ACET (Institute of Actuaries of India Exams) common mistakes
ACET · Understand the traps and how to avoid them.
Spending a fixed amount of time per question on the Mathematics section, so one hard algebra or mensuration item consumes four or five minutes and forces rushed guesses on several easy items later in the paper.
School tests condition candidates to finish every question in order, and ACET-style papers reward accuracy per question without rewarding completion. Without a pre-set skip rule, sunk-cost thinking keeps a candidate grinding on a problem that was never going to yield in two minutes.
What to do instead
Adopt a two-pass rule: first pass, attempt only items solvable in under 90 seconds; mark everything else with a dot and move on. Return to dotted items in the second pass with the remaining time. Practise this under a timer so the skip decision becomes automatic rather than a conscious debate.
Setting up word problems by grabbing numbers and applying the first formula that comes to mind, without first writing what each quantity represents and what the question actually asks for.
Under time pressure, candidates pattern-match on surface words (percent, ratio, average) rather than on the underlying relationship. The result is a correct-looking computation answering the wrong question, such as finding the cost price when the selling price was asked.
What to do instead
Enforce a 15-second setup ritual on every word problem: write the unknown with a symbol, list given quantities with units, then write the equation before calculating. End by re-reading the final sentence of the question and checking the computed value against it.
Treating a diagram or a stated figure as exact, for example assuming a triangle drawn in a question is right-angled or that a marked angle is 90 degrees because it looks so.
Geometry items in competitive papers are often drawn not to scale, and candidates transfer visual impressions into their reasoning. This produces answers that are geometrically unjustified and fail on variants where the figure is deliberately distorted.
What to do instead
Write a one-line justification next to every geometric step citing the theorem or given condition used (for example, angle in a semicircle, or vertically opposite angles). If no justification can be cited, the step is an assumption and must be discarded.
Computing a mean, median, or standard deviation correctly but then reporting the wrong quantity, such as giving the variance when the standard deviation was requested, or the mean when the question asked for the median.
Statistical items often chain two or three steps, and the intermediate value feels like the answer. Candidates also conflate related measures because the formulas are learned as a block rather than as distinct concepts with different sensitivities to outliers.
What to do instead
Before computing, underline the exact statistic requested and note its units. After computing, state in one sentence what the number means in the context of the data, and check whether an outlier or a skewed distribution would make the requested measure behave differently from the intermediate one.
Reading a bar chart or table and comparing the heights of bars or raw counts directly when the question asks for a rate, a proportion, or a per-capita figure.
Visual salience dominates: the tallest bar draws the eye, and candidates answer the question the chart seems to ask rather than the one written. Tables with differing totals or differing base populations amplify the error.
What to do instead
Before touching the data, rewrite the question as a formula in words (for example, 'share of total = category divided by column total'). Then compute the denominator explicitly for each row being compared, and sanity-check by asking whether the raw counts and the rates would rank the categories the same way.
On data sufficiency or multi-statement items, solving fully with both statements combined and then marking the answer as if one statement alone were sufficient.
Candidates default to the familiar habit of using all available information to reach a number. Sufficiency questions test a different skill, judging whether each statement independently pins down a unique answer, and the solving reflex overrides the judging task.
What to do instead
Test each statement in isolation on separate paper, covering the other. For each, ask only 'does this give exactly one value?' and write yes or no. Combine only after both individual verdicts are recorded.
In logical reasoning, accepting a conclusion because it sounds plausible or matches personal opinion, rather than checking whether it follows necessarily from the stated premises.
Everyday reasoning rewards agreement with a claim, while formal reasoning rewards validity regardless of truth. Candidates also import outside knowledge, such as real-world facts about a named country or product, that the passage never supplies.
What to do instead
For each argument, isolate the premises and the conclusion and ask whether a counterexample exists in which all premises are true and the conclusion false. If one can be constructed, the argument is invalid. Ban yourself from adding any fact not printed in the item.
Misreading the direction of a conditional or a quantifier, treating 'all A are B' as 'all B are A', or treating 'only if' as 'if'.
Natural language hides logical structure, and the converse is often the more familiar statement. Under time pressure the brain completes the pattern rather than parsing the exact wording.
What to do instead
Translate every conditional into an explicit arrow (A implies B) and immediately write its contrapositive (not B implies not A), which is the valid equivalent. Test the converse separately and label it invalid unless stated. Drill this on short syllogism sets until the translation is reflexive.
In the English section, choosing an answer because it sounds formal or impressive, favouring long words and passive constructions over the plain option that fits the sentence.
Candidates equate complexity with correctness, especially in grammar and vocabulary items, and examination coaching often rewards ornate phrasing. This leads to selecting wordy or inflated options that are grammatically or stylistically wrong.
What to do instead
Apply a concision preference: when two options are both grammatical, prefer the shorter and simpler one unless a specific rule forbids it. Check each candidate option against subject-verb agreement, tense consistency, and pronoun reference before judging how it sounds.
Answering reading comprehension questions from memory of the passage or from general knowledge after a single fast read, without returning to the lines that decide the answer.
The passage feels understood, so verification seems redundant, and time pressure discourages re-reading. Distractors are deliberately built from true statements that do not answer the specific question asked.
What to do instead
For each question, locate and underline the exact phrase in the passage that supports the chosen option, and reject any option lacking such a phrase. Pay particular attention to scope words such as all, most, and some, and to whether the question asks for the main idea or a stated detail.