Purpose Of Offer Confusion
This trap appears as a wrong-answer choice in 16 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
- Evidence13
- CRIMINAL2
- Contracts1
Example wrong choices
first 2014385_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.
14385_esther_engraver · CONTRACTS · Choice BYes, because a merger clause does not bar evidence of fraud.
Why it's attractive
The stem gives no fraud facts, so the fraud exception is not the reason to admit the evidence.
Why it's wrong
The stem gives no fraud facts, so the fraud exception is not the reason to admit the evidence.
14385_esther_engraver · CONTRACTS · Choice DNo, because Timothy's acceptance of the old engraver bars any further claim to the insurance proceeds.
Why it's attractive
The choice invents a handoff bar from Timothy's acceptance of the old engraver.
Why it's wrong
The choice invents a handoff bar from Timothy's acceptance of the old engraver.
14691_church-keyboard-heist · CRIMINAL · Choice BYes, because but for Stephen's conduct, no conspiracy would have occurred.
Why it's attractive
B says Martha's motion should be granted because but for Stephen's conduct there would be no conspiracy. But the call is about whether Martha can be convicted of conspiracy — not about whether Stephen caused the conspiracy. Martha's own agreement is what makes her guilty. B answers a different question.
Why it's wrong
B says Martha's motion should be granted because but for Stephen's conduct there would be no conspiracy. But the call is about whether Martha can be convicted of conspiracy — not about whether Stephen caused the conspiracy. Martha's own agreement is what makes her guilty. B answers a different question.
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 Cinadmissible, because the law encourages negotiated resolutions of criminal charges.
Why it's attractive
The choice elevates a general negotiation policy over the specific witness-bias use.
Why it's wrong
The choice elevates a general negotiation policy over the specific witness-bias use.
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.
14772_fishing_vessel_log · EVIDENCE · Choice BInadmissible, because it is hearsay not within any exception.
Why it's attractive
Out-of-court statement offered for a non-truth purpose is not hearsay. Name the purpose first — identity inference, not truth of content.
Why it's wrong
Out-of-court statement offered for a non-truth purpose is not hearsay. Name the purpose first — identity inference, not truth of content.
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.
14788_noahs_ark_puppet · EVIDENCE · Choice Cadmissible, as a declaration against penal interest.
Why it's attractive
C reaches the right admissibility result through the wrong hearsay exception.
Why it's wrong
C reaches the right admissibility result through the wrong hearsay exception.
14788_noahs_ark_puppet · EVIDENCE · Choice Dinadmissible, because it is hearsay not within any exception.
Why it's attractive
D grades the statement as if Martha offered it to prove Barnabas acted alone.
Why it's wrong
D grades the statement as if Martha offered it to prove Barnabas acted alone.
14811_grace_galilee_lantern_market · EVIDENCE · Choice AIt is a statement of then-existing state of mind.
Why it's attractive
The answer proves Daniel's present regret, but the call asks for proof of past negligence.
Why it's wrong
The answer proves Daniel's present regret, but the call asks for proof of past negligence.
14811_grace_galilee_lantern_market · EVIDENCE · Choice CIt is a statement against interest.
Why it's attractive
The answer hears self-damaging words but skips the availability fact: Daniel testified.
Why it's wrong
The answer hears self-damaging words but skips the availability fact: Daniel testified.
14811_grace_galilee_lantern_market · EVIDENCE · Choice DIt is a prior inconsistent statement.
Why it's attractive
The apology conflicts with Daniel's testimony, but the call asks why the statement proves negligence.
Why it's wrong
The apology conflicts with Daniel's testimony, but the call asks why the statement proves negligence.
14821_daniel_robotics_tablet_trade · EVIDENCE · Choice ANo, because the testimony contradicts Daniel only on a collateral matter.
Why it's attractive
The choice calls the contradiction collateral even though the charge and Daniel's testimony both center on stolen electronics.
Why it's wrong
The choice calls the contradiction collateral even though the charge and Daniel's testimony both center on stolen electronics.
14821_daniel_robotics_tablet_trade · EVIDENCE · Choice CYes, because taking stolen property in trade shows a disregard for the law and makes it less likely that Daniel would respect the oath of truthfulness.
Why it's attractive
This answer says yes but justifies it by general lawbreaking character.
Why it's wrong
This answer says yes but justifies it by general lawbreaking character.
14821_daniel_robotics_tablet_trade · EVIDENCE · Choice DNo, because taking stolen property in trade is not sufficiently probative of a witness's character for truthfulness.
Why it's attractive
This answer evaluates the prior act as general veracity proof instead of asking whether it contradicts the specific testimony.
Why it's wrong
This answer evaluates the prior act as general veracity proof instead of asking whether it contradicts the specific testimony.
14830_lydia_bike_repair_adjuster · EVIDENCE · Choice AYes, for both substantive and impeachment purposes.
Why it's attractive
The word both over-expands the allowed use.
Why it's wrong
The word both over-expands the allowed use.
14830_lydia_bike_repair_adjuster · EVIDENCE · Choice BNo, because testimony about liability insurance is barred by the rules of evidence.
Why it's attractive
The answer says insurance is barred with no exception.
Why it's wrong
The answer says insurance is barred with no exception.
14830_lydia_bike_repair_adjuster · EVIDENCE · Choice DNo, because the reference to insurance raises a collateral issue.
Why it's attractive
Bias is not a side issue when the witness's credibility is being tested.
Why it's wrong
Bias is not a side issue when the witness's credibility is being tested.
Practice the questions that use this trap as a distractor and get full Wrong Answer Forensics on submit.
Practice questions using this trap →