MBA AMP common mistakes
MBA AMP · Understand the traps and how to avoid them.
Solving quantitative problems by pushing numbers through formulas before estimating the answer, so a misplaced decimal or unit conversion goes undetected and the wrong answer is selected with confidence.
Candidates carry over a school habit of computing exactly first and checking never; under time pressure the arithmetic is done once, and answer choices are treated as a place to find a match rather than a sanity check. Distractors are built on exactly these slips (off-by-one-zero, percent vs. percentage point, monthly vs. annual).
What to do instead
Before computing, write a one-line estimate (e.g. 'about 40% of 250, so near 100') and a units tag. After computing, compare to the estimate and eliminate any choice that is off by a factor of 10 or a sign. Build a personal checklist of the four traps that recur: percent change vs. percentage points, simple vs. compound, average vs. weighted average, and per-unit vs. total.
Reading a data-interpretation set (table, chart, or multi-source prompt) and answering from the visually salient feature - the tallest bar, the steepest line - instead of the specific quantity asked, such as a ratio, a change, or a share of a total.
Charts are designed to make trends pop, and the eye answers the easiest question, not the asked one. Candidates also skip the axis labels, units, and footnotes (e.g. 'figures in thousands', 'index 2015 = 100'), so the number pulled is on a different scale than the answer choices.
What to do instead
Restate the question in your own words before touching the data ('I need X as a share of Y in year Z'). Then locate the exact cells or points, note the axis unit and base year, and compute. For two-source prompts, write which source supplies which input before calculating, and never average two percentages without weighting by the underlying counts.
In critical-reasoning items, picking an answer that is true, plausible, or morally appealing rather than one that actually affects the argument's conclusion, and confusing weakening an argument with contradicting its conclusion.
Candidates evaluate statements against their own knowledge and values instead of against the logical structure of the passage. Without explicitly identifying the conclusion, premises, and hidden assumption, any relevant-sounding option feels defensible, and the strongest-sounding wording wins over the logically correct one.
What to do instead
For every argument, write three labels in the margin: conclusion (C), premises (P), and the gap (the unstated assumption bridging P to C). Then test each option by asking only 'does this make C more or less likely, given P?' Use the negation test on assumption questions: if negating the option destroys the argument, it is the assumption. Eliminate options that attack a premise the author never relies on or that are simply off-topic.
In reading-comprehension and inference questions, choosing an answer that imports outside facts or overstates the passage (words like 'always', 'all', 'never', 'proves') instead of staying inside what the text supports.
Strong, confident-sounding answers feel more like correct exam answers, and candidates under time pressure skim for keyword overlap rather than checking the scope and strength of each claim. Extreme quantifiers and scope shifts are the most common way wrong answers are built.
What to do instead
Treat the passage as the only source of truth: reject any option requiring a fact not stated. Check three things on each contender - scope (does it cover the same group, time, and conditions?), strength (does the passage say 'tends to' where the option says 'always'?), and direction (same claim, not its converse). Prefer the most defensible, least extreme option that the text directly licenses.
In sentence-correction and verbal-usage items, choosing the option that sounds most formal or sophisticated, which often introduces a subtle error in agreement, parallelism, modifier placement, or pronoun reference.
Formal diction is associated with correctness, so ornate options feel safer, and the ear is unreliable for errors like a dangling modifier or a comparison between unlike things. Candidates also fail to compare the original against the choices systematically, judging each in isolation.
What to do instead
Read the original sentence and name the specific issue (or confirm there is none) before looking at the choices; 'no change' is a real answer. Then check each option against a short grammar checklist: subject–verb agreement across intervening phrases, parallelism in lists and comparisons, modifier next to what it modifies, pronoun with one clear antecedent, and comparisons of like with like. Choose the clearest correct option, not the fanciest.
On accounting items, mixing accrual and cash concepts - treating revenue as cash received, ignoring unearned revenue, or forgetting that depreciation is a non-cash expense - and confusing the income statement effect with the balance-sheet or cash-flow effect of a transaction.
Everyday intuition equates earning with getting paid, and candidates memorize journal-entry mechanics without the underlying logic of accrual accounting. Multi-step questions then compound the error because one misclassified item propagates into net income, retained earnings, and operating cash flow.
What to do instead
For every transaction, write the dual effect explicitly: which accounts move, by how much, and in which direction, using the equation Assets = Liabilities + Equity. Tag each item as cash or non-cash, and as affecting the income statement, the balance sheet, or both. For cash-flow questions, start from net income and adjust for non-cash items and working-capital changes rather than reasoning from the cash movement alone.
In economics items, applying the intuitive direction of an effect and stopping there - assuming a price ceiling raises price, that a demand increase always raises quantity sold, or that a tax is borne by the party legally paying it - without tracing the mechanism through supply, demand, and equilibrium.
Candidates rely on gut intuition and headline economics rather than drawing the shift and reading the new equilibrium. Elasticity, incidence, and second-order effects are counterintuitive, and without a quick diagram the reasoning silently skips the step that determines the answer.
What to do instead
Sketch supply and demand for every question, even roughly: label which curve shifts, in which direction, and read off the effect on price and quantity. For policy and tax questions, ask who is elastic and who is not - the inelastic side bears more of the burden. State the assumption (competitive market, ceteris paribus) before concluding, and check whether the question is short-run or long-run.
In marketing and strategy items, choosing the framework that sounds most impressive (a five-forces or SWOT analysis) rather than the one the situation calls for, and treating a framework as the answer instead of using it to generate a specific recommendation.
Candidates learn frameworks as labels and match on keywords rather than diagnosing the actual decision. The result is analysis that describes the industry or the firm but never answers the question of what to do, or a recommendation that ignores the constraint (cost, capability, competitor response) stated in the prompt.
What to do instead
First name the decision the question asks for (enter or not, price how, target whom, differentiate on what). Then pick the one or two frameworks that bear on that decision, apply them to the facts given, and land on a concrete recommendation with a stated rationale and the main risk. If an option is only a description of the situation with no action or no link to the facts, eliminate it.
In organizational-behavior and leadership items, answering from personal preference or generic 'good management' instincts (e.g. 'communicate more', 'empower the team') rather than from the situational and motivational logic the question tests, such as contingency fit, equity perceptions, or stage of team development.
These questions read like opinion surveys, so candidates pick the answer that matches their own style or the most benevolent-sounding option. They also miss that the correct answer often depends on stated contingencies (task structure, follower maturity, culture), so a universally 'nice' answer is wrong.
What to do instead
Identify the theory being tested and its key variable before judging options (e.g. expectancy theory: valence, instrumentality, expectancy; situational leadership: follower readiness). Then ask which option fits the specific contingency described in the prompt, not which is generally admirable. Eliminate options that are universally phrased ('always', 'the best leaders') or that ignore the stated context.
In the analytical-writing task, producing an essay that summarizes the argument or lists pros and cons without taking a clear position, and running out of time with no coherent structure or no check of the draft.
Candidates draft as they think, so the thesis emerges late or never, and they spend disproportionate time on the introduction or on polishing sentences while leaving the analysis thin. No time is reserved for planning or for a final read for logic and mechanics.
What to do instead
Budget the clock in three blocks: about a fifth for planning (write the thesis and three supporting reasons as an outline), most of the time for drafting one paragraph per reason with a concrete example or piece of evidence, and the last few minutes for a read-through checking that each paragraph supports the thesis and that grammar and transitions are clean. State the position in the first paragraph and make every body paragraph advance it rather than describe the topic.