ie-df-recruit-aptitude common mistakes
ie-df-recruit-aptitude · Understand the traps and how to avoid them.
Reading the passage once, then answering from memory of the topic rather than returning to the exact sentence that settles the claim.
Verbal items often hinge on one qualifier ('most', 'unless', 'only when') that memory smooths away; candidates substitute their general knowledge of the subject for what the text actually states.
What to do instead
For every true/false/cannot-say or inference item, locate and underline the phrase in the passage that decides the answer before committing. If no single phrase decides it, the answer is 'cannot say' or 'insufficient information', not a plausible guess.
Treating 'cannot say' as a last resort and choosing true or false whenever the statement feels reasonable.
Candidates conflate real-world plausibility with textual support, and test anxiety pushes toward a definite-sounding answer. In this format 'cannot say' is a fully correct option and appears often.
What to do instead
Apply a strict test: the passage must logically force the statement true, or logically force it false. If the passage is silent or only partly relevant, mark 'cannot say'. Drill sets where the correct answer is 'cannot say' until choosing it feels neutral.
Answering a numerical question with the first number produced by a partial calculation, before checking units, scale, or what the question actually asks for.
Distractor options are built from intermediate values (e.g., the pre-discount price, the per-day figure when the question asks per week). Time pressure rewards the first plausible number on screen.
What to do instead
Finish the computation, then re-read the final question line and label the units of your answer. Compare your result against the answer options only after that check; if your number appears but with the wrong unit, that option is a trap.
Estimating percentages and ratios with rough mental arithmetic and accepting an answer that is merely close to the estimate.
Percentage change, ratio sharing, and multi-step word problems produce options that are deliberately near each other; sloppy rounding lands on the neighbouring distractor.
What to do instead
Do the arithmetic exactly on the provided scratch space, using a consistent method (e.g., convert percentages to decimals, compute percentage change as (new−old)/old). Sanity-check the magnitude, then confirm the exact digits match one option.
Spending a long block on one hard numerical or data-interpretation item and leaving later easier items unanswered.
Items are not ordered by difficulty and there is no penalty for skipping within a section; persistence on a single problem feels productive but costs several certain marks.
What to do instead
Set a per-item time cap (roughly one minute for standard items). When the cap expires, mark the item, move on, and return only after clearing the rest of the section. Practise with a visible timer to internalise the cap.
Solving abstract series by looking for a single rule across all figures instead of isolating what changes between consecutive figures.
Abstract items usually combine two or three independent rules (rotation, shading, element count). Candidates try to pattern-match the whole set at once and then guess.
What to do instead
Compare figure 1 to figure 2, then 2 to 3, and name each change aloud: 'outer shape rotates 90° clockwise, dot count increases by one, fill alternates'. Verify each named rule against every transition before choosing.
Ignoring the reference orientation of a shape and answering a rotation item as if the figure had been reflected.
Under time pressure the eye matches overall silhouette and misses chirality - a mirrored L or a reversed arrow looks like a rotation at a glance.
What to do instead
Track one asymmetric landmark on the shape (a notch, a single shaded corner, an arrowhead) and follow only that landmark through the rotation. If the landmark's clockwise order relative to the other features reverses, the figure is a reflection, not a rotation.
Reasoning about a pulley, lever, or gear system from intuition about 'effort' rather than counting rope segments, lever arms, or teeth.
Mechanical items are designed so everyday intuition ('more pulleys means less effort, so halve it again') gives the wrong number. The correct answer follows from the actual geometry shown.
What to do instead
Before calculating, write down the governing relation: for pulleys, count the rope segments supporting the movable load; for levers, compare distances from the fulcrum; for gears, use the inverse ratio of tooth counts and the direction rule for meshed versus belt-driven gears. Substitute numbers only after the relation is written.
In work-sample judgment, picking the option that shows the most effort or speed instead of the one that matches the stated priorities and safety constraints.
Candidates import a general 'hard-working employee' script and ignore the scenario's explicit constraints (deadline, supervisor instruction, safety rule, customer impact).
What to do instead
Read the scenario twice: first for the situation, second to list the stated constraints and whose instruction governs. Rank options by which one satisfies the most constraints without violating safety or authority; discard options that are merely energetic.
Leaving answers blank on timed sections out of fear of a wrong-answer penalty, or conversely guessing blindly without eliminating options.
Candidates are unsure whether marks are deducted for errors and default to caution, losing marks on items they could have narrowed to two choices.
What to do instead
Confirm the scoring rule for the actual test you are sitting before exam day. If there is no wrong-answer penalty, answer every item: eliminate options that contradict the passage, the units, or the stated constraints, then choose among the remainder rather than leaving it empty.