WorkKeys Applied Math common mistakes
WorkKeys Applied Math · Understand the traps and how to avoid them.
Reading the question, grabbing the two most visible numbers, and computing with them without first writing down what the question is asking for (e.g., asked for cost per unit but computes total cost).
Under time pressure candidates pattern-match to a familiar operation instead of identifying the target quantity and its units; the numbers in the prompt feel like an invitation to multiply.
What to do instead
Before touching numbers, write one line: 'Find: ___ in units of ___.' Then list which given values feed that quantity and which are distractors. Only then compute.
Stopping at the first arithmetic result and submitting it, even when the answer is a fraction of a cent, a negative time, or a count of 3.7 people.
Candidates treat 'I got a number' as 'I finished' and skip the sanity check that would flag an impossible result.
What to do instead
Add a 5-second reality check to every problem: is the sign sensible, is the magnitude sensible, does a fractional count need rounding, and does the unit match what was asked?
Computing a percentage of the wrong base-applying a discount or tax to the post-discount price, or taking 'percent more than' as a percent of the new value.
Percent problems have two candidate bases and the wording ('of the original,' 'of the sale price') is easy to skim past; candidates anchor on whichever number appears last.
What to do instead
Circle the word 'of' and write the base explicitly next to it before computing. For multi-step percent chains, track the running base in a small table rather than chaining operations mentally.
Mixing units mid-calculation-multiplying hours by a per-minute rate, or adding feet to inches-and reporting the result without converting.
Rates and measurements are often given in different units in the same prompt, and candidates plug numbers into a formula positionally without checking unit labels.
What to do instead
Write the unit beside every number as you copy it, and carry units through the arithmetic (hours x dollars/hour = dollars). If the units don't cancel to the target unit, a conversion is missing.
Setting up a proportion or ratio with the terms in inconsistent order (matching 'items' to 'cost' on one side and 'cost' to 'items' on the other).
Candidates set up proportions by feel rather than by labeling, and cross-multiplication will happily produce an answer from a scrambled setup.
What to do instead
Label both sides of the proportion with words before solving (items/cost = items/cost), and verify by checking that the answer scales in the expected direction-more items should mean more cost.
Ignoring the order of operations when a multi-step expression is embedded in a word problem, evaluating left to right and getting a different total than the situation requires.
When translating prose into a single expression, candidates lose track of which operations group together, especially with a subtraction of a sum or a division of a difference.
What to do instead
Translate the problem into separate labeled steps (Step 1, Step 2) rather than one long expression, or insert explicit parentheses as you translate each clause of the sentence.
Averaging averages-taking the mean of two group means without weighting by group size-or computing a simple average when a weighted average is required.
The word 'average' triggers a reflexive add-and-divide, and the group sizes are often buried in a secondary sentence.
What to do instead
Whenever combining groups, ask 'are the groups the same size?' If not, weight each mean by its count. Compute total sum over total count as a cross-check.
Treating a rate as constant across a whole period when the prompt describes a change partway through (e.g., a rate that applies only after a threshold or for the first N hours).
Candidates see a rate and a total time and multiply, missing the conditional clause that splits the problem into segments.
What to do instead
Scan for conditional words-'after,' 'for the first,' 'up to,' 'then'-and sketch a timeline or tier table before computing. Solve each segment separately and sum.
Failing to isolate the unknown in a multi-step situation, instead guessing and checking once or applying an operation to both quantities that doesn't preserve the relationship.
Candidates are uncomfortable with algebraic setup and try to reason forward from the numbers, losing the constraint that ties them together.
What to do instead
Name the unknown ('let x = hours'), write the relationship as an equation from the prompt's sentence structure, then undo operations in reverse order, checking the solution against the original wording.
Solving a multi-constraint problem (budget plus capacity plus minimum requirement) by optimizing one constraint and declaring done, without verifying the others still hold.
Level 7 items stack several conditions, and candidates fixate on the most salient number and stop once it is satisfied.
What to do instead
Before answering, list each stated constraint as a checkbox and test the candidate answer against every box, including any 'at least' or 'no more than' bounds. Reject any answer that satisfies the objective but violates a bound.