DE POST common mistakes
DE POST · Understand the traps and how to avoid them.
Spending equal time on every numerical item and running out of time before reaching the easier later questions, leaving 5–8 items blank that could have been answered in seconds.
Candidates treat the numerical section as a school test where finishing everything matters, so they grind on one multi-step percentage or currency-conversion item for three minutes instead of skipping it. On timed delivery-company tests the items are not ordered by difficulty, and the easy ones are scattered throughout.
What to do instead
Adopt a two-pass rule: on the first pass answer only items you can solve in under 45 seconds, mark the rest, and return to them with whatever time remains. Practise with a stopwatch and a hard per-item cap so the skip reflex becomes automatic. Before the test, memorise the time-per-item budget (total minutes divided by item count) and check the clock at each quarter of the section.
Reading a parcel-weight or postage-rate table and picking the row that matches the value exactly, instead of the band the value falls into, producing wrong answers on tariff and zone questions.
Candidates skim the table headers and assume rows are single values rather than ranges ('up to 500 g', 'over 500 g to 1 kg'). Boundary values like exactly 500 g or 1000 g are the deliberate trap, and candidates apply the wrong side of the boundary.
What to do instead
Before computing, rewrite the relevant band boundaries on scratch paper as inequalities (e.g. 500 < w ≤ 1000). For every boundary value, consciously ask 'is this band inclusive or exclusive?' and check the table wording. Do two or three practice sets built entirely around boundary weights and zone edges until the inclusive/exclusive check is reflexive.
Answering verbal inference questions with outside knowledge or personal opinion instead of sticking strictly to what the passage states, and marking 'cannot say' items as true or false.
Candidates conflate 'true in the real world' with 'supported by the text'. Delivery and logistics passages invite assumptions (e.g. that a strike delays all mail), and the three-way true/false/cannot-say format punishes any inference the passage does not license.
What to do instead
For each statement, locate the exact sentence that would have to be true for the statement to hold. If no sentence settles it either way, the answer is 'cannot say' - not a guess. Drill with passages where several statements are plausible-but-unsupported, and force yourself to write the supporting line number before choosing true or false.
Missing negation and quantifier words in verbal and instruction items - 'except', 'not', 'only', 'all', 'at least' - and answering the opposite of what was asked.
Under time pressure the eye skips small function words, and the brain pattern-matches to the topic rather than the logic. German items with 'nicht', 'nur', 'außer' and English items with 'EXCEPT' are the classic failure point, especially when switching between the two languages.
What to do instead
Circle or mentally flag every negation and quantifier before evaluating the options. On 'EXCEPT' and 'which is NOT' items, restate the task in your own words ('three of these are true, one is false') before looking at the choices. Build a short personal checklist of trigger words in both German and English and rehearse it on 20 mixed items.
Solving number-series and matrix items by guessing the next step from the last two terms instead of testing a consistent rule across the whole sequence.
Candidates find a rule that fits the first pair (e.g. +3) and stop checking, so they miss alternating rules, two interleaved sequences, or rules that change operation (×2, +1, ×2, +1). Abstract matrix items fail the same way when the candidate fixes on rows only and ignores columns.
What to do instead
Always verify a candidate rule against every adjacent pair, not just the first. If it breaks, systematically test the standard families in order: constant difference, constant ratio, alternating/interleaved sequences, differences of differences, and squares/cubes plus or minus a constant. For matrices, check rows, then columns, then diagonals, and note whether the rule is arithmetic, rotational, or additive (shape-count).
Losing accuracy on attention-to-detail tasks by comparing strings or codes as whole chunks rather than character by character, so a single transposed digit or letter slips through.
The visual system reads words and codes holistically; a swapped 'ei'/'ie', a 6 versus 8, or an O versus 0 is smoothed over because the overall shape matches. This is exactly what postal code, address, and tracking-number checks are designed to catch.
What to do instead
Use a left-to-right character-by-character scan, physically pointing with the cursor or a finger, and segment long strings into groups of three or four. On 'find the matching pair' items, compare position by position and stop at the first mismatch. Practise daily with 60-second timed string-comparison drills to build the scanning habit, and never rely on a glance-and-feel judgement.
Rushing the last items of a timed accuracy block because of clock anxiety, trading a small time gain for several avoidable errors.
Candidates monitor the countdown and accelerate near the end, which degrades the careful comparison behaviour the section measures. Accuracy-under-time sections usually score errors more heavily than slowness, so the trade is negative.
What to do instead
Deliberately slow the final 30 seconds and accept fewer completed items in exchange for correctness. Before starting, decide a target pace (items per minute) and check only at fixed checkpoints rather than continuously. In practice, run timed sets and record both accuracy and completion rate, then tune pace so accuracy stays above your target rather than maximising speed.
In situational judgement items, choosing the option that is most helpful to the customer even when it breaks procedure, or the most rule-bound option that ignores the customer entirely.
Candidates read SJTs as personality questions ('be nice') rather than as tests of balanced professional judgement. Delivery-company scenarios reward resolving the customer's problem within policy and escalating correctly, not bending rules or hiding behind them.
What to do instead
Use a three-filter test on each option: does it respect procedure and safety, does it address the customer's actual need, and does it escalate to the right person at the right time? Prefer options that combine these. Reject options that promise what you cannot deliver, conceal errors, or pass the problem on without informing the customer. Practise ranking full option sets rather than picking one, and justify the top and bottom choice each time.
Misunderstanding the delivery lifecycle in operational items - confusing a scan event with physical handover, or treating 'attempted delivery' as 'delivered' - and answering process questions from that faulty model.
Candidates without operational background assume the tracking status reflects the parcel's location at all times, and do not know the difference between acceptance, sorting, out-for-delivery, delivery attempt, and proof of delivery. Questions about failed delivery, redelivery, and liability hinge on these distinctions.
What to do instead
Learn the standard sequence and what each status actually proves: a scan shows handling, not possession by the recipient; only a delivery confirmation with proof establishes delivery. Study the specific rules for attempted delivery, retention periods, redelivery, and returns. When an item describes a scenario, map it explicitly onto the lifecycle stage before choosing an answer.
In German-language items, misreading formal versus informal register or grammatical case, and producing answers that are grammatically plausible but wrong in context (or switching to English when a German answer is required).
Candidates with conversational German handle vocabulary but stumble on Sie/du consistency, case endings after prepositions, and separable verbs, and they underestimate how much the test checks written accuracy in customer-facing texts such as emails and notices.
What to do instead
For each German writing or comprehension item, identify the audience first (customer, colleague, authority) and fix the register before drafting. Re-read for case after prepositions and for verb position in subordinate clauses. Practise writing short customer emails and complaint replies in formal German, and check separable verbs and Sie/du consistency explicitly. Do not answer in English unless the item asks for it.