← All traps
ArchitectureObserved in bank

Purpose Of Offer

This trap appears as a wrong-answer choice in 4 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

  • Evidence4

Example wrong choices

  • 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.

  • 14778_retreat_loading_warning · EVIDENCE · Choice Dinadmissible, because Peter's view of Naomi's abilities is not based on personal knowledge.

    Why it's attractive

    It asks whether Peter saw Naomi's work instead of whether he heard Ruth's warning.

    Why it's wrong

    It asks whether Peter saw Naomi's work instead of whether he heard Ruth's warning.

  • 14799_fishingboat_picnic · EVIDENCE · Choice BYes, to impeach Stephen and to prove Paul's involvement in the fraud.

    Why it's attractive

    Clash axis: scope of use. Splitting fact: the oath. Without the oath, FRE 801(d)(1)(A) is not satisfied, so the substantive half collapses.

    Why it's wrong

    Clash axis: scope of use. Splitting fact: the oath. Without the oath, FRE 801(d)(1)(A) is not satisfied, so the substantive half collapses.

  • 14799_fishingboat_picnic · EVIDENCE · Choice CNo, because a party cannot impeach that party's own witness.

    Why it's attractive

    Cut. The old common-law voucher rule is abolished by FRE 607; this answer is a flat misstatement of the current federal rule.

    Why it's wrong

    Cut. The old common-law voucher rule is abolished by FRE 607; this answer is a flat misstatement of the current federal rule.

  • 14799_fishingboat_picnic · EVIDENCE · Choice DNo, because it is hearsay not within any exception.

    Why it's attractive

    Cut. The dispositive element is purpose of offer, not the existence of an exception. Impeachment is a non-hearsay purpose.

    Why it's wrong

    Cut. The dispositive element is purpose of offer, not the existence of an exception. Impeachment is a non-hearsay purpose.

  • 14889_mission-flight-relevance · EVIDENCE · Choice Aadmissible as proper evidence of Mary's character.

    Why it's wrong

    Choice A is not the credited answer for this item.

  • 14889_mission-flight-relevance · EVIDENCE · Choice Binadmissible, because it is substantially more prejudicial than probative.

    Why it's wrong

    Choice B is not the credited answer for this item.

  • 14889_mission-flight-relevance · EVIDENCE · Choice Dinadmissible, because it is improper to prove character evidence by specific conduct.

    Why it's wrong

    Choice D is not the credited answer for this item.

  • 19407_scripture_art_burn_clinic · EVIDENCE · Choice AExclude the statement only if an actual disputed claim had already arisen.

    Why it's attractive

    disputed-claim language points to compromise negotiations, not medical-payment offers

    Why it's wrong

    disputed-claim language points to compromise negotiations, not medical-payment offers

  • 19407_scripture_art_burn_clinic · EVIDENCE · Choice BAdmit the statement because Rule 409 covers bills the studio actually pays, not promises to pay them.

    Why it's attractive

    the answer narrows Rule 409 to payments only

    Why it's wrong

    the answer narrows Rule 409 to payments only

  • 19407_scripture_art_burn_clinic · EVIDENCE · Choice CAdmit the statement because it shows Paul thought the studio was responsible for Timothy's injury.

    Why it's attractive

    the choice uses the liability inference as the reason to admit

    Why it's wrong

    the choice uses the liability inference as the reason to admit

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

Practice questions using this trap →
Purpose Of Offer — Trap Taxonomy | BarMatrix