDURE · Choice DThe judgment cannot stand because the two Brazilian jurors had an inadequate command of English.
Why it's attractive
Stem says English was adequate and no for-cause strike was sought; non-native English is not itself a reversal ground.
Why it's wrong
Stem says English was adequate and no for-cause strike was sought; non-native English is not itself a reversal ground.
14090_federal_military_property_duty_defense · CIVIL_PROCEDURE · Choice ANo, because the Erie decision ended the use of federal common law in diversity cases.
Why it's wrong
Choice A is not the credited answer for this item.
14090_federal_military_property_duty_defense · CIVIL_PROCEDURE · Choice BYes, because Ruth's claim is automatically preempted by a federal defense.
Why it's wrong
Choice B is not the credited answer for this item.
14108_ebike_delivery_sign · CIVIL_PROCEDURE · Choice AYes, because the sign evidence was uncontradicted, so no reasonable jury could find that the policy covers Lydia's injury.
Why it's attractive
It treats a sign with no explained purpose as automatically enough to remove the issue from the jury.
Why it's wrong
It treats a sign with no explained purpose as automatically enough to remove the issue from the jury.
14108_ebike_delivery_sign · CIVIL_PROCEDURE · Choice BNo, because a motion for judgment as a matter of law must first be made at the close of the plaintiff's case-in-chief.
Why it's attractive
It says the motion must be made at the close of the plaintiff's case, but the motion came before submission to the jury.
Why it's wrong
It says the motion must be made at the close of the plaintiff's case, but the motion came before submission to the jury.
14108_ebike_delivery_sign · CIVIL_PROCEDURE · Choice DYes, because Lydia waived the issue by not anticipating and rebutting the sign evidence in her case-in-chief.
Why it's attractive
It invents a duty to answer a defense before the defendant raises it.
Why it's wrong
It invents a duty to answer a defense before the defendant raises it.
14132_lydia_vineyard_smj · CIVIL_PROCEDURE · Choice CNo, because Lydia's lawyer has no option but to continue with the trial.
Why it's attractive
Choice says the lawyer must continue, but the stem has just revealed a jurisdiction defect.
Why it's wrong
Choice says the lawyer must continue, but the stem has just revealed a jurisdiction defect.
14132_lydia_vineyard_smj · CIVIL_PROCEDURE · Choice DYes, because Lydia's lawyer may move for summary judgment now that Barnabas has contradicted the contract.
Why it's attractive
Choice uses a familiar case-stopping device, but the timing is wrong because trial is underway.
Why it's wrong
Choice uses a familiar case-stopping device, but the timing is wrong because trial is underway.
14148_vineyard-sanctions · CIVIL_PROCEDURE · Choice BYes, because Hannah's complaint did not make it apparent on its face that the legal theory was supported by existing law or a nonfrivolous argument for extending it.
Why it's attractive
Requires Gold Key: Rule 11 does not require complaint to affirmatively display legal basis on face; certification is implicit in signature
Why it's wrong
Requires Gold Key: Rule 11 does not require complaint to affirmatively display legal basis on face; certification is implicit in signature
14148_vineyard-sanctions · CIVIL_PROCEDURE · Choice DYes, because Hannah had no good-faith basis for her claim under any existing law at the time of filing.
Why it's attractive
CUT: stem explicitly says the law was 'unresolved'; D flatly contradicts this stated fact
Why it's wrong
CUT: stem explicitly says the law was 'unresolved'; D flatly contradicts this stated fact
14150_livestock_trailer_rancher · CIVIL_PROCEDURE · Choice AYes, because the manufacturer and service center were misjoined and dismissal is the proper remedy.
Why it's wrong
Choice A is not the credited answer for this item.
14150_livestock_trailer_rancher · CIVIL_PROCEDURE · Choice BNo, because the manufacturer and service center were not misjoined and no basis for dismissal exists.
Why it's wrong
Choice B is not the credited answer for this item.
14178_choir_robe_credit_good_faith · CIVIL_PROCEDURE · Choice DYes, because alternative and inconsistent allegations are permitted when the pleading party does not have knowledge that only one of the allegations is true.
Why it's attractive
Rule 8 permission is real, but it is not a blanket shield against Rule 11 good-faith certification.
Why it's wrong
Rule 8 permission is real, but it is not a blanket shield against Rule 11 good-faith certification.
14188_homeschool_discipleship_kit_files · CIVIL_PROCEDURE · Choice ANo, because it would be no more difficult for Ruth to identify the requested documents than for the publishing house.
Why it's wrong
Choice A is not the credited answer for this item.
14188_homeschool_discipleship_kit_files · CIVIL_PROCEDURE · Choice CYes, because it would be more difficult for Ruth to identify the requested documents than for the publishing house.
Why it's wrong
Choice C is not the credited answer for this item.

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

Practice questions using this trap →