III IC-78 common mistakes
III IC-78 · Understand the traps and how to avoid them.
Treating every 'which of the following is NOT' or 'EXCEPT' question as a direct recall item, answering the first option that looks familiar instead of eliminating the three correct statements.
Under time pressure candidates scan for a keyword match and stop reading once they see a familiar term, so the negation in the stem is missed. This is especially costly in a multiple-choice professional paper where distractors are deliberately plausible.
What to do instead
Before answering, underline or mentally restate the stem with the negation made explicit (e.g., 'Three of these are true; one is false'). Then test each option individually against the stem and write the letter of the odd one out before checking the answer choices. Budget no more than 60–75 seconds per such item and move on if two options remain.
Memorising isolated definitions (e.g., 'utmost good faith', 'insurable interest', 'indemnity') without being able to apply them to a short scenario, so scenario-based questions are answered by keyword association rather than by principle.
Candidates revise from summary notes and glossaries because they are compact, but the examination tests application. Recognising a term is not the same as knowing which principle governs a given fact pattern, and the options are often all technically true statements in the abstract.
What to do instead
For each core principle, write one original two-line scenario and the correct principle it illustrates, then swap scenarios with a study partner. Practise explaining why each wrong option fails, not just why the right one succeeds. Convert every definition into a 'because' sentence: 'X applies because …'.
Confusing the roles and liabilities of the insurer, insured, agent, broker, surveyor and third-party administrator when a question describes a claim or dispute, and selecting the option that names the most familiar party rather than the one legally responsible.
The distribution and claims chain is taught as a list of definitions, so candidates never build a mental map of who owes what duty to whom. Under exam conditions the most salient name in the stem becomes the default answer.
What to do instead
Draw a one-page map of the distribution and claims chain with arrows for duties (disclosure, remittance of premium, claims assessment, settlement authority). For each party write the single duty they cannot delegate. Rehearse five short claim scenarios and state, for each, who decides and who pays.
Calculating premium, sum insured, or claim settlement using the wrong base (e.g., applying a rate to the claim amount instead of the sum insured, or ignoring deductibles, depreciation, and average/underinsurance clauses) and then picking the closest number offered.
Candidates memorise formulas as strings rather than understanding the unit each factor is expressed in. When the exact computed figure is absent from the options, they assume arithmetic error and choose the nearest value instead of re-reading the policy conditions.
What to do instead
For every numerical question, first write the formula in words ('premium = rate per mille × sum insured ÷ 1000'), then substitute with units attached. Check whether the policy has a deductible, excess, or average clause before computing. If the answer is not among the options, re-read the stem for a condition you missed rather than rounding to the nearest choice.
Answering regulation and compliance questions from general commercial intuition ('the insurer would want to minimise payout') instead of from the specific statutory or regulatory requirement, and choosing the option that sounds most business-friendly.
Much of the regulatory framework is counter-intuitive to candidates without claims or compliance experience, and the 'reasonable business' option is often deliberately included as a distractor. Candidates also mix up requirements that apply to insurers with those that apply to intermediaries.
What to do instead
Build a two-column table: 'who is regulated' versus 'what is required'. For each rule, note the specific obligation (disclosure, record retention, grievance redressal timeline, solvency margin) and the party it binds. When a question cites a regulation, answer only from the text of that regulation as you have learned it, not from commercial logic.
Skipping the pre-exam syllabus weighting and revising all topics equally, so heavy-scoring units are under-practised and light units consume disproportionate time.
Candidates revise in the order the textbook presents topics, or in the order they find them interesting, without checking the marks distribution. The result is strong performance on low-weight topics and avoidable loss on high-weight ones.
What to do instead
Before revising, tabulate each unit against its approximate mark weight from the syllabus and past-paper pattern, then allocate study hours in that proportion. Reserve the final two weeks for the three highest-weight units and for timed full-paper practice under exam conditions.
Reading a case-study or 'best course of action' question and choosing the option that is legally correct but commercially or ethically inappropriate, or vice versa, without checking both dimensions.
Such questions are designed so that one option satisfies the law, one satisfies the customer, and only one satisfies both. Candidates stop evaluating once they find a true statement and do not compare the remaining options against the professional-conduct standard.
What to do instead
For every 'best action' item, score each option on two axes: (a) is it compliant, and (b) does it treat the policyholder fairly and follow the documented process. Eliminate any option that fails either axis, then choose among survivors. Practise by writing one sentence of justification per eliminated option.
Leaving numerical and 'calculate/compare' questions until the end of the paper, then rushing them or leaving them blank because the time budget was consumed by lengthy descriptive items.
Descriptive questions feel productive and are easier to start, so candidates over-invest in them. Numerical items then receive insufficient time, even though they are often quicker to score once the formula is applied correctly.
What to do instead
Adopt a fixed three-pass strategy: first pass answer all items you can resolve in under 45 seconds; second pass tackle numerical and multi-step items with a hard time cap; third pass return only to flagged items. In mock papers, record the time spent per section and rebalance until the numerical section is completed before the final 15 minutes.
Not reading the full stem before looking at the options, so a qualifier such as 'in the first year', 'at renewal', 'for a commercial policy' or 'under a reinsurance arrangement' is missed and the general-case answer is selected.
Options are read first as a time-saving habit, and once a plausible option is seen the mind constructs a justification for it. Qualifiers at the end of long stems are especially likely to be skipped.
What to do instead
Cover the options with your hand or the answer sheet, read the stem to the final full stop, and write the qualifier in the margin before uncovering the options. If two options seem correct, the qualifier is almost always the discriminator; re-read the stem specifically for scope, timing, and policy type.
Treating 'revise from past papers' as 'memorise past-paper answers', so a reworded question on the same concept is answered with the old option letter or the old wording rather than the concept.
Past papers are used as a question bank to be drilled rather than as a diagnostic of understanding. When the examiner changes the scenario or reverses the stem, the memorised answer no longer fits but is still selected.
What to do instead
For each past-paper question, write the underlying concept and the reason each distractor is wrong, then create a variant with the scenario changed. After a mock, review only the questions answered incorrectly and classify each error as 'knowledge gap', 'misread stem', or 'calculation slip' - then target the largest category.