ALS A&E Junior High common mistakes
ALS A&E Junior High · Understand the traps and how to avoid them.
Reading only the answer choices and picking the one that 'sounds right' without going back to the passage or word problem for the supporting detail.
The exam is timed and long, so candidates skim to save seconds; familiar-sounding options trigger recognition rather than verification.
What to do instead
For every item, locate and underline the exact phrase or number in the passage/problem that supports the choice before marking it. If you cannot point to it, the option is a guess.
Answering Filipino comprehension items using everyday conversational meaning of a word instead of the meaning the passage establishes, especially for words with multiple senses (e.g., 'tumaas', 'bumaba', 'luwag').
Candidates rely on casual spoken Filipino and do not re-read the sentence context; formal written Filipino in the test often uses a narrower sense.
What to do instead
Substitute each candidate meaning back into the original sentence and check which one keeps the passage's logic intact. Flag any word you only know colloquially.
Treating a correlation or a single study in a science item as proof of cause and effect, then choosing the option that states a causal conclusion.
Everyday reasoning equates 'happened together' with 'caused'; test distractors are written to reward this shortcut.
What to do instead
For any conclusion option, ask: could a third factor explain this, and was there a controlled comparison? If the stimulus only shows association, the correct answer will describe association, not cause.
Ignoring the stated conditions of a science scenario (e.g., 'at constant temperature', 'in a vacuum', 'closed container') and applying a remembered rule that assumes different conditions.
Candidates memorize rules in isolation and skip the qualifier clause when reading quickly.
What to do instead
Before answering, circle every condition word in the stem. Then state to yourself which rule is valid under exactly those conditions before looking at the options.
Solving a multi-step word problem by grabbing the first two numbers and applying an operation, without identifying what quantity is being asked for.
Time pressure and number-spotting habits replace the translation step from words to an equation.
What to do instead
Write one line: 'Find: ___' and one line: 'Given: ___'. Only then choose operations. Check the answer's unit and rough size against the question asked.
Making arithmetic or unit-conversion errors on otherwise correct setups and not estimating to catch them (e.g., reporting a person's age as 240 or a discount larger than the price).
Mental arithmetic is rushed and there is no sanity check at the end.
What to do instead
Estimate the answer to one significant figure before computing, and compare. Convert all units to one system in writing before calculating.
Choosing the most impressive-sounding action in workplace/situational items (e.g., immediately reporting a coworker to management) instead of the proportionate, procedure-following step.
Candidates answer as they think a 'good employee' should sound rather than applying the sequence: clarify, follow policy, escalate only as needed.
What to do instead
Rank options by proportionality and order: gather facts, use the established channel, escalate only if unresolved. Eliminate options that skip steps or publicize a problem prematurely.
Answering self-and-society items from personal opinion or personal experience rather than from the concept named in the stem (e.g., explaining 'social stratification' with an anecdote about a neighbor).
These items feel like opinion surveys, so candidates do not switch into definition-and-application mode.
What to do instead
Identify the concept in the stem, state its definition in one sentence, then test each option for whether it is an instance of that concept. Personal examples are only useful if they match the definition exactly.
Misreading common digital-literacy terms as synonyms (phishing vs. spam vs. malware; password vs. PIN vs. two-factor code; URL domain vs. page title) and picking a plausible-sounding but wrong label.
Everyday use blurs these words, and distractors are deliberately near-misses.
What to do instead
Build a one-line definition and one example for each term. In the item, match the scenario to the definition's defining feature (e.g., phishing requires impersonation to obtain credentials), not to general 'bad online thing'.
Leaving items blank or changing correct answers to wrong ones in the final minutes because of second-guessing without new evidence.
Anxiety near the time limit plus a belief that 'first instincts are wrong' or that blanks are penalized more than they are.
What to do instead
Answer every item on the first pass, marking uncertain ones. In review, change an answer only if you can name a specific reason (a misread word, a missed condition); otherwise keep it.