Seating and Fairness Decision in a Written Reasoning Section
During the logical reasoning section, an invigilator notices that candidate A and candidate B, seated adjacent, have identical wrong answers on several items, including an unusual distractor. Candidate A's paper shows erasure marks and a changed answer on item 7; candidate B's paper is clean. Both deny collaboration. The room has 40 candidates and one invigilator. The section has 20 minutes remaining. The invigilator must decide what to do now, what to record, and whether to act on suspicion alone. Academy rules allow reseating, a written note in the record, and referral to a review panel, but not accusation or confiscation without evidence.
1. What should the invigilator do in the remaining 20 minutes, and what should not be done?
Read the worked answer
Do now. Separate the two candidates by reseating at least one of them, with a neutral, non-accusatory reason ('routine reseating'), and continue invigilating the room. Note the time and the seats.
Do not. Do not accuse, do not confiscate papers without evidence, and do not interrogate during the timed section, which would disadvantage both candidates and disrupt the room.
Reasoning. Identical wrong answers on an unusual distractor are a red flag, not proof; erasure marks on one paper are consistent with copying but also with independent second thoughts. The proportionate action is to remove the opportunity and preserve the record.
2. How should the invigilator document and refer the matter, and what standard should the review panel apply?
Read the worked answer
Documentation. Write a factual, time-stamped note: the matching wrong answers, the erasure on A's item 7, B's clean paper, the reseating and its time, and both candidates' denials. Avoid conclusions in the note; record observations only.
Referral. Send the note and both answer sheets to the review panel per procedure.
Standard for the panel. Suspicion alone is insufficient. The panel should weigh converging evidence (identical unusual errors, physical proximity, erasure pattern) against alternative explanations (shared preparation, a common taught error). A finding should rest on the balance of specific, documented facts, and any sanction should be proportionate and recorded with reasons.