Armenia Grade 12 State Leaving Exam common mistakes
Armenia Grade 12 State Leaving Exam · Understand the traps and how to avoid them.
Writing the literature essay as a plot summary of the work rather than answering the question asked (e.g., summarising the plot of a novel when the prompt asks how the author treats a theme).
Candidates memorise plot and character notes during preparation and reproduce them under time pressure, because retelling is easier than constructing an argument and feels like 'filling the page'.
What to do instead
Before writing, underline the task verb in the prompt (analyse, compare, show how) and draft a one-sentence thesis that answers it. Then write only paragraphs that support that thesis, using plot details as evidence rather than as content.
Misplacing the stress mark or misidentifying the stressed syllable in Armenian orthography and phonetics items.
Spoken Armenian stress habits and the written stress-marking rules taught in class diverge in the candidate's own speech, and stress is drilled less than spelling.
What to do instead
Practise with a fixed rule sheet: mark stress on a set of 20 polysyllabic words daily, then check against the textbook key, and record which word-shape patterns (e.g., final-syllable vs penultimate) are consistently missed.
Losing points on multi-step word problems by computing an intermediate value and submitting it as the final answer.
The candidate solves the first equation that appears and stops, because exam time pressure discourages re-reading the question after the calculation is done.
What to do instead
After every calculation, re-read the final question sentence and write a one-line answer statement in words ('the price after discount is ...'). If the words do not match the question, the work is not finished.
Omitting the domain/range or validity conditions when solving equations and inequalities (e.g., squaring both sides without checking extraneous roots, dividing by an expression that can be zero).
Procedural fluency is practised on clean textbook examples where conditions rarely matter, so the habit of checking admissible values is never formed.
What to do instead
Adopt a mandatory two-line protocol for every equation: (1) write the condition under which each operation is allowed, (2) verify candidate solutions against it before writing the answer. Do this even on easy problems until it is automatic.
Answering foreign-language reading comprehension items from general knowledge or from a single matching word rather than from the passage, and copying the whole sentence as the answer to a short-answer item.
Candidates with partial vocabulary rely on guessing from cognates, and they over-copy because they fear losing points for missing detail.
What to do instead
Locate and underline the exact sentence that supports each answer before writing. For short answers, reduce that sentence to the minimum phrase that answers the question, and check that no extra information contradicts the passage.
Producing foreign-language writing tasks with correct isolated sentences but no linking devices or required text structure (e.g., a formal letter without salutation/closing, an essay without paragraphs).
Classroom practice focuses on grammar points in single sentences, and the rubric's organisation criteria are rarely shown to students.
What to do instead
Memorise one skeleton per text type (letter, opinion paragraph, description) with fixed opening and closing formulas, and practise inserting 3-4 connectors (however, therefore, in addition) into every draft.
Mixing up centuries and sequencing of Armenian historical periods, e.g., placing the adoption of Christianity, the invention of the Armenian alphabet, and key battles in the wrong century or wrong order.
Dates are learned as isolated numbers without a timeline framework, so similar-looking figures get swapped under exam pressure.
What to do instead
Build and redraw from memory a single horizontal timeline with 10-12 anchor events and their centuries, and place every new date on it. Answer sequencing questions by consulting the mental timeline, not by recall of the number alone.
Explaining a historical event by listing names and dates without stating causes, consequences, or significance, when the question asks 'why' or 'what was the result'.
Preparation rewards factual recall, and candidates equate knowing the facts with answering the question, so they dump facts instead of reasoning.
What to do instead
For each major event, prepare a three-column card: causes / event / consequences. In the exam, structure the answer to mirror the question: one sentence of cause, one of event, one or more of consequence and significance.
Using a formula from the data sheet without checking unit consistency, and reporting numerical answers with more significant figures than the given data or without units.
Candidates treat formula selection as the whole task and rush the substitution step, especially when units are given in mixed forms (g vs kg, cm vs m).
What to do instead
Before substituting, write every given quantity with its unit converted to SI, and write the unit of the answer next to the number. Round the final answer to the significant figures of the least precise given value.
Confusing correlation with causation and confusing a norm with a fact in social-science items, e.g., treating a described statistical association as proof of a causal law, or treating a legal/ethical rule as a description of how people actually behave.
Everyday reasoning conflates 'happens together' with 'causes', and civic content is memorised as rules without distinguishing descriptive from normative statements.
What to do instead
For each item, label the claim as descriptive (what is) or normative (what ought to be), and as causal or correlational. If the passage shows only co-occurrence, reject answer options that assert cause.