Toelatingsexamen Arts common mistakes
Toelatingsexamen Arts · Understand the traps and how to avoid them.
Reading a physics or chemistry problem once and immediately substituting numbers into the first formula that looks applicable, without first writing down the known quantities, the unknown, and the unit of the answer.
Under time pressure candidates pattern-match on surface keywords ('snelheid', 'evenwicht') and skip the modelling step; the exam deliberately mixes contexts so the same word appears in problems needing different laws.
What to do instead
Before any calculation, write a three-line inventory: given (with units), asked (with unit), and the principle that links them. Only then choose a formula. If the inventory cannot be completed, the problem has not been understood yet.
Treating all quantities as dimensionless numbers and dropping units mid-calculation, then reporting an answer in whatever unit emerges (for example J instead of kJ, or mol/L instead of mmol/L).
Secondary-school exercises often use convenient numbers, so candidates never build the habit of unit tracking; the entrance exam uses realistic magnitudes and mixed prefixes to test exactly this.
What to do instead
Carry units through every line of the calculation and convert all data to SI base units at the start. Check the final unit against the asked quantity; a unit mismatch means the formula or a conversion is wrong.
Confusing mathematically similar but physically distinct concepts: speed versus velocity, mass versus weight, heat versus temperature, concentration versus amount, and genotype versus phenotype.
These pairs share everyday Dutch vocabulary and are often taught close together, so the distinctions blur; exam items exploit the everyday reading of the word.
What to do instead
Keep a personal two-column list of confusable pairs with the defining property, the symbol, the unit, and one counterexample for each. Rehearse the list until the distinction is stated in one sentence without notes.
Applying a memorised rule outside its validity range, for example using ideal-gas behaviour at high pressure, Ohm's law for a non-ohmic component, or a dominant/recessive ratio for a trait with incomplete dominance.
Rules are stored as procedures without their conditions, and candidates do not check whether the stated situation satisfies the assumptions before computing.
What to do instead
For every law or ratio, memorise the assumptions alongside it and make a habit of writing them down before use. If a stated condition violates an assumption, look for the qualitative reasoning the item actually wants.
In genetics and probability items, computing the probability of a single event and stopping, instead of combining independent events or conditioning on the information given about the parents or offspring.
Candidates recognise the familiar monohybrid cross and reproduce the 3:1 or 1:1 ratio without asking which individuals the question is about or what is already known.
What to do instead
Draw the pedigree or cross explicitly, mark which individuals are known, and state whether events are independent or conditional before multiplying. Write the probability as a product of named factors rather than a single number.
Misreading the stem's quantifiers and negations ('altijd', 'minstens', 'niet', 'behalve') and then selecting an option that answers a different question than the one asked.
Speed reading skips small function words, and answer options are written to be attractive precisely when the stem was skimmed.
What to do instead
Underline every quantifier and negation in the stem before looking at the options. Restate the question in one sentence in your own words, then test each option against that restatement.
Spending a disproportionate block of time on one hard item, leaving later easy items unattempted or rushed.
Sunk-cost thinking and the belief that a hard item must be solvable keep candidates on one question; the exam's scoring rewards breadth of correct answers, not persistence on one item.
What to do instead
Set a per-item time budget in advance and enforce a hard stop: mark the item, record a provisional answer, and move on. Return only after all items have at least one answer.
Leaving items blank when no confident answer is available, instead of eliminating options and choosing among the remainder.
Candidates fear that a guess erases the chance of later insight, or they misjudge how much partial knowledge they actually have; without a penalty for wrong answers, a blank is strictly worse than an informed elimination.
What to do instead
For every item, eliminate at least one option on a stated ground before deciding. Never submit a blank; if time runs out, fill remaining items with the best remaining option.
Failing to transfer answers correctly: shifting a row on the answer sheet, or changing an answer on the sheet but not in the working, so the recorded answer does not match the reasoning.
Answer sheets are numbered differently from the booklet, and candidates batch-transfer answers at the end under time pressure.
What to do instead
Transfer each answer immediately after deciding it and verify the item number against the booklet. When changing an answer, erase fully and re-check the row number before moving on.
Skipping the reading of the full stem of a long context item and jumping to the question, thereby missing constraints (temperature, pH, volume, sex of the individual) stated only in the introductory text.
Long stems feel like wasted time, so candidates read the question first and treat the context as decoration; the exam places decisive conditions in that context.
What to do instead
Read the context once with a pen, extracting every numerical value and condition into a short list. Read the question afterwards and check each extracted condition against the options before answering.