Introduction

	Wrong options are called distracters or foils
	Distracter is something which compellingly and confusingly attracts in the wrong direction.
	Foil is something which services to set off another thing to advantage or disadvantage by contrasting with it.
	Game is played this way: Test knowledge and reasoning can't be obvious cant' use tricky devices or puzzling language uses distracters and foils
	All the options are given a look of superficial plausibility. Must read carefully.

	No: Murder is the unjustified killing of a human being.
	Yes: Murder is the unjustified killing of a human being with malice or forethought.
	Don't complete the definition or argument in your mind and conclude that it is correct.

	Assume nothing in addition to what has been established or given
	Prosecutor proves that John shot Mary and that Mary died an hour later. Is John guilty of Murder?
	No: Must also prove that John's bullet caused Mary's death

Don't ignore facts!

	Assume that you have been taught that an intoxicated person is not capable of driving her car in a reasonable manner. The root say that after Mary drank two quarts of whiskey, she was driving her car in a reasonable manner when she collided with Paul. Was Mary Negligent!
	No: Negligence is unreasonable conduct, since you were told that she was driving her car in a reasonable manner, you must conclude that she was not negligent.

Common errors

	Wrong options are often based on common errors made by law students:
	Misunderstanding about the significance of legal expressions
	Plaintiff goes to sleep in the middle of the road and is struck by defendant who sees her in time but fails to take reasonable steps to avoid striking her.
	Defendant wins because plaintiff had the "last clear chance"
	No: Doctrine of "Last Clear Chance" Applies only to plaintiff

Sometime the option is so obviously correct that there is no rational excuse for missing it.

	ignore meaningless garbage: Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc
	after which, therefore because of which
	name given to the error in reasoning
	It always rains after I wash my car, so washing my car makes it rain.
	Double talk
	a plaintiff could not be the holder of a certain easement because "an incorporeal hereditament lies only in grant"
	Doctrine or Rule never heard of = probably incorrect

	may use familiar concepts in non traditional words
	Instead of saying: "John owed Mary a duty of reasonable care only if he created a foreseeable risk to her.
	May say: John had no obligation to Mary unless it appeared that John's conduct would injure her.
	Remember substance is more important than form.