Watching for Qualifiers and Absolutes

Words like "always", "never", "must", "only if", "best", "most likely" can dramatically change an option's correctness. 

Options that use absolutes ("The solicitor must disclose the information in all circumstances…") are often (not always) too extreme to be correct, since the law usually has exceptions.

Pay attention to these words both in the question and the answers. They often signal a trap or a key distinguishing factor. Similarly, if the question stem itself says "What is the best course of action?", it implies more than one option might be reasonable, but one is superior – you need to pick the most appropriate one given the facts.

Words like "best", "most appropriate", "first", "next" in the question are crucial. If a question asks "What is the NEXT step the solicitor should take?", an answer choice might describe a step that is correct, but maybe it's done later in the process, making it wrong as a next step. 

Or "What is the FIRST thing you should consider…?" – here, an answer could be something you'd consider eventually, but not the first priority. Always tailor your answer to the specific phrasing of the question.

Overthinking the Question

One common pitfall is overthinking the question. Remember that each question is meant to have one clear best answer; don't second-guess yourself into convoluted interpretations. Not every question is a trap. Some are straightforward if you know the law. 

Don't overthink a simple question – if it's asking for a definition or a direct application of a rule and you know it, answer confidently and move on. The exam mix usually has some easy, some medium, and some hard questions. 

Recognise when something is likely intended to be a quick win and take it. Save your mental bandwidth for the tougher ones.

Legal Red Herrings

Another pitfall is falling for red herrings – extraneous facts in the scenario meant to distract you. A "red herring" might be an unusual detail that has nothing to do with the legal issue but could send you down the wrong path if you fixate on it.

For example, a question about a contract issue might casually mention that one party was drunk at the time of agreement; that might be irrelevant to the tested point (perhaps the issue is actually about offer and acceptance, not capacity), so if none of the answers relate to intoxication, you should recognise that detail was a red herring and not let it confuse you.

Past candidates have noted the relentless use of red herrings within the MCQs aimed at throwing people off, so it's something to be prepared for. The antidote is to stick to the core facts that determine the legal outcome and the specific question asked.

Partial Knowledge Trap

MCQs can trick you if you have half-remembered knowledge. An option might cite a case name or legal term that you recognise, causing you to gravitate towards it, but recognition alone doesn't mean it's correct. 

Don't choose an answer just because it "sounds familiar." Ensure it actually answers the question.

For example, you might see an answer referencing Donoghue v Stevenson in a negligence question and think "I know that case, so this must be right" – but the option might be stating something incorrect about it. Always verify the content of the option, not just whether you recall the buzzwords.

Niche Legal Topics

Watch out for extremely niche topics. The SQE1 has been known to include a few very specific questions that even diligent candidates find unfamiliar because prep materials gloss over them. 

If you encounter a question on a point of law you've never heard of (say, an obscure rule in Solicitors' Accounts or a very specific point of tax law), don't panic.

Use general legal reasoning to eliminate nonsense answers and make an educated guess. The truth is, everyone in the SQE assessment is in the same boat for those questions – they are meant to be tough. 

Getting a couple of very niche questions wrong won't derail your chances, as long as you perform well on the core questions. So allocate your time wisely: it's better to accept a bit of uncertainty on a bizarre question than to lose time that you could use to answer easier questions correctly.