GED common mistakes
GED · Understand the traps and how to avoid them.
On multi-step word problems, the candidate computes one operation (for example, a percent discount) and then selects that intermediate number as the answer, never applying the second step (tax, markup, or remaining balance).
The item is long and the first computed value is a plausible-looking answer choice, so the candidate stops as soon as a number matching an option appears, treating 'found a number' as 'finished the problem'.
What to do instead
Before computing, write the final question in your own words at the top of your scratch paper (for example, 'find price after discount AND tax'). After computing, re-read that line and confirm the number you have answers that exact question, not an earlier step.
On the math section, the candidate attempts every question in order and spends many minutes on one hard item, leaving the last several questions unanswered when time expires.
There is no penalty for wrong answers, so candidates feel they must 'finish' each problem before moving on, and hard items early in a section consume time that easier later items would have rewarded.
What to do instead
Adopt a two-pass strategy: give each item a time cap (roughly 90 seconds), flag and skip anything exceeding it, answer every remaining item with at least an elimination guess, then return to flagged items with leftover time. Since nothing is deducted for wrong answers, never leave a bubble empty.
The candidate answers a 'which expression represents...' or 'which equation models...' item by solving for a numeric value and then picking the choice that contains their number, without checking whether the choice's structure matches the situation.
Candidates default to arithmetic because it feels safer than algebraic modeling, and the answer choices are designed so that a partially correct computation points to a wrong expression.
What to do instead
Test each expression choice against the scenario's units and a simple case: substitute a small number (like 1 or 2) for the variable and check whether the expression's output makes sense in context. Also verify the direction of the relationship (does the quantity grow or shrink?).
When reading a chart, graph, or table, the candidate reads a data point and answers using the raw number without checking the axis scale, units, or what the legend labels actually represent.
Under time pressure the eye goes straight to the tallest bar or the labeled point, and axis breaks, per-capita versus total figures, and unit conversions (thousands vs. millions) are easy to overlook.
What to do instead
Before reading any value, state aloud what each axis measures and its unit, note whether the axis starts at zero, and check the legend. Then locate the requested category and confirm the unit before selecting. Practice by describing one unfamiliar graph per study session in that order.
On extended-response prompts, the candidate writes a personal opinion or summary of the passage without citing specific evidence from the source texts, or cites evidence without explaining how it supports the claim.
Everyday writing habits favor general statements, and candidates underestimate how explicitly the scoring rubric rewards a clear claim plus quoted or paraphrased textual support plus reasoning that connects the two.
What to do instead
Use a fixed paragraph template in practice: state the claim, introduce the source ('In the article, the author states...'), give a short direct quote or close paraphrase, then one to two sentences explaining why that evidence supports the claim. Repeat for a second piece of evidence before concluding.
The candidate treats paired-passage items as if the passages must agree, and picks an answer describing similarity when the question asks how the authors' viewpoints differ (or vice versa).
Candidates skim for a shared topic and assume shared stance, missing subtle hedges ('somewhat,' 'arguably') or contrast markers ('however,' 'yet') that signal disagreement.
What to do instead
For paired passages, annotate each author's central claim separately in the margin before looking at the choices, then write one sentence describing the relationship (agree, disagree, or partially agree). Eliminate any choice that misstates either author's position, even if it captures the other correctly.
On grammar and usage items, the candidate chooses the option that 'sounds right' in casual speech rather than applying the specific rule being tested, such as subject-verb agreement across an interrupting phrase or pronoun case after a preposition.
Spoken English tolerates constructions that written standard English marks as errors, and the test deliberately places distractors that mimic conversational phrasing.
What to do instead
Isolate the tested structure: cross out interrupting phrases to find the true subject, and substitute a simpler pronoun or noun to test case. Build a short personal list of the five rules you miss most and drill one rule per session with fresh sentences you write yourself.
On social studies items built around a primary-source excerpt or political cartoon, the candidate answers from general historical memory instead of from what the document actually says.
Recognizing a familiar era or figure triggers recall of textbook facts, and candidates assume the question is asking for background knowledge rather than document-based inference.
What to do instead
Read the source line, then the attribution (author, date, audience) before the question. Answer strictly from the text and attribution, and only then use outside knowledge to eliminate choices that contradict the document. If a choice is true history but not supported by the excerpt, reject it.
The candidate confuses correlation with causation or misreads a study's design, concluding that an observed association in an experiment or observational study proves the claimed cause.
Headlines and everyday reasoning routinely treat linked variables as cause and effect, and candidates skim the study description without checking for a control group, random assignment, or confounding variables.
What to do instead
For every study question, identify three things first: who or what was studied, whether assignment was random, and what was measured. If there was no controlled manipulation, the finding supports association only. Practice by rewriting flawed conclusions as cautious claims ('is associated with' rather than 'causes').
On science items involving a diagram, data table, or experimental setup, the candidate skips the setup description and answers from the question stem alone, missing the controlled variable or the direction of a trend.
Candidates treat the descriptive paragraph as background and jump to the question, but on this exam the setup usually contains the information needed to distinguish the correct choice from a plausible distractor.
What to do instead
Read the setup once to identify the independent variable, dependent variable, and constants, jotting them in a three-column note. Then check each answer choice against that note, eliminating any choice that contradicts a stated condition or reverses the observed trend.