WorkKeys Graphic Literacy common mistakes
WorkKeys Graphic Literacy · Understand the traps and how to avoid them.
Reading the first bar, line, or table row that looks close to the target value and selecting it without scanning the rest of the series.
Under time pressure, candidates anchor on the first plausible match and stop searching, even when a later element is a closer or exact match.
What to do instead
Before choosing, state the target value and methodically compare every element in the series against it; tally the best match and only then select.
Confusing the units or scale printed on an axis (thousands vs. millions, per-hour vs. per-day) and reporting a value off by a factor of 10, 100, or 1,000.
Candidates read the numbers on the axis labels but skip the unit or multiplier annotation, assuming the labels are in base units.
What to do instead
On every graph, first read the axis title and any multiplier note aloud, then convert the plotted value to the requested unit before answering.
Locating a row in a table by the correct row label but then reading a value from the wrong column because column headers were only skimmed.
Table headers are often multi-word or wrapped, and candidates match on the first word of the header rather than the full header meaning.
What to do instead
Trace the column from header to cell with a finger or cursor, and confirm the full header text matches the requested quantity before recording the value.
Treating a broken or non-zero-based axis as if it started at zero, which makes a small difference look large or a large difference look small.
Candidates apply a lifetime habit of reading bar heights as absolute quantities and do not check where the axis begins.
What to do instead
Check the origin and any axis break on every chart; if the axis does not start at zero, compare actual labeled values rather than visual heights.
Answering a two-step question with a single-step read, such as giving a per-unit rate when the question asks for the total over a stated quantity.
Candidates stop as soon as they find a number in the graphic that resembles the question's numbers, without finishing the required arithmetic.
What to do instead
Underline the operation words in the prompt (total, per, difference, percent of) and write the intermediate value before computing the final answer.
Misreading a legend so that two categories are swapped, for example attributing the dashed line's trend to the solid line's label.
Legends use similar colors, line styles, or pattern fills, and candidates match by rough appearance instead of confirming the key.
What to do instead
Map each legend entry to its mark explicitly (color, dash pattern, marker shape) and re-verify the mapping for the specific series being read.
Estimating a value between gridlines and reporting it as exact, or choosing an answer that requires interpolation when the graphic only supports a range.
Candidates want a single number and do not notice that the requested point falls between labeled ticks with no exact value shown.
What to do instead
Decide whether the point sits on a labeled tick or between ticks; if between, bracket it with the two neighboring ticks and select the answer consistent with that range.
Ignoring the stated time period or 'as of' date on a chart and using a value from the wrong year or snapshot.
Charts often show multiple periods, and candidates read the most visually prominent point rather than the one matching the question's date.
What to do instead
Circle the date or period in the prompt, locate that exact category on the axis, and read only the value at that position.
Failing to combine information from two graphics or from a graphic plus a text note, answering from one source alone.
Higher-level items require cross-referencing, and candidates treat each graphic as independent, missing the qualifier or conversion in the companion source.
What to do instead
List the data each source supplies, identify which source holds the missing piece, and carry the value from one source into the other before answering.
Choosing an answer that matches the graphic's overall trend direction but contradicts the specific comparison asked, such as picking 'increased' when the question asks which category decreased most.
Candidates pattern-match on the dominant visual impression instead of parsing the exact comparison the question requests.
What to do instead
Restate the question as a precise comparison (which item, what measure, what direction), then evaluate each option against that statement rather than against the chart's general look.