Bocconi Specialized Masters Test common mistakes
Bocconi Specialized Masters Test · Understand the traps and how to avoid them.
Treating the quantitative section as a pure speed test: skimming each item and moving on within seconds, then returning to guess the ones skipped, so that the easy arithmetic points are traded for lottery guesses on hard items.
The section is short and timed, so candidates panic and assume every item deserves equal hurry. In practice the items are graded by difficulty and most candidates can bank the straightforward algebra and percentage items if they slow down on those and deliberately abandon the two or three genuinely long ones.
What to do instead
Before the test, decide a two-pass rule: first pass, solve only items you can finish in under 90 seconds; mark the rest with a symbol and move on. Practise with a stopwatch on mixed sets so you learn to recognise within 15 seconds whether an item is a 'bank' or 'skip'. Never re-open a skipped item until the first pass is complete.
Setting up word problems by grabbing the numbers and computing with them immediately, without first writing down what quantity is asked and what the unknown represents.
Under time pressure the brain latches onto familiar operations (add the rates, multiply the prices) rather than translating the sentence into an equation. This produces answers that are internally consistent but answer a different question, and the wrong options are built to match exactly those answers.
What to do instead
Force a one-line written scaffold for every word problem: define the variable, state the target in symbols, then write the equation. Even 10 seconds of writing reduces misreads. Drill 20 translation-only exercises where you write the equation and do not solve it, so the habit becomes automatic.
Estimating percentages, ratios and weighted averages by feel during data-interpretation style items, then picking the closest-looking option instead of computing the comparison.
Numbers in these items are deliberately close together, and mental arithmetic drifts by several percentage points. Candidates also anchor on the first plausible option they read, and the distractors are ordered to reward that anchor.
What to do instead
Learn three fast techniques and practise them until fluent: convert to fractions (12.5% = 1/8), compute percentage change as difference divided by original, and compare ratios by cross-multiplication instead of dividing. Do sets of 10 items where two options differ by less than 5%, and require exact working.
Reading a logic puzzle's rules once and then reasoning from memory, so that a rule introduced in the third sentence is silently dropped when testing the answer choices.
Working memory is the bottleneck in deductive items; the rules feel simple individually but interact, and candidates trust recall rather than an external record. This is why they eliminate a correct option that satisfies all rules but violates the one they forgot.
What to do instead
Adopt a fixed notation: abbreviate each entity and write each constraint as a short symbolic line on the scratch sheet before touching the options. Then test options against the written list, ticking each constraint. Use grid or ordering diagrams for sequencing items rather than prose reasoning.
In assumption and strengthen/weaken items, choosing the option that restates the argument's conclusion or introduces an interesting new fact, rather than the option that connects the stated evidence to the conclusion.
Candidates evaluate options for plausibility or truth in the real world instead of for logical role. A true but irrelevant statement feels safe, and a restatement of the conclusion feels supportive, so both attract selection.
What to do instead
Before reading options, write the argument skeleton: evidence, therefore conclusion. Then label each option as 'repeats conclusion', 'new topic', 'attacks evidence', 'links evidence to conclusion', or 'denies a hidden premise'. Only the last two categories can be correct for assumption items. Practise 30 items with this labelling, ignoring which option you personally believe.
Answering reading-comprehension questions from prior knowledge or from the topic's general familiarity, without locating the sentence in the passage that decides the answer.
Passages are chosen on accessible subjects, so candidates feel they already know the answer. The exam deliberately includes options that are true in the world but not stated or implied in the text, and the familiarity feeling suppresses the check.
What to do instead
For every question, name the paragraph and point to the line that supports your choice before selecting. If you cannot point to a line, the option is out of scope. Also classify each question as detail, inference, main idea, or tone, because inference items require the smallest licensed step beyond the text, not a plausible extension.
Confusing the passage's main point with a vivid detail or with the first sentence, and choosing a title or summary option that captures only one paragraph.
Opening sentences are written to engage, and striking examples stick in memory. Candidates also prefer summary options that use words copied from the passage, which is a classic trap because correct main-idea options usually paraphrase.
What to do instead
After reading, cover the passage and write a ten-word summary of the author's overall claim in your own words. Then choose the option closest to your summary, not to the passage's vocabulary. Reject any option that is true only of one paragraph or that is broader than the passage's scope.
In sentence-completion and grammar items, choosing the option that sounds natural in casual speech rather than the one that satisfies the formal rule being tested, such as subject-verb agreement across an interrupting phrase or correct pronoun case after a preposition.
Everyday spoken English tolerates constructions the exam marks wrong, and the ear is trained on them. Long inserted phrases between subject and verb are used precisely to break the ear's tracking.
What to do instead
Strip the sentence to its skeleton: delete prepositional phrases and relative clauses, then check agreement and case on what remains. Memorise the small set of frequently tested points (agreement, comparatives, parallelism in lists, countable versus uncountable quantifiers, tense sequencing) and drill each separately rather than doing mixed sets only.
Managing the clock uniformly across sections and spending the same effort on the last items as the first, ending with unanswered questions in the final minutes.
Candidates plan by total time divided by total questions, which ignores that item difficulty varies and that unanswered items usually score zero while a considered guess has positive expected value. Anxiety also makes the final minutes feel shorter than they are.
What to do instead
Set fixed checkpoints (for example, half the items done at half the time) and rehearse them in full-length mocks. In the last two minutes, fill every remaining answer with your best elimination-based guess; never leave a blank. Review your mock logs to see whether your errors cluster at the end, which signals pacing rather than knowledge.
Preparing with mixed-topic practice only, so that a persistent weakness in one area (for example, ratio problems or assumption questions) is masked by strength elsewhere and never diagnosed.
Mixed sets feel productive and mimic the test, but they give diffuse feedback: the candidate remembers the overall score, not which reasoning step failed. Without error classification, the same mistake recurs in new clothing.
What to do instead
Keep an error log with four columns: item, domain, the exact step where reasoning broke, and the rule that would have prevented it. Do blocked practice on the weakest domain until accuracy is stable, then return to timed mixed sets. Re-attempt logged items after a week without looking at the original solution.