Top Mistakes to Avoid in a Verbal Reasoning Practice Test

A verbal reasoning practice test serves a purpose beyond merely assessing grammar or word choice; it fundamentally evaluates how individuals process and reason through information. These tests are designed to uncover a person's reasoning abilities, highlighting cognitive skills rather than just proficiency with language.

However, many test-takers, as well as hiring teams, often make common errors that can skew results and ultimately lead to misguided hiring choices. By recognising and understanding these pitfalls, readers can better prepare themselves, interpret results with greater accuracy, and extract significant insights into a candidate's true potential.

Mistake #1: Assuming Writing Skills Are Enough

There are times when candidates who seem unprepared are not the only ones who struggle to perform well during the hiring process. Human Resources teams may misinterpret the results of skill assessment tests, leading to misconceptions about a candidate's abilities.

Additionally, hiring managers might mistakenly believe that a verbal reasoning practice test can provide insight into a candidate's personality traits, when in fact, such tests are primarily designed to evaluate analytical thinking skills. This disconnect can result in hiring decisions that do not accurately reflect a candidate's true potential.

Candidates often fall into predictable traps:

• Overconfidence, assuming good writing skills are enough without practising logical reasoning

• Skimming passages, rushing through, and missing subtle details

• Spotting patterns where none exist, guessing based on letter sequences instead of reasoning

Industry data from RightPeople often shows that high-performing candidates in interviews can still score poorly when they underestimate the structured, timed nature of these tests.

Mistake #2: Treating It Like a Grammar or Personality Quiz

A verbal reasoning practice test emphasises the importance of critical thinking skills rather than relying on previously acquired knowledge. This type of assessment challenges individuals to analyse and interpret text, evaluate arguments, and draw logical conclusions based on the information presented, encouraging a deeper level of comprehension and reasoning abilities. The questions measure whether a candidate can:

• Separate fact from assumption

• Evaluate arguments and find logical conclusions

• Detect inconsistencies in complex statements

Treating the test as a literacy quiz is a common mistake. According to RightPeople's research, assessments that stay true to cognitive reasoning deliver better predictions of on-the-job decision-making, especially for roles that require evaluating written reports, policies, or data.

Mistake #3: Underestimating Timing and Test Practice

Mistakes often start before test day. Candidates who avoid full-length practice sessions fail to build the mental stamina needed for a timed environment. Others waste too much time on one tricky question and then rush through the rest.

Organisations can make timing mistakes, too. Some introduce a verbal reasoning practice test only after interviews, which can drain resources by advancing unsuitable candidates too far. Early integration, as seen in RightPeople's workflows, helps companies save time and reduce bias by screening objectively from the start.

Mistake #4: Taking the Test in the Wrong Environment

The environment plays a crucial role in our performance, often more than we realise. For instance, taking a verbal reasoning practice test in a serene, quiet room, free from distractions and equipped with a reliable internet connection, can yield significantly better results compared to attempting the same test while navigating a noisy commute.

The bustling sounds of traffic, chatter, and other interruptions can create a chaotic atmosphere that hinders concentration and negatively impacts our cognitive abilities.

Companies should ensure:

• Distraction-free test conditions

• Technical checks and clear instructions before starting

• A support channel for any test-day issues

RightPeople's assessment platforms typically include built-in safeguards, allowing both candidates and hiring teams to trust the accuracy of results.

Mistake #5: Misinterpreting and Misapplying Results

Missteps in preparation or administration don't just affect one score; they can derail entire hiring processes. Selecting candidates based on flawed test data can lead to turnover, compliance issues, or unnecessary hiring costs.

Research shows that when verbal reasoning practice tests are used alongside other assessments, companies gain a clearer, more accurate view of future job performance. RightPeople frequently reports prediction rates of top performers exceeding 90% when tests are correctly applied.

Practical Fixes for Better Results

Avoiding these pitfalls is straightforward with a bit of planning:

• Simulate the real experience practice under timed, quiet conditions

• Read carefully, slow down just enough to prevent misinterpreting questions

• Involve experts in the review. HR teams benefit from a psychologist's input when interpreting reports

• Standardise the process, keep conditions consistent for every candidate

RightPeople's clients often combine verbal reasoning practice tests with other cognitive tools to create a complete, legally defensible assessment process.

The Bottom Line

A verbal reasoning practice test is most effective when approached with care and consistency. The key point to remember is to avoid rushing, misreading questions, and poorly administering the test. When conducted properly, these assessments provide a reliable measure of reasoning ability and can serve as strong predictors of workplace performance.

In a competitive labour market, precision is essential. Businesses that utilise structured assessments can prevent costly mis-hires, while candidates who prepare adequately can demonstrate their true potential. Whether refining an existing recruitment process or starting anew, now is the time to evaluate testing practices and address any gaps.