It's interesting to note that 'generally' the instructors and examiners on this forum (PPRuNe), mainly UK based by the look of it, seem to disagree with the practice of "creating situations to try and fail people".
In the UK we (try to) test for competence, we don't test to destruction. The examiner doesn't set traps or play tricks to catch out the candidate. If we did, the candidate would have legitimate grounds to appeal based on the way the test was conducted.
(Whopity, I see we crossed posts here. At least we agree!)