Stem Contradiction
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
17097_pastor-daniel-gun-variant · CRIMINAL · Choice AIt requires complete acquittal because Timothy was too intoxicated to be held responsible for any crime.
Why it's attractive
Absolute language — 'requires complete acquittal' and 'any crime' — is a structural red flag; no jurisdiction treats voluntary intoxication as a complete defense to all criminal liability.
Why it's wrong
Absolute language — 'requires complete acquittal' and 'any crime' — is a structural red flag; no jurisdiction treats voluntary intoxication as a complete defense to all criminal liability.
17097_pastor-daniel-gun-variant · CRIMINAL · Choice BIt has no possible relevance because murder is a general-intent crime and intoxication is never a defense to such crimes.
Why it's attractive
The stem itself says first-degree murder requires premeditation and deliberation — specific-intent elements. The choice contradicts the stem's own legal framework.
Why it's wrong
The stem itself says first-degree murder requires premeditation and deliberation — specific-intent elements. The choice contradicts the stem's own legal framework.
17097_pastor-daniel-gun-variant · CRIMINAL · Choice DIt establishes an insanity defense if Timothy cannot later remember pulling the trigger.
Why it's attractive
The choice names 'insanity defense' but the fact pattern describes a blackout/lack of memory, which is not the legal standard for insanity.
Why it's wrong
The choice names 'insanity defense' but the fact pattern describes a blackout/lack of memory, which is not the legal standard for insanity.
19484_two-quarrymen · CRIMINAL · Choice ACaleb is not an actual cause because Stephen would have died from Boaz's slab alone.
Why it's attractive
premise true (victim would die from the other slab) but conclusion omits the substantial-factor exception
Why it's wrong
premise true (victim would die from the other slab) but conclusion omits the substantial-factor exception
19484_two-quarrymen · CRIMINAL · Choice BCaleb is an actual cause only if his slab struck Stephen before Boaz's slab.
Why it's attractive
stem fixes the strikes as simultaneous; 'only if struck first' demands a fact the stem negates and a rule that does not exist
Why it's wrong
stem fixes the strikes as simultaneous; 'only if struck first' demands a fact the stem negates and a rule that does not exist
19484_two-quarrymen · CRIMINAL · Choice DCaleb is not an actual cause because the simultaneous nature of the slabs means neither blow individually caused Stephen's death.
Why it's attractive
stem says each slab independently caused death; 'neither blow individually caused death' fights the facts
Why it's wrong
stem says each slab independently caused death; 'neither blow individually caused death' fights the facts
Practice the questions that use this trap as a distractor and get full Wrong Answer Forensics on submit.
Practice questions using this trap →