Multiple-choice options can help you test a rule, but they should not replace reasoning. Eliminate a choice because it violates a stated condition or calculation, not because its position or wording feels unlucky.
Predict the required features
For a visual question, identify the needed orientation, count and shading before comparing options. For a number question, calculate or estimate the expected range. This creates a specification against which each option can be checked.
If an option has the right shape but the wrong dot position, you have a concrete reason to reject it. A vague feeling that an option looks wrong is less dependable.
Work backward when it is simpler
Suppose a problem asks for a number that leaves a remainder of one when divided by three. Testing a few candidate options may be faster than building a long expression. This is still reasoning: the options are being checked against the stated property.
For an ordering puzzle, test each proposed arrangement against the strongest clue first. One violated clue is enough to reject an arrangement.
Understand the guessing arithmetic
With four options and exactly one correct answer, a uniform random choice has probability 1/4 of being correct. If you can genuinely eliminate two wrong options and choose uniformly between the remaining two, the probability becomes 1/2.
The improvement depends on correct elimination. Removing the right answer because of a weak hunch can make the strategy worse.
Ignore answer-position myths
There is no useful basis in starp's stated scoring method for preferring a particular letter or assuming the previous answer determines the next. Focus on the content of the current question.
Use review time deliberately
Change an answer when you discover a specific error or a better-supported rule. Mere discomfort is not new evidence. Before submitting, check that the selected option is the one your reasoning supports, especially after revising a calculation or navigating back through the test.