Bac Série G3 Bénin common mistakes
Bac Série G3 Bénin · Understand the traps and how to avoid them.
In double-entry bookkeeping, recording a transaction in the journal with only one entry (e.g., debiting the customer account without crediting the sales account), or balancing the trial balance by forcing a plug figure instead of searching for the error.
Candidates memorise account names but not the debit/credit logic (débit = emploi, crédit = ressource), and under time pressure they write the entry as a narrative rather than as a balanced pair, then hide the imbalance with an arbitrary adjustment to make the total agree.
What to do instead
Before writing any entry, state in one line what the business receives (débit) and what it gives (crédit); always write the two lines simultaneously and check equality immediately. Practise 20 mixed daily transactions (sales on credit, purchases, bank transfers, owner's contribution) in a two-column journal until the balance check becomes automatic, and when the trial balance fails, use the classic error-search order: recompute totals, check for transposition and omission, then halve the difference to detect a one-sided posting.
Computing the cost of a finished product by adding only direct materials and direct labour, ignoring manufacturing overhead (charges indirectes), then presenting the resulting unit cost as complete.
Direct costs are visible on the requisition and payroll documents, whereas overhead requires an allocation key (clé de répartition) and a multi-step calculation; candidates skip the intermediate centres (approvisionnement, production, distribution) because they are unsure how to build the table, and they confuse cost of production with cost of goods sold.
What to do instead
Use a fixed three-stage template every time: (1) list all charges by nature, (2) distribute secondary charges to principal cost centres using stated allocation keys, (3) impute centre costs to products via cost drivers. Then build the classic cost chain explicitly - coût d'achat, coût de production, coût de revient, résultat analytique - writing each line even when zero. Drill one full case with a pre-drawn table so the structure, not the arithmetic, is the thing memorised.
Applying a simple interest formula to a multi-year problem, or discounting a single future amount when the problem involves a series of constant payments (annuity), and mixing up the timing of the first payment (beginning vs end of period).
Candidates learn the formulas as isolated strings (Cn = C0(1+ni), Cn = C0(1+i)^n) without a decision rule for choosing between them, and they do not draw a time line, so they cannot see whether the situation is a single capital, an annuity, or a repayment schedule.
What to do instead
Adopt an explicit decision procedure: draw the time axis, mark every cash flow with its date, then ask 'one amount or several equal amounts?' and 'duration under or over one year?'. Build a one-page formula sheet where each formula is annotated with the exact situation that triggers it, and solve at least ten problems of each type (simple interest, compound interest, present value of an annuity, loan annuity) while stating the choice out loud before calculating.
Confusing GDP, GNP and national income, or treating a rise in nominal GDP as proof of economic growth without checking prices, and describing inflation only as 'prices go up' without naming its causes or its measurement.
The definitions are learned as slogans in the run-up to the exam, and candidates have no habit of distinguishing real from nominal magnitudes or of linking an indicator to the instrument that measures it (price index, deflator). The result is a definition that is verbally correct but analytically empty.
What to do instead
For each aggregate, memorise a one-line identity plus a concrete example: GDP = sum of value added within the territory; GNP = GDP + net factor income from abroad; real growth = nominal growth minus inflation. Train on short exercises where you must deflate a nominal figure using an index, and prepare for each key concept (inflation, unemployment, growth) a three-part answer card: definition, measurement instrument, two causes and two consequences.
Treating a commercial dispute as a criminal matter, or answering a labour-law question by citing the Code du travail without identifying whether the contract is a CDD or CDI and without stating the applicable procedure and time limits (délais de prescription, procédure de licenciement).
The three branches of law are studied in separate chapters and candidates never build a reflex for classifying facts before choosing a rule; they also recall the existence of a rule but not its conditions of application, so the answer names an institution without applying it to the case.
What to do instead
Use a constant three-step method for every legal case: qualify the facts (nature of the parties, nature of the act), identify the applicable branch and text, then apply the rule and conclude. Memorise a short table of essential thresholds and time limits (types of contract, notice periods, prescription periods, grounds for dismissal) and, for each, rehearse a two-sentence application to a mini-case so the rule is retrieved together with its conditions.
Presenting a company's organisation chart or a management function as a list of definitions, without linking structure to strategy, size or environment, and without diagnosing the problem posed in the case.
The subject is often taught descriptively (Taylor, Fayol, Weber, Mintzberg learned as names), so candidates reproduce course headings instead of reasoning about a concrete firm; they answer 'what is a functional structure?' when the question asks whether that structure suits the firm described.
What to do instead
Always structure the answer as diagnosis, then choice, then justification: what are the firm's size, technology and environment; which structure fits and why; what are the risks of the alternative. Keep a comparison grid of structures (functional, divisional, matrix) with columns for coordination, flexibility and typical failure, and practise converting each course concept into an argument usable in a case.
Describing what a spreadsheet or database 'is' in general terms instead of writing the actual formula, the actual query, or the exact sequence of menu operations requested, and confusing relative and absolute cell references.
Practical computing is learned by clicking through software in the lab, so the written exam format is unfamiliar; candidates also lack a mental model of references, so they cannot predict what happens when a formula is copied down a column.
What to do instead
Practise answering in writing: write formulas on paper (for example a total using SUM, a conditional count using COUNTIF, a lookup using VLOOKUP) and state the expected result. Master the rule that the dollar sign locks a row or column, and test it by copying a formula by hand across a grid. For databases, rehearse the SELECT … FROM … WHERE … ORDER BY skeleton on small tables until the clause order is automatic.
Writing a French composition or summary without a plan, mixing the summary of the documents with personal commentary, and ignoring the required length and register.
Under time pressure candidates start writing the introduction while still reading, so the thesis emerges only at the end; they also confuse the summary (which must remain neutral and faithful) with the discussion (which must argue), and they do not re-read for agreement and connector errors.
What to do instead
Impose a fixed time budget: reading and note-taking with a grid of ideas, ten minutes for a plan written on the draft, then writing. For a summary, apply the rule of no added idea and no personal judgement, and check the word count against the stated limit. Reserve the last ten minutes for a targeted re-read: verb agreement, tense consistency, logical connectors, and spelling of the forms you personally get wrong, listed in advance.
Translating word for word from French into English, producing false friends and literal structures (e.g., 'I am agree', 'actually' used for 'actuellement'), and answering a comprehension question by copying a whole sentence instead of a targeted answer.
Candidates revise vocabulary lists without context and never compare the two grammatical systems; in comprehension they fear missing the point, so they copy the passage rather than reformulate, which also exposes them to transcription errors.
What to do instead
Keep a personal false-friends log with the French word, the correct English word and one example sentence, reviewed weekly. For comprehension, practise locating the answer, underlining the key words, then writing a short answer in your own words that reuses the question's structure. For written expression, memorise five ready-made connectors and three sentence patterns for opinion, and check every verb for tense and agreement before handing in.
Managing time as if all four or five papers were one subject: spending far too long on the first exercise of a mathematics or accounting paper, leaving the essay or the last accounting case unfinished, and answering questions in the order printed rather than in order of return.
Candidates have never rehearsed a full paper under exam conditions, so they have no calibrated sense of how many minutes an exercise should take; perfectionism on the first question plus the sunk-cost effect keeps them trapped there, and the final section is where the missing marks lie.
What to do instead
Before the exam, sit at least two full timed papers per subject and record the time spent per exercise to build a personal pace chart. On the day, spend the first five minutes reading the whole paper and marking each question as quick, medium or long; do the quick ones first, allocate a hard stop time to each remaining exercise, and when the stop time arrives, write the method and the formula for partial credit before moving on.