Met Police Exam common mistakes
Met Police Exam · Understand the traps and how to avoid them.
In situational judgement questions, choosing the response that demonstrates the strongest immediate action (e.g., arresting a suspect or issuing a formal warning) rather than the one that follows procedure and proportionality.
Candidates often equate effective policing with decisive enforcement, overlooking that UK policing standards prioritise necessity, proportionality, and procedural correctness. They also underestimate the importance of consulting or escalating to a supervisor when unsure.
What to do instead
For each SJ scenario, ask: 'What would the police code of ethics and standard operating procedures require here?' Prefer answers that show lawful, proportionate steps, documentation, and appropriate escalation over unilateral enforcement. Practise with scenarios where the 'strong' action is a distractor.
In situational judgement questions, ignoring the need to record information or inform a supervisor, and instead focusing only on the immediate interpersonal resolution.
Candidates focus on the human element and forget that policing is auditable; actions must be recorded and chain of command informed. They may also assume that a good outcome is sufficient without procedural closure.
What to do instead
Treat 'record the decision and inform the supervisor' as a default component of any correct response unless the scenario explicitly says it is unnecessary. When reviewing practice questions, highlight every answer that includes documentation or escalation and note why it is valued.
In numerical reasoning, spending too long on a single multi-step calculation (e.g., percentage change then ratio) and failing to answer remaining questions, or guessing without eliminating options.
Candidates try to compute exact answers for every question, unaware that many questions can be solved by estimation or by eliminating obviously wrong options. Time pressure leads to panic and rushed arithmetic.
What to do instead
Practise timed sets with a strict per-question limit (e.g., 60–90 seconds). Learn to estimate first: round numbers, check the order of magnitude, and eliminate options outside a plausible range. Only compute precisely when two options are close.
In numerical reasoning, misreading the units or scale in a table or graph (e.g., thousands vs. millions, percentages vs. percentage points) and thus selecting a numerically plausible but incorrect answer.
Candidates skim the question and the data, assuming units are consistent. They also confuse percentage change with percentage points, or fail to note that a chart axis starts at a non-zero value.
What to do instead
Before calculating, explicitly note the units in the question and in the data source. Underline or circle unit labels. For percentage questions, write down whether the question asks for a relative change or an absolute difference. Practise with deliberately misleading tables.
In verbal reasoning, answering based on personal knowledge or opinion rather than strictly on the passage, especially when the passage is about a familiar topic like crime or policing.
Candidates bring outside assumptions and fail to distinguish between 'true in the real world' and 'supported by the text'. They also over-interpret implied meanings that are not explicitly stated.
What to do instead
Adopt the mantra: 'Only the passage counts.' For each option, locate the exact sentence that supports or contradicts it. If no sentence exists, mark it as 'cannot say' rather than guessing. Practise with passages on neutral topics to break the habit.
In verbal reasoning, confusing 'false' with 'cannot say' when the passage does not provide enough information to verify a statement.
Candidates assume that if a statement is not confirmed, it must be false. They also struggle with the logical distinction between lack of evidence and evidence of absence.
What to do instead
Learn the three categories: True (passage directly supports), False (passage directly contradicts), Cannot Say (passage does not provide enough information). For each practice question, write a one-line justification citing the passage or noting the absence of evidence.
In written communication, producing a report that is a chronological narrative of events without a clear structure (introduction, findings, conclusion, recommendations) or without separating fact from opinion.
Candidates write as they would tell a story, not as they would draft an official document. They also include personal impressions and speculation, which undermine credibility.
What to do instead
Use a standard report template: purpose, background, actions taken, evidence/findings, conclusion, recommendations. Write in the third person and past tense. Before writing, list the facts and the inferences separately; only include inferences if clearly labelled as such. Practise with timed report-writing exercises and self-assess against a checklist.
In written communication, using vague or ambiguous language (e.g., 'the subject was aggressive', 'a number of officers') instead of specific, observable details (e.g., 'the subject shouted and clenched his fists', 'three officers attended').
Candidates worry about being too detailed or fear making a commitment. They also lack familiarity with the precision expected in police reports, where ambiguity can undermine cases.
What to do instead
Replace adjectives with observable behaviours and quantities. For every vague phrase, ask: 'How would a reader know this?' Use the 'who, what, when, where, how' checklist. Review sample reports and highlight every instance of specificity vs. vagueness.
In logical reasoning, jumping to a conclusion based on the first plausible pattern without checking alternative explanations or verifying that all conditions are met.
Candidates rely on intuition and pattern recognition under time pressure, neglecting to test each option against the given rules. They also misinterpret 'if and only if' or 'some' statements.
What to do instead
For each logic puzzle, write down the rules symbolically (e.g., A → B, not B → not A). Test each answer choice by applying the rules one by one. For syllogisms, draw simple diagrams. Practise with sets of 10 questions and review every error to identify the logical fallacy.
In attention to detail tasks, scanning quickly for differences but missing subtle changes such as transposed digits, swapped names, or altered dates because of expectation bias (seeing what you expect to see).
Candidates assume the text is consistent and read for meaning rather than for character-level accuracy. Fatigue and time pressure exacerbate the tendency to skim.
What to do instead
Use a systematic comparison method: read the original and the copy side by side, pointing at each word or number. For numerical strings, read digit by digit. Practise with pairs of texts that contain deliberate small errors and time yourself, aiming for accuracy before speed.