SPJAT common mistakes
SPJAT · Understand the traps and how to avoid them.
Spending a fixed 90 seconds on every quantitative question regardless of difficulty, so three easy arithmetic questions go unanswered while a single hard work-rate problem consumes four minutes.
Candidates treat the section as a uniform speed test and have no pre-decided rule for when to abandon a question, so sunk-cost thinking keeps them anchored to the hard item.
What to do instead
Before the test, rank question types by your personal accuracy. In the first pass, solve only items you can finish in under 60 seconds; mark the rest with a symbol and return after clearing the section. Practise with a visible timer per question for two weeks so the abandon decision becomes automatic at the 60-75 second mark.
Setting up equations for percentage, profit-loss, and ratio problems instead of using option-based or fraction-based shortcuts, which doubles solving time.
School training drilled algebraic formalisation, and under time pressure candidates fall back on the most rehearsed method rather than the fastest one.
What to do instead
Drill a fixed shortcut toolkit: convert percentages to fractions (12.5% = 1/8), use successive-change formulas, and back-substitute answer options for 'find the value' questions. Do 20 timed questions per topic using only shortcuts and log which shortcut applies to which question stem.
Reading a logical reasoning puzzle's full setup and all conditions before checking what the question actually asks, then re-deriving the whole arrangement for each of five sub-questions.
Candidates believe they must fully solve the puzzle first; they do not realise many sub-questions are answerable from a partial arrangement or by eliminating options.
What to do instead
Read the question stem first, then scan only the conditions it references. Build one master diagram and annotate it as you go, answering sub-questions from the partial diagram. Time-box full arrangement to 3-4 minutes and practise 'which of the following must be true' items by testing options against the diagram rather than completing it.
Treating 'some', 'all', 'only', and 'none' as interchangeable in syllogism and assumption questions, accepting conclusions that are merely possible as definitely true.
Everyday conversation uses quantifiers loosely, so candidates import conversational looseness into formal logic where 'some A are B' does not imply 'some B are A' in the way they assume.
What to do instead
Learn Venn-diagram conventions for the four quantifiers and draw the minimum-overlap case for 'some' statements. For each conclusion, ask 'is there any valid diagram where the premises hold and this conclusion fails?' If yes, the conclusion does not follow. Practise 30 syllogisms drawing every possible diagram.
Answering verbal ability questions from personal opinion or general knowledge rather than from the passage, choosing an option that is true in the world but unsupported by the text.
Reading comprehension feels like a general-knowledge test, and plausible-sounding distractors exploit prior beliefs about topics such as economics or science.
What to do instead
For every option, locate the exact line in the passage that supports or contradicts it; if no line exists, eliminate it. Practise tagging each option as 'stated', 'inferred', 'contradicted', or 'not mentioned' before selecting. Never select an option because it sounds reasonable.
Choosing a synonym or antonym based on the most familiar meaning of a word when the sentence context requires a secondary meaning, e.g. treating 'bank' or 'arrest' in only one sense.
Vocabulary is learned as word-to-definition pairs rather than as context-dependent usage, and candidates answer quickly on recognition without checking fit.
What to do instead
Substitute the chosen word back into the sentence and read it aloud mentally. Build a list of 100 high-frequency multi-meaning words with two example sentences each. For antonym questions, first predict the meaning from the word's root and prefix before looking at options.
Computing exact values for every data interpretation question, including 'approximately what percent' items, instead of estimating from the chart.
Candidates distrust approximation and were trained to show exact working; they also fear that estimation will pick the wrong option among close choices.
What to do instead
Before calculating, check the option spread. If options differ by more than 10%, round inputs to convenient numbers and estimate. Reserve exact computation for options within a few percent of each other. Practise 15 DI sets using estimation only and compare your estimated answer with the exact one to calibrate.
Misreading the chart's units, base year, or axis scale, such as treating a value in thousands as absolute or comparing a percentage-point change with a percentage change.
Under time pressure candidates jump to the numbers and skip the legend, title, and footnotes where units and definitions are stated.
What to do instead
Make a mandatory 10-second chart-orientation step: read title, axis labels, units, legend, and any footnote before touching a question. Write the unit next to your calculation. Specifically drill the distinction between 'X increased by 20%' and 'X increased by 20 percentage points'.
Leaving no time buffer and losing the last five minutes of a section to bubbling answers, so a correct final answer is never transferred or is transferred to the wrong row.
Candidates plan content time only and underestimate mechanical time; some also batch-transfer answers at the end.
What to do instead
Transfer each answer as you solve it, and rehearse full-length mocks with the actual answer mechanism. Reserve the final 60 seconds for a row-alignment check against your scratch marks. Never leave bubbling to the end of a section.
Skipping the review of marked questions entirely because the first pass used all available time, leaving known-solvable items blank.
The first pass expands to fill the section through perfectionism on a few items, and candidates do not track how many questions remain marked.
What to do instead
Cap the first pass at roughly 60% of section time, then run a second pass on marked items in ascending order of estimated effort. Keep a running count of marks on the scratch sheet. In practice, enforce the two-pass structure with an alarm so the second pass always happens.