DSST General Anthropology common mistakes
DSST General Anthropology · Understand the traps and how to avoid them.
Treating 'evolution' as a single linear ladder from primitive to advanced, and choosing answer options that describe one modern species as 'more evolved' or as an ancestor of another living species.
Everyday language and textbook diagrams of the 'march of progress' reinforce the idea that evolution has a goal and that living apes are ancestral to humans. The exam instead tests branching descent and shared common ancestry, so ladder-style distractors feel right.
What to do instead
Before answering any evolution item, restate the relationship as a branching tree: two living species share a common ancestor; neither is the other's ancestor. Practise redrawing any scenario as nodes and branches, and eliminate any option containing 'more evolved', 'higher', 'lower', or 'direct ancestor of modern X' unless the item specifically describes an ancestor-descendant fossil sequence.
Confusing homology with analogy (and the related terms convergent, parallel, and divergent evolution), and applying the wrong term to a described trait.
The four terms sound similar and are often taught together; candidates memorise one example (bird wing vs insect wing) and then overgeneralise it instead of checking the definition against the stem.
What to do instead
Use a two-question test on every item: (1) Do the structures share a common developmental/ancestral origin? Then homology. (2) Do they share function but not ancestry? Then analogy, produced by convergent evolution. Rehearse with fresh examples such as whale flipper vs human arm (homology) and dolphin flipper vs shark fin (analogy), and note that parallel evolution involves related lineages independently arriving at similar traits.
Mixing up the primate social and mating terminology-choosing 'polygyny' when the stem describes one female mating with several males, or mislabelling a one-male/multi-female group-and confusing dominance with territoriality.
The terms polygyny, polyandry, polygynandry, and monogamy are visually similar and rarely used outside the course, so recall is fragile under time pressure; group composition and mating system are also conflated because they often co-occur.
What to do instead
Build a small grid: number of mates per male vs per female, plus typical group composition. Anchor each term to a one-line scenario (e.g. one male, several females = polygyny; several males, one female = polyandry; multiple males and females mating = polygynandry). On the exam, count the mating partners described in the stem before looking at the options.
Applying a single universal kinship rule-such as assuming all societies are patrilineal or that 'cousin' means the same thing everywhere-and answering kinship or descent items from personal family experience.
Candidates' own kinship system feels like common sense, and the exam's invented or unfamiliar systems (matrilineal, ambilineal, double descent, Iroquois/Crow/Omaha terminology) require holding a rule in mind rather than recalling a fact.
What to do instead
For every kinship item, write down the descent rule stated in the stem before evaluating options, then trace one named individual through it (e.g. 'under matrilineal descent, ego belongs to mother's lineage; mother's brother is a member, father's sister is not'). Practise identifying which generation and which side of the family each term refers to, independent of English usage.
Confusing ethnocentrism with cultural relativism, or treating 'culture' as a list of traits rather than learned, shared, patterned behaviour, and selecting options that describe culture as biologically inherited.
The two -isms are opposites but share a prefix pattern, and the word 'culture' in ordinary speech means refinement or the arts; exam stems use the anthropological definition, so distractor options sound plausible.
What to do instead
Memorise a one-sentence contrast: ethnocentrism judges other cultures by one's own standards; cultural relativism understands a practice within its own cultural context. For definition items, check each option against the four criteria-learned, shared, patterned, and transmitted across generations-and reject anything implying genetic inheritance or individual idiosyncrasy.
Mistaking the four subfields and their methods-calling ethnography an archaeological technique, assigning participant observation to linguistics, or attributing radiocarbon dating to physical anthropology.
The subfield boundaries overlap in practice (bioarchaeology, linguistic anthropology), so candidates who know the material generally still pick a neighbouring discipline's method when the stem is ambiguous.
What to do instead
Make a four-column table of subfield, core method, and typical data, then classify each method you meet (excavation, survey, participant observation, interviews, phonology, osteology, primatology). When an item names a method, ask what kind of evidence it produces-material remains, observed behaviour, spoken language, or biological tissue-and match that to the subfield.
Confusing relative dating with absolute (chronometric) dating, and treating stratigraphy, seriation, or fluorine analysis as if they produced calendar ages.
Both categories answer the question 'how old is it?', and textbooks often list them together; the distinction is the type of answer (older/younger vs a date), which exam options deliberately blur.
What to do instead
Sort every dating technique into two lists before answering: relative (stratigraphy, seriation, cross-dating, typology, fluorine/uranium tests on bone) and absolute (radiocarbon, potassium-argon, uranium-series, thermoluminescence, dendrochronology). Ask whether the technique yields a number of years or only an ordering, and check stated limits such as radiocarbon's effective range and the need for calibration.
Reading a site or artifact description as direct evidence of behaviour or belief-inferring religion from a burial, gender from grave goods, or social complexity from a single structure-and choosing the most dramatic interpretation.
Narrative stems invite storytelling, and popular archaeology presents confident interpretations; the exam rewards the inference the evidence can actually support, which is often weaker than the tempting option.
What to do instead
For each interpretation option, ask 'what else could produce this pattern?' and eliminate options that require an unsupported leap. Practise writing the most conservative inference the described evidence allows, then look for the option matching that level of caution; prefer interpretations that cite multiple independent lines of evidence.
Confusing phonetics with phonology, or phoneme with morpheme, and failing to apply the minimal-pair test when the stem asks whether two sounds are distinct phonemes in a language.
The pairs differ by one syllable and are taught in the same unit; the distinction (actual sounds vs contrastive categories; sound units vs meaning units) is abstract and easy to lose under exam pressure.
What to do instead
Anchor each term with a definition and a test: phonetics = physical sounds; phonology = how sounds pattern; phoneme = smallest contrastive sound unit, identified by a minimal pair such as /p/ vs /b/ in 'pat' and 'bat'; morpheme = smallest unit of meaning, identified by whether removing it changes meaning. On each item, first decide whether the question is about sound or meaning, then apply the matching test.
Assuming all human languages are structurally alike-expecting English word order, tense, or a fixed sound inventory-and rejecting correct options that describe features absent from English, such as tone, ergativity, or clicks.
Monolingual English speakers use English as an implicit template, and options describing unfamiliar structures sound implausible; linguistic anthropology items deliberately test the principle that all languages are equally complex and rule-governed.
What to do instead
Adopt the working assumption that any structural feature is possible in some language, and evaluate options against the principle of linguistic equality rather than against English. Review a short list of non-English features (tonal contrasts, grammatical gender classes, ergative-absolutive alignment, click consonants, polysynthesis) with one example each, and eliminate any option claiming a language or dialect is grammatically inferior or simpler.