UFPR Vestibular common mistakes
UFPR Vestibular · Understand the traps and how to avoid them.
On the objective multiple-choice section, the candidate reads only the stem and the first two answer options, then marks the alternative that 'sounds right' without checking the remaining options for a better or more complete one.
Under time pressure and with 60+ items, candidates default to recognition over comparison; the first plausible option produces a feeling of familiarity that shuts down further analysis, and distractors in this exam are often designed to be partially true so they feel safe.
What to do instead
Adopt a fixed routine per item: read the stem, predict the answer in your own words before looking at the options, then read all five alternatives and eliminate explicitly. Mark any item where two options survive elimination and return to it only after finishing the section.
The candidate treats interdisciplinary items (history-geography, biology-chemistry, literature-history) as belonging to a single school subject and answers using only that subject's logic, ignoring the data or context supplied in the item.
School preparation is organized by discrete subjects, so candidates unconsciously file each item under one discipline and stop reading the supporting text, table, or map as evidence. The exam deliberately blends areas, so a single-subject reading misses the intended reasoning path.
What to do instead
Before answering, write one line identifying which two areas the item connects and which piece of given data each one requires. Train with mixed-area item sets rather than single-subject blocks in the final months.
The candidate skips or answers only superficially the foreign-language (Spanish/English) items, treating them as a small, low-value block to be guessed at the end.
Candidates weak in the chosen language assume the items are unrecoverable and prefer to spend minutes on 'harder' content subjects; in practice these items test reading comprehension and are among the most reliably scored when time is invested.
What to do instead
Reserve a fixed 10-12 minute window for the language block and practise the specific task types (main idea, reference, inference, vocabulary in context) using authentic short texts; never leave these items blank.
The candidate leaves objective items blank instead of guessing when time runs out.
Fear of a penalty for wrong answers, or a vague memory that some exams subtract points, leads to blank responses; candidates also simply lose track of the clock and never reach the final items.
What to do instead
Confirm the scoring rule for the current edition before the exam and, absent an explicit penalty, fill every bubble. Practise with a hard stop at the 80% mark of the allotted time so the last items always get a guessing pass.
The candidate writes the discursive essay (produção textual) directly onto the answer sheet, or drafts so briefly that the structure is discovered while writing.
Time anxiety and the belief that the essay must be 'inspired' rather than planned; candidates also underestimate how much of the grade depends on argumentative structure and coherence rather than on vocabulary or length.
What to do instead
Always produce a written plan of 5-8 minutes: thesis, two or three arguments with the evidence or example for each, and the conclusion's proposal. Write the body on scratch paper or in the draft space, then transcribe, using the remaining minutes for a revision pass.
The candidate ignores the textual genres and the supporting texts (textos motivadores) supplied in the prompt and produces a generic opinion essay on the theme.
Candidates prepare a memorized essay template and try to fit any theme into it; they also skim the prompt and miss the explicit command (e.g., to write a letter, an article, or a proposal) and the instruction about how to use the motivating texts.
What to do instead
Underline the command verb and the genre requirements in the prompt before planning, and list what each motivating text contributes. Build a genre checklist (addressee, register, structure, purpose) and verify the draft against it before transcribing.
The candidate copies or paraphrases long stretches of the motivating texts into the essay instead of using them as a starting point for their own argument.
Copying feels safe and fills lines quickly, and candidates fear that their own examples are less 'correct' than the supplied material; they may also lack background knowledge on the theme and lean on the prompt.
What to do instead
Practise the rule of using each motivating text in at most one short reference, always followed by an inference or consequence written in your own words. Build a small stock of recurring themes (environment, technology, inequality, citizenship) with two concrete examples each.
The candidate's conclusion restates the introduction without proposing anything, or proposes something vague such as 'the government should do more'.
Essay models from earlier schooling often end with a summary, and candidates are unsure what a concrete intervention looks like; vagueness feels safer than naming an agent and an action that could be criticized.
What to do instead
Draft conclusions with four explicit elements: agent, action, means, and intended effect. Keep a list of plausible agents (legislative, executive, school, media, civil society) and rehearse transforming a vague wish into a specific measure.
The candidate writes the discursive answer in an informal register, using slang, contractions, first-person anecdotes, or abbreviations carried over from messaging habits.
Candidates transfer everyday writing habits into an assessed text and do not distinguish between the discursive genres that admit a personal voice and the formal standard expected; they also run out of time and stop revising for register.
What to do instead
Maintain a personal list of substitutions (informal term to formal equivalent) and apply it during a dedicated register-revision pass. Read the draft aloud mentally to catch colloquialisms, and avoid first-person singular unless the genre requires it.
The candidate exceeds or falls well short of the expected line count and hands in a text with illegible corrections, erased passages, or writing outside the designated area.
Candidates count lines only at the end, after the argument has expanded or contracted beyond plan; last-minute insertions are squeezed into margins, and crossings-out are made without rewriting the passage cleanly.
What to do instead
During planning, allocate a target number of lines per paragraph and check the count after each paragraph. Reserve the final minutes for a clean transcription, making corrections only by rewriting the affected sentence in full within the allotted space.