← All traps
ArchitectureMisconceptionObserved in bank

Reasonable Person Standard

This trap appears as a wrong-answer choice in 2 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

  • CRIMINAL2

Example wrong choices

  • 14694_factual-impossibility-hunter · CRIMINAL · Choice AGuilty of attempted murder, because a reasonable person would not have been aware of the limited range of the BB rifle.

    Why it's attractive

    Attempt uses the defendant's actual intent, not a reasonable-person standard. If you see 'reasonable person' in an attempt question, it's almost certainly wrong.

    Why it's wrong

    Attempt uses the defendant's actual intent, not a reasonable-person standard. If you see 'reasonable person' in an attempt question, it's almost certainly wrong.

  • 14694_factual-impossibility-hunter · CRIMINAL · Choice BNot guilty of attempted murder, but guilty of assault.

    Why it's attractive

    The call asks about attempted murder. A choice that says 'not guilty of attempted murder but guilty of assault' is answering a different question — it concedes the premise and pivots to a lesser charge.

    Why it's wrong

    The call asks about attempted murder. A choice that says 'not guilty of attempted murder but guilty of assault' is answering a different question — it concedes the premise and pivots to a lesser charge.

  • 14694_factual-impossibility-hunter · CRIMINAL · Choice DNot guilty of attempted murder, or any lesser included offense, because under the circumstances it was impossible for Peter to have killed Barnabas.

    Why it's attractive

    Factual impossibility is NOT a defense to attempt. This is one of the most commonly tested MBE traps. If the defendant didn't know the facts made it impossible, the intent is still there.

    Why it's wrong

    Factual impossibility is NOT a defense to attempt. This is one of the most commonly tested MBE traps. If the defendant didn't know the facts made it impossible, the intent is still there.

  • 19035_retreat_cottage_handbells · CRIMINAL · Choice BLydia is guilty of burglary because she actually forced open a window, satisfying the breaking element.

    Why it's attractive

    It proves a breaking fact but ignores the intent requirement.

    Why it's wrong

    It proves a breaking fact but ignores the intent requirement.

  • 19035_retreat_cottage_handbells · CRIMINAL · Choice CLydia is not guilty of burglary because she lacked the intent to commit a felony inside the dwelling.

    Why it's attractive

    It states the broad conclusion but does not identify the honest-mistake specific-intent rule.

    Why it's wrong

    It states the broad conclusion but does not identify the honest-mistake specific-intent rule.

  • 19035_retreat_cottage_handbells · CRIMINAL · Choice DLydia is guilty of burglary because a reasonable person would have realized she was entering the wrong cottage.

    Why it's attractive

    It swaps honest mistake for a reasonable-person standard.

    Why it's wrong

    It swaps honest mistake for a reasonable-person standard.

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

Practice questions using this trap →
Reasonable Person Standard — Trap Taxonomy | BarMatrix