Forsvaret Sesjon Cognitive Test common mistakes
Forsvaret Sesjon Cognitive Test · Understand the traps and how to avoid them.
Under Regnestykker, reading the four answer options first and then trying to make the numbers fit one of them, rather than computing the value and only then comparing it to the options.
The test is timed, so candidates look for a shortcut, and the options often sit close together, which invites guessing from the pattern of answers instead of calculating. Distractor options are usually built from predictable slip results (wrong operator, dropped sign), so option-first reasoning pulls the candidate toward exactly those traps.
What to do instead
Cover or ignore the options until a value is written down. Compute in two passes: first estimate the magnitude (e.g. 'about 40, not 400'), then compute exactly. Only then scan the options and eliminate any that contradict the estimate. Practise with the options physically hidden so the habit becomes automatic.
Under Regnestykker, applying operations strictly left to right in expressions that mix operations or contain parentheses, e.g. computing 8 + 4 × 3 as 36 instead of 20.
Reading order feels natural and the expression is short enough that the candidate does not consciously recall the precedence rules under time pressure. The distractor built from the left-to-right result is often present, which reinforces the error.
What to do instead
Before computing, mark the expression: underline multiplication and division pairs and bracket any parentheses. Do the bracketed and ×/÷ parts first, then the +/− chain. Drill 20 mixed expressions where each wrong answer maps to a specific precedence error, so the candidate learns to recognise the trap value.
Under Regnestykker, mishandling negative numbers and subtraction of negatives, e.g. treating 7 − (−3) as 4 or −5 + 8 as −13.
The minus sign is a small visual token that is easy to lose when scanning quickly, and the sign rules are the first thing to decay when a candidate is anxious about the clock. Word problems phrased as 'a drop of' or 'below zero' add a second layer of sign confusion.
What to do instead
Rewrite every subtraction of a negative explicitly as addition before computing, and write the sign in front of each number when transcribing from the screen. For word problems, translate to a signed number line first (below zero = negative, drop = subtract) and only then calculate. Practise sets composed entirely of signed arithmetic until sign handling is automatic.
Under Regnestykker, losing track during multi-step percentage, ratio, or average problems - computing one intermediate result and then answering with it as if it were the final value.
Multi-step problems require holding a partial result in working memory while reading the next sentence, and under time pressure candidates stop at the first number that appears among the options. The intermediate value is almost always planted as a distractor.
What to do instead
Write each step on paper with a short label ('after 20% discount =', 'per person =') and never lift the pen between steps. Before selecting, re-read the actual question sentence to confirm which quantity is asked for. Train on problems deliberately built so that every intermediate result appears among the options.
Under Figurer, comparing whole figures at a glance and choosing the one that 'looks most similar' rather than decomposing each figure into its features (number of elements, rotation, fill, position).
Human vision is tuned to holistic similarity, so a figure with the same overall shape but a mirrored detail or an extra element feels like a match. Rapid scrolling through a matrix or series strengthens this impression-based judgement.
What to do instead
Adopt a fixed checklist applied to every figure in the same order: count elements, note orientation, note shading/fill, note position within the frame. Say or jot the checklist result for the first two figures, then predict the next before looking at the options. Practise on series where the correct answer differs from a near-miss only by one feature.
Under Figurer, assuming a series rule is 'the figure rotates 90° clockwise each step' after seeing only two steps, without checking whether the third step also fits.
The first rule that fits two data points feels like a discovery, and confirmation bias makes the candidate stop testing. Many series are built so that the obvious two-step rule breaks at step three, with a distractor matching the broken rule.
What to do instead
Always verify a hypothesised rule against every given step, including the last one before the gap, and only then apply it. If two rules fit, look for a secondary feature (alternating fill, element count) that discriminates. Practise series with deliberately misleading early regularity so the verification habit is trained.
Under Figurer, ignoring rotation direction and mirroring - treating a reflected figure as identical to a rotated one.
Rotation and reflection produce similar-looking shapes, and the difference is easy to miss when the figure is asymmetric or small on screen. Candidates who mentally rotate quickly lose the handedness of the figure.
What to do instead
When a figure is asymmetric, pick one distinctive landmark (a notch, a dot, the longest arm) and track where it moves. If the landmark's clockwise order relative to other features reverses, the figure has been mirrored, not rotated. Drill pairs of figures that are rotations versus reflections of each other and classify each pair.
Under Figurer, spending too long on one hard matrix item and then rushing the remaining items, producing errors on easy questions that would otherwise be correct.
Sunk-cost thinking: the candidate feels close to solving the item and keeps investing time, while the test scores total correct answers, so an unsolved hard item costs the same as an easy one left unanswered.
What to do instead
Set a personal time cap per item (e.g. 45–60 seconds) and move on when it expires, marking the item to revisit only if time remains. Before the test, decide the cap and rehearse it in timed practice sets so abandoning an item feels routine rather than like defeat.
Under Ordlikhet, choosing a word pair because the two words are associated in everyday life (e.g. 'hund–bånd') rather than because the relationship between the words matches the relationship in the prompt pair.
The task is to match a relation, but the brain automatically evaluates association, and associated pairs feel correct. Test writers include associated-but-wrong pairs precisely because they attract this response.
What to do instead
State the prompt relationship as a sentence before reading the options ('A is a tool used by B', 'A is a part of B', 'A is the opposite of B'). Then test each option by substituting it into the same sentence. Reject any option where the sentence no longer holds, even if the words are thematically related.
Under Ordlikhet, matching on word class or topic alone - picking a pair of two nouns or two verbs about the same subject without checking the direction and type of the relation.
Similar word class and shared topic create a strong surface resemblance, and under time pressure the candidate stops at that resemblance. Direction errors (whole–part versus part–whole, cause–effect versus effect–cause) are especially common because both directions feel plausible.
What to do instead
After stating the relation, explicitly note its direction (which word is the container, which is the cause) and check that the option preserves that direction. Where the prompt allows several relation types, rank the options by how specifically they match the prompt relation and choose the closest, not the first plausible one. Practise with option sets where all four pairs share a topic but only one shares the relation.