GAT General common mistakes
GAT General · Understand the traps and how to avoid them.
Reading the passage first in full, then reading the question stem, then rereading the passage from the beginning to find the answer.
School comprehension tests often present questions after the passage, so candidates carry over the habit of reading everything before checking what is actually being asked; under time pressure this causes repeated reading and wasted minutes.
What to do instead
Read the question stem first and underline the task word, such as 'inferred', 'main idea', or 'according to the passage'. Then scan the passage for the relevant sentence or paragraph and read only that section closely before checking the options.
Selecting an answer because it is true in general knowledge or sounds morally or scientifically plausible, even though the passage does not state or imply it.
Prior knowledge intrudes easily when options are written to sound authoritative, and candidates confuse 'true' with 'supported by the text'.
What to do instead
For every option, write or mentally cite the line or paraphrase in the passage that supports it. Eliminate any choice that cannot be tied to specific textual evidence, no matter how factually correct it may be outside the passage.
On antonym questions, choosing a word that is merely different from the prompt word rather than its exact opposite, such as choosing 'cool' for 'hot' when 'freezing' is available.
Under time pressure, candidates stop at the first option that contrasts in a loose way and do not compare the strength, connotation, and part of speech of all choices.
What to do instead
Arrange the options on a rough spectrum from most similar to most opposite. Check that the chosen word is the same part of speech as the prompt and is an exact opposite in degree and connotation, not just a related contrast.
In two-blank sentence completion, choosing a word for the first blank and then forcing the second blank to fit, instead of testing both blanks together.
The sentence is processed left to right, and a plausible first word creates a trap that makes candidates ignore the logical relationship signaled by the second blank.
What to do instead
Before looking at options, predict both words from the sentence's logical clues, such as contrast, cause, or definition. Then eliminate any option pair that fails either blank, and reread the completed sentence to confirm both words work together.
Setting up full algebra and calculating an exact answer before looking at the answer choices, even when the choices are widely spread.
School mathematics rewards exact computation, so candidates default to formal solving and do not use the structure of multiple-choice options to save time.
What to do instead
Spend the first ten seconds estimating the answer's size and eliminating choices using units, parity, digit patterns, or approximate values. Solve exactly only when elimination leaves more than one plausible choice.
Treating 'percent of' and 'percent more than' as interchangeable, and adding or subtracting percentage points as if they were ordinary percentages.
Percentage language is compressed and easy to misread, especially when the base changes between two statements; candidates match numbers without labeling the base.
What to do instead
Translate every percentage phrase into an explicit equation and label the base, for example 'price after increase = original × 1.20'. For percentage-point changes, write the two percentages separately and subtract them, never multiply.
In quantitative comparison, dividing or multiplying both quantities by a variable without checking whether the variable can be zero or negative.
Candidates treat the comparison as an equation and apply familiar algebraic operations without considering that inequality direction and undefined values depend on sign.
What to do instead
Before any operation, test the variable with negative, zero, and positive values. If the relationship changes, choose 'cannot be determined'; only perform multiplication or division after establishing the sign or splitting into cases.
Drawing one diagram and refusing to redraw when a new condition conflicts with the existing layout, instead forcing the old arrangement to fit.
Time invested in the first diagram creates attachment, and candidates fear that starting over wastes time even though a fresh diagram is faster than patching a contradiction.
What to do instead
Keep diagrams small and use pencil. When a new condition cannot be placed without contradiction, redraw from scratch in under thirty seconds. For 'which could be' questions, sketch several independent mini-diagrams rather than one crowded master diagram.
Translating 'unless', 'not both', and 'if and only if' as ordinary one-way conditionals, then drawing conclusions that do not follow.
Everyday language does not distinguish necessary from sufficient conditions, and timed logic games reward quick translation over precise formalization.
What to do instead
Write standard forms before solving: 'A unless B' becomes 'not B implies A'; 'not both A and B' becomes 'A implies not B'; 'A if and only if B' becomes two conditionals. Check the contrapositive of every conditional you write.
Answering a 'must be true' question with an arrangement that is merely possible, because it is the first valid scenario found.
Finding one arrangement that satisfies the rules creates confirmation bias; candidates stop searching once a choice looks consistent instead of testing whether it is forced.
What to do instead
For 'must be true', attempt to falsify each option by building a counter-arrangement that satisfies all rules but makes the option false. Eliminate any option that can be false; the correct choice is the one that survives every attempt.