PA State Trooper common mistakes
PA State Trooper · Understand the traps and how to avoid them.
Selecting a reading-comprehension answer that matches a real-world fact, personal opinion, or law-enforcement assumption but is not stated or implied in the passage.
Passages often involve legal, safety, or procedural topics the candidate already has views about, so the brain fills gaps and treats prior knowledge as textual support.
What to do instead
For every choice, point to the sentence or paragraph that licenses it. If you cannot underline explicit text or name the minimal inference step, eliminate the choice.
Skimming past negative or exception qualifiers such as EXCEPT, NOT, and LEAST and then answering the positive version of the question.
Under time pressure, the eyes lock onto content words and the brain completes the stem as a familiar positive question.
What to do instead
Before looking at the options, rewrite the stem in plain words: 'Which one is false according to the passage?' Circle the qualifier and cross out every choice that the passage supports as true.
Choosing pronoun case by ear, as in 'between you and I' or 'for whoever is on duty,' instead of by grammatical function.
Spoken English and hypercorrection make object-case pronouns sound wrong after prepositions or in compound phrases.
What to do instead
Remove the other noun or pronoun and test with he/him: 'between me' gives 'between you and me.' After a preposition, use the object case. For who/whom, substitute he/him and match the case.
Missing run-on sentences or fragments because the sentence is long and contains familiar police or legal vocabulary that makes it feel complete.
Candidates read for meaning rather than structure, so a string of related ideas can pass as one sentence even when clauses are improperly joined.
What to do instead
Bracket each clause and count independent clauses. Each needs a subject and a finite verb and must be joined by a conjunction or proper punctuation. For fragments, ask who did what and whether the thought finishes.
Adding or subtracting percentage changes directly, or applying a second percent change to the original base instead of the new base.
Percentages feel additive, and '20% increase then 20% decrease' seems to cancel out when it does not.
What to do instead
Convert every change to a multiplier: +20% = 1.20, -15% = 0.85, then multiply in sequence. Keep percentage points distinct from percent change.
Mixing units in rate or proportion problems, such as minutes with hours or feet with miles, and then selecting the closest numerical answer.
The numbers look compatible, so the candidate calculates before converting and the answer choices reward the unconverted result.
What to do instead
Write a unit train before calculating, for example 45 miles/1 hour = 66 feet/second, and cancel units. Convert all times or distances to one unit before setting up the proportion.
Treating a conditional rule as a biconditional: from 'If a person is a sergeant, then the person passed the exam,' concluding 'If a person passed the exam, then the person is a sergeant.'
Conversational implication makes the reverse direction feel valid, especially when the rule appears in a familiar policy context.
What to do instead
Diagram the rule as A → B. The only valid contrapositive is not-B → not-A. Test a counterexample in which B is true and A is false before accepting a reversed inference.
In ordering, scheduling, or seating puzzles, locking in the first workable arrangement and failing to check every remaining constraint.
Confirmation bias and working-memory load make the first coherent arrangement feel finished, so later rules are ignored.
What to do instead
Number and list every constraint. After each placement, sweep the full list. If more than one arrangement remains possible, branch explicitly and eliminate any branch that violates even one rule.
Trying to retain a scene or text as an undifferentiated blur rather than encoding categories such as number of people, clothing, vehicles, direction of movement, and sequence of events.
Without a schema, the candidate has no retrieval structure and remembers isolated details that may not be the ones tested.
What to do instead
Use a fixed checklist during study: who, what, where, when, how many, and what changed. Rehearse in chunks and reconstruct the sequence aloud before checking your recall.
Revising an initial recollection after encountering a plausible later detail or a suggestive answer option.
Memory is reconstructive, and post-event information contaminates recall, especially when the later detail fits the candidate's expectations.
What to do instead
Record the observation immediately in a consistent order and commit to it. On test items, choose the option matching the first structured encoding unless you can identify a specific perceptual reason to change.