Angola Military Technical Institute (ISTM) Exam common mistakes
Angola Military Technical Institute (ISTM) Exam · Understand the traps and how to avoid them.
On multi-step word problems, the candidate computes one intermediate value (e.g., a percentage or a unit rate) and submits it as the final answer without carrying out the remaining operation the question asked for.
Under time pressure the candidate pattern-matches the first familiar operation to the question and stops at the first number produced, treating 'I found something' as 'I found the answer'.
What to do instead
Before computing, write the final quantity being asked for (with units) on scratch paper and re-read the question's last sentence; after computing, check the result against that written target and confirm units match.
The candidate substitutes values into a physics formula without first converting to SI units, mixing grams with kilograms or minutes with seconds in the same equation.
The formula is recognised and applied immediately, and unit labels are skimmed because they look like decoration rather than part of the data.
What to do instead
Adopt a fixed pre-substitution step: rewrite every given quantity on one line with its conversion to SI (g to kg, cm to m, min to s), then substitute only from that converted line.
When balancing a chemical equation, the candidate changes a subscript inside a formula (e.g., turning H2O into H2O2) to make the atom counts match instead of placing a coefficient in front.
Counting atoms and adjusting the nearest visible number feels like the same operation, and the candidate has not internalised that subscripts define the substance's identity.
What to do instead
Balance by trial with a rule stated aloud: 'only coefficients may change; subscripts are frozen.' Recount each element on both sides after every coefficient change and never erase a subscript.
The candidate answers interpretation questions about a Portuguese text by importing outside knowledge or personal opinion rather than grounding the answer in what the passage actually states.
The candidate reads the question first, then skims the text looking only for a keyword match, so plausible-sounding but unsupported options feel correct.
What to do instead
Read the passage once fully before the questions, then for each option locate and underline the exact sentence that supports or refutes it; reject any option with no locatable textual basis.
The candidate translates English sentences word-for-word into Portuguese structure, producing errors in verb tense, article use, or preposition choice (false friends such as 'actually' rendered as 'atualmente').
The candidate's vocabulary is stronger than their control of English collocations and grammar patterns, so literal transfer feels safe.
What to do instead
Study high-frequency false-friend pairs and fixed preposition/verb patterns as memorised chunks, and in practice write the sentence in English structure first, then check each verb tense against the time marker given.
On questions of Angolan history, the candidate assigns events to the wrong decade or conflates the colonial, independence, and civil-war periods, for example placing the Alvor Agreement or the start of the armed struggle in the wrong year.
Key dates are memorised as isolated numbers without an anchoring timeline, so similar-sounding events collapse into one another under recall pressure.
What to do instead
Build and repeatedly redraw a single timeline (e.g., 1961, 1974, 1975, 1991, 2002) with one event per anchor, and place every new date learned onto that line rather than memorising it in isolation.
In logical reasoning, the candidate answers a 'which conclusion follows' item using real-world plausibility instead of checking whether the conclusion is entailed by the stated premises, including their quantifiers ('all', 'some', 'no').
Everyday knowledge fills gaps automatically, and quantifier words are read as loose emphasis rather than as strict logical constraints.
What to do instead
Rewrite each premise in symbolic shorthand (All A are B; Some A are C) and test the conclusion against those symbols only, explicitly ignoring whether it is true in reality.
The candidate leaves questions blank when unsure, or changes a first answer to a second guess without a stated reason, on a multiple-choice paper with no penalty for wrong answers.
Fear of being wrong and the belief that a changed answer is usually wrong lead to avoidance and second-guessing rather than deliberate elimination.
What to do instead
Commit to answering every item: eliminate at least two options, choose among the rest, mark the item, and only change an answer if a specific overlooked fact or word can be named as the reason.
The candidate spends disproportionate time on one hard mathematics or physics item, leaving several easier questions at the end of the paper unanswered.
Sunk cost on the current problem and the assumption that questions are ordered by difficulty cause the candidate to keep grinding instead of moving on.
What to do instead
Do a first pass answering only items solvable within about a minute, flag the rest, and return to them in a second pass; enforce a per-item time cap derived from total minutes divided by number of questions.
The candidate misreads the instruction stem, answering 'which is NOT correct' or 'which is the exception' as if it asked for the true statement, or ignoring a requested unit or rounding.
The candidate reads the stem once at speed and the brain completes the familiar pattern ('choose the correct statement'), so negations and qualifiers are skipped.
What to do instead
Circle or underline the operative words in every stem (NOT, except, units, nearest, two reasons) before looking at the options, and re-read the stem once after selecting an answer to confirm the direction of the question was respected.