ArchitectureObserved in bank

Offered For Purpose

This trap appears as a wrong-answer choice in 72 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

Evidence62
Civil Procedure3
CRIMINAL3
Constitutional Law1
Contracts1
Real Property1
Torts1

Example wrong choices

first 20

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.
14369_congressional-exception · CONSTITUTIONAL_LAW · Choice BThe proper means of federal judicial review of state quasi-criminal matters is by writ of habeas corpus, not by direct appeal.
Why it's attractive
Is habeas the same as direct appellate review? No. Does this choice say anything about Congress's authority? No.
Why it's wrong
Is habeas the same as direct appellate review? No. Does this choice say anything about Congress's authority? No.
14385_esther_engraver · CONTRACTS · Choice ANo, because the merger clause bars any evidence of the parties' earlier negotiations about the exchange credit.
Why it's attractive
The choice says the merger clause bars any negotiation evidence, without sorting the purpose of the evidence.
Why it's wrong
The choice says the merger clause bars any negotiation evidence, without sorting the purpose of the evidence.
14760_forklift_warehouse · EVIDENCE · Choice AYes, as a statement made for purposes of medical diagnosis or treatment.
Why it's attractive
803(4) is real, but a fault accusation isn't pertinent to treatment — needs the pertinence Gold Key.
Why it's wrong
803(4) is real, but a fault accusation isn't pertinent to treatment — needs the pertinence Gold Key.
14761_harvest_festival_ladder · EVIDENCE · Choice AYes, as a present sense impression.
Why it's attractive
PSI must describe/explain the event; an apology describes nothing about the fall.
Why it's wrong
PSI must describe/explain the event; an apology describes nothing about the fall.
14763_puppet_camp_notice · EVIDENCE · Choice Ainadmissible, because it is hearsay not within any exception.
Why it's attractive
The answer says hearsay exception; the stem says notice.
Why it's wrong
The answer says hearsay exception; the stem says notice.
14763_puppet_camp_notice · EVIDENCE · Choice Binadmissible, because it is not the best evidence of the notice.
Why it's attractive
The answer talks about best evidence; the stem talks about notice.
Why it's wrong
The answer talks about best evidence; the stem talks about notice.
14763_puppet_camp_notice · EVIDENCE · Choice Dadmissible, though hearsay, under the business record exception.
Why it's attractive
The answer admits the letter but calls it hearsay.
Why it's wrong
The answer admits the letter but calls it hearsay.
14764_red_sea_mat · EVIDENCE · Choice Aadmissible, to prove that the defendant had notice of the defect.
Why it's attractive
The answer follows the useful notice fact but skips the separate retelling layer.
Why it's wrong
The answer follows the useful notice fact but skips the separate retelling layer.
14764_red_sea_mat · EVIDENCE · Choice Cadmissible, to prove both that the mat was defective and that the defendant had notice of the defect.
Why it's attractive
The answer tries to use both possible purposes even though each purpose still has to survive layer-by-layer.
Why it's wrong
The answer tries to use both possible purposes even though each purpose still has to survive layer-by-layer.
14764_red_sea_mat · EVIDENCE · Choice Dadmissible, to prove that the mat was defective.
Why it's attractive
To prove the mat was defective, the statement is used for truth.
Why it's wrong
To prove the mat was defective, the statement is used for truth.
14765_daniel_bookstore_arson_bias · EVIDENCE · Choice Ainadmissible, because the promise is hearsay not within any exception.
Why it's attractive
The choice ignores that the promise is used to show Ruth's motive, not to prove dismissal will happen.
Why it's wrong
The choice ignores that the promise is used to show Ruth's motive, not to prove dismissal will happen.
14765_daniel_bookstore_arson_bias · EVIDENCE · Choice Dadmissible, as a statement by an agent of a party-opponent.
Why it's attractive
The choice gets admissibility but attaches the wrong hearsay theory.
Why it's wrong
The choice gets admissibility but attaches the wrong hearsay theory.
14767_paul_retreat_harness_admission · EVIDENCE · Choice Da statement of Paul's then-existing state of mind.
Why it's attractive
The choice mistakes a past-fault memory or belief for a then-existing condition.
Why it's wrong
The choice mistakes a past-fault memory or belief for a then-existing condition.
14769_animatronic_camel_tag · EVIDENCE · Choice AYes, as a recorded recollection only.
Why it's attractive
The word 'only' is the break once both exception signals are present.
Why it's wrong
The word 'only' is the break once both exception signals are present.
14769_animatronic_camel_tag · EVIDENCE · Choice BNo, because it is hearsay not within any exception.
Why it's attractive
It treats hearsay status as the final answer instead of checking exceptions.
Why it's wrong
It treats hearsay status as the final answer instead of checking exceptions.
14769_animatronic_camel_tag · EVIDENCE · Choice CYes, as a present sense impression only.
Why it's attractive
The word 'only' is the break once the memory-failure and accurate-recording facts are present.
Why it's wrong
The word 'only' is the break once the memory-failure and accurate-recording facts are present.
14778_retreat_loading_warning · EVIDENCE · Choice Aadmissible as evidence that Naomi could not keep up with lifting packed hymnals for an entire predawn route.
Why it's attractive
It picks admissible but uses the warning as proof that Naomi lacked capacity.
Why it's wrong
It picks admissible but uses the warning as proof that Naomi lacked capacity.
14778_retreat_loading_warning · EVIDENCE · Choice Binadmissible, because Ruth's warning is hearsay not within any exception.
Why it's attractive
It routes to exceptions before asking whether the statement is offered for truth.
Why it's wrong
It routes to exceptions before asking whether the statement is offered for truth.
14788_noahs_ark_puppet · EVIDENCE · Choice Binadmissible, because the statement is not clearly corroborated.
Why it's attractive
B imports the statement-against-interest corroboration requirement into an impeachment question.
Why it's wrong
B imports the statement-against-interest corroboration requirement into an impeachment question.

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

Practice questions using this trap →