Irish Defence Forces Cadetship Aptitude Assessment common mistakes
Irish Defence Forces Cadetship Aptitude Assessment · Understand the traps and how to avoid them.
Answering verbal true/false/cannot-say items from general knowledge or personal opinion instead of from the passage, e.g. marking "True" for a statement about the Army that is factually correct in real life but never stated in the paragraph.
Adult readers automatically import prior knowledge and fill gaps in the text; the item format rewards strict textual literalism, which is an unnatural reading habit.
What to do instead
For every option, force yourself to point to the exact words in the passage that prove it. If no words exist that prove it, the answer is "Cannot Say" - real-world truth is irrelevant and must be actively suppressed.
Treating "Cannot Say" as a last resort and only choosing it when every other option has been eliminated, so most items end up answered True or False.
Test-takers assume "Cannot Say" is a trick option and that a confident reading must yield a definite verdict; this produces over-claiming on precisely the items designed to catch it.
What to do instead
Apply a single test: would a careful reader, limited to the passage, be able to prove the statement either way? If proof is missing for both directions, commit to "Cannot Say" without hesitation. Expect roughly a quarter of items to be Cannot Say.
Burning three or more minutes on one numerical item - usually a long division or a multi-step percentage - while leaving later, easier items untouched.
Sunk-cost pressure: having invested working, candidates refuse to abandon the item, and the test is scored on total correct answers, not on finishing any one question.
What to do instead
Set a hard per-item cap (about 45–60 seconds). When it expires, write your best estimate, flag the item, move on, and return only if time remains. Practise with a visible timer so the cap becomes automatic.
Setting up a calculation with mismatched units or inverting a ratio - for example multiplying by 1.15 when the question asks for the pre-increase value, or mixing minutes and hours in a rate problem.
Under time pressure the brain grabs the first plausible operation; percentages, reverse percentages and rates look superficially similar and are the classic trap.
What to do instead
Before computing, write the units next to each number and state the required output unit. Then sanity-check the direction: if the answer comes out smaller than the starting value on an 'increase' question, the operation is inverted.
Deriving a rule from only the first two figures in an abstract sequence and then picking the option that fits that partial rule.
The mind pattern-matches quickly and stops searching once it has a plausible story; sequence items are deliberately built with two or three changing attributes so a partial rule still matches one distractor.
What to do instead
Never accept a rule until it has been checked against every figure in the stem. Then run a fixed attribute checklist - number of elements, position, rotation, shading, size, line type - and confirm the rule explains the change in all of them.
Locking onto the most visually salient feature (usually the outer shape) and ignoring the smaller moving or rotating element, so the chosen answer matches on shape but not on orientation.
Visual attention is captured by large, high-contrast features, and working memory drops secondary detail when several attributes change at once.
What to do instead
Use a written or mental checklist in a fixed order every single time: count, then position, then rotation, then shading, then size. Score each candidate option against the checklist rather than choosing by overall 'look'.
Confusing a mirrored figure with a rotated one when mentally rotating shapes or nets, especially on cube/net and fold questions.
Mental rotation is effortful and the brain takes a shortcut by flipping rather than rotating, which produces an answer that looks right but is a mirror image.
What to do instead
Pick one asymmetric landmark (a letter, an off-centre dot, a shaded corner) and track only that feature through the rotation. If the landmark ends up on the wrong side relative to the others, the option is a mirror, not a rotation - reject it.
Answering lever, pulley and gear questions from everyday intuition - assuming a larger gear turns faster, that a longer lever needs more effort, or that a pulley always halves the force.
Real-world handling of tools gives a feel for effort but not for the underlying ratios, and intuition systematically reverses the inverse relationships.
What to do instead
Write the governing relationship before answering: torque = force × distance from pivot; gear speed ratio is inverse to tooth count; a fixed pulley changes direction only, a movable pulley halves the effort. Substitute the numbers rather than 'feeling' the answer.
Overlooking friction, air resistance and mechanical advantage in favour of the 'ideal' textbook answer, or conversely assuming friction dominates every situation.
Candidates learn the idealised rule but are then given items where a stated condition (rough surface, heavier load, longer ramp) changes the outcome, and they fail to re-read the stated conditions.
What to do instead
Re-read the stem for qualifying words - 'smooth', 'rough', 'ideal', 'ignoring friction' - before choosing. If friction is not excluded, ask whether the question depends on it; if the question asks about force needed on an inclined plane, use the ramp length/height ratio explicitly.
Answering the work-style questionnaire as an imagined ideal recruit rather than as yourself, giving maximum 'leadership' and minimum 'anxiety' on every item.
Candidates know the role demands confidence and teamwork, so social desirability pulls every answer to the same extreme, which creates a flat, inconsistent profile that screening flags.
What to do instead
Answer for how you actually behaved in a recent real situation, not how a perfect soldier would. Accept some middle-of-scale answers, stay consistent across repeated themes, and do not try to reverse-engineer a scoring key.