GAMSAT common mistakes
GAMSAT · Understand the traps and how to avoid them.
In Section 2, candidates write a polished personal anecdote or opinion piece instead of constructing an argument that directly answers the prompt's specific terms.
Under time pressure, a familiar story feels safe and fast to produce, and many candidates have practised narrative or reflective writing at school rather than analytical exposition. They also skim the prompt and respond to its general topic rather than its exact wording.
What to do instead
Before writing, spend three minutes extracting the prompt's key nouns and any qualifier (for example 'should', 'extent', 'more than'), then state a clear thesis that addresses those exact terms. Build two or three body paragraphs each with a claim, evidence or example, and a link back to the thesis. Practise under 30-minute timed conditions and check that every paragraph advances the stated position rather than merely describing an experience.
Candidates exceed or fall far short of the expected length in Section 2, producing either a sprawling essay that never develops its ideas or a very short piece with no argument.
Handwriting speed varies widely, and candidates who have not rehearsed with pen and paper misjudge how much they can write in 30 minutes. Anxiety about running out of ideas also causes padding, while perfectionism causes slow, over-edited openings.
What to do instead
Do timed handwritten practice and count your output to find your natural rate, then plan for roughly 400 to 500 words across four or five paragraphs. Allocate fixed minutes to planning, writing, and a brief check. If ideas stall, move to the next planned paragraph rather than rewriting the introduction, and keep the final paragraph for a genuine conclusion that resolves the thesis.
In Section 1, candidates read each passage once at normal speed and then answer from general impression, choosing options that sound plausible rather than ones supported by the text.
The passages are dense and time is tight, so candidates rush to the questions and rely on prior knowledge or emotional resonance. Distractor options are deliberately written to be reasonable-sounding, which rewards impression-based answering.
What to do instead
Read the question stem first to know what to look for, then locate the relevant sentence or phrase in the passage and match it precisely to one option. Reject options that are true in the real world but not stated, or that overstate the passage's claim. Practise annotating the passage's argument structure and timing yourself at roughly one minute per question.
Candidates treat Section 1 humanities and social science passages as pure comprehension and ignore the author's tone, assumptions, and rhetorical stance, so they miss inference and 'author's attitude' questions.
Many candidates come from science backgrounds and are used to extracting facts rather than interpreting argument, irony, or qualification. Words like 'however', 'arguably', and 'it does not follow' carry the argument but are read as filler.
What to do instead
During practice, deliberately mark contrast and hedging words and summarise each paragraph's function (claim, counter-claim, evidence, concession). For inference questions, ask what the author would accept or reject and eliminate options the passage does not license. Review every wrong answer to identify whether the failure was tone, scope, or unsupported inference.
In Section 3, candidates attempt every question in order and spend several minutes on one hard physics or chemistry item, leaving later easier biology questions unanswered.
The paper mixes disciplines and difficulty, and candidates fear skipping a question means losing marks. Pride or anxiety keeps them locked on a single problem instead of protecting overall score.
What to do instead
Adopt a strict per-question time budget based on the total questions and time available, and move on when it is exceeded, marking the item for return. Answer every question since there is no penalty for guessing, and prioritise the biology and reasoning items where your accuracy is highest. Rehearse this triage in full-length timed practice so skipping becomes automatic.
Candidates answer Section 3 quantitative questions by estimating from the stem without writing units, then select an option that is off by a factor of ten or with the wrong unit.
Mental arithmetic under time pressure feels faster, and options are often designed as common unit or decimal errors. Candidates also forget to convert millilitres to litres or kilojoules to joules before calculating.
What to do instead
Write the given quantities with units, convert to SI before substituting, and carry units through the calculation so the final unit is a check. Estimate the order of magnitude first, then compute, and reject any option outside your estimate. Do short daily drills on dimensional analysis and powers of ten until the habit is automatic.
Candidates memorise isolated facts and formulas but cannot apply them to unfamiliar experimental scenarios, so they freeze when a Section 3 question describes a novel setup.
School study often rewards recall over transfer, and the exam deliberately frames standard concepts in unfamiliar contexts. Without practice in identifying which principle applies, candidates search for a memorised answer that does not exist.
What to do instead
For each topic, practise 'what principle governs this' questions using unfamiliar scenarios rather than flashcards alone. After each practice item, write one sentence naming the concept and why it applied. Build a small set of core principles per discipline and test yourself by explaining novel situations aloud before checking the answer.
Candidates neglect the reasoning-in-humanities component of Section 3 and prepare only biology, chemistry, and physics, then lose marks on data interpretation and social-science-style stimulus questions.
The section is perceived as a science paper, and candidates from science degrees assume their content knowledge covers it. They therefore skip practice on tables, graphs, and argument-based items that require no specialist knowledge.
What to do instead
Include mixed practice sets that contain graph interpretation, experimental design critique, and short humanities stimuli alongside science items. Train the specific skills of reading axes and units, identifying confounds, and distinguishing correlation from causation. Track accuracy by question type so weak reasoning categories become visible.
Candidates prepare for each section in isolation and never sit full-length timed mocks under exam conditions, so their pacing, stamina, and section transitions collapse on the day.
Studying topic by topic feels productive and less discouraging than facing a low mock score. Candidates also underestimate the cognitive fatigue of a long multi-section exam and the effect of strict invigilation.
What to do instead
Schedule regular full-length mocks from early in preparation, replicating timing, breaks, and no-pause conditions. After each, log time per question and error type rather than only the score, and adjust your plan. Build stamina gradually and rehearse the practical logistics of the test day.
Candidates review practice by checking whether they got the answer right, then move on without diagnosing why wrong options were attractive or why a correct guess occurred.
Score checking gives quick reassurance, and detailed review is uncomfortable and slow. Without a structured error log, the same reasoning flaws recur because they are never named.
What to do instead
Keep an error log with columns for question type, the reasoning error (misread, knowledge gap, unit slip, unsupported inference), and the corrected approach in your own words. Revisit logged errors after a week and reattempt the questions. Periodically group the log by error type to target the most frequent weakness.