BC GLA 12 common mistakes
BC GLA 12 · Understand the traps and how to avoid them.
Answering from prior knowledge or personal opinion instead of locating the claim the passage actually makes, so the chosen option is plausible in general but unsupported by the text.
Under time pressure the brain pattern-matches to a familiar topic and stops reading, and interesting passages invite agreement rather than verification. The candidate never returns to the lines that decide the question.
What to do instead
Before selecting, point to the specific sentence or paragraph that licenses the answer and say it silently. If you cannot cite a line, eliminate the option. For inference items, ask 'what must be true given this text?' rather than 'what is true in the world?'
Treating a paraphrase as wrong because it does not reuse the passage's wording, or treating an option as right because it repeats a striking phrase from the passage.
Surface word matching feels safe and fast, so candidates reward lexical overlap and distrust synonyms. Distractors are often built by lifting exact phrases and distorting their logic.
What to do instead
Restate each option in your own words before judging it, then compare meaning to meaning. Flag any option that copies a distinctive phrase and check whether the surrounding claim has been reversed, narrowed, or widened.
Writing an essay that summarizes the topic or narrates a personal story without stating and defending a position, so the response earns content marks for fluency but not for argument.
Narrative and summary are the default school writing modes, and students often misread an analytical prompt as an invitation to describe an experience. The thesis is left implicit.
What to do instead
Draft a one-sentence thesis before writing the introduction and test it with 'someone could disagree with this.' Each body paragraph should open with a claim that advances that thesis, followed by evidence and commentary linking the evidence back to the claim.
Using quotations or textual evidence as decoration, dropped in without introduction, context, or explanation of how it supports the point.
Candidates know evidence is required and insert it to satisfy a checklist, but they have not been taught that evidence needs framing and interpretation to do argumentative work.
What to do instead
Use the introduce-quote-explain pattern: state who is speaking and in what situation, give the quotation, then write two sentences on what it shows and why that matters to the thesis. Delete any quotation you cannot explain in your own words.
Producing comma splices and run-on sentences by joining two independent clauses with only a comma, or by stringing clauses together with 'however' or 'therefore' as if they were conjunctions.
Speech flows without punctuation, and conjunctive adverbs look like conjunctions. Writers who compose quickly by ear reproduce spoken rhythm on the page.
What to do instead
Learn the three legal joins: period, semicolon, or comma plus coordinating conjunction. When editing, read each sentence and mark every subject-verb unit; if two complete units appear with only a comma between them, repair the join.
Misplacing or omitting commas around non-restrictive elements, and inserting commas around restrictive ones, which changes the meaning of the sentence.
Candidates apply commas by pause length rather than by grammatical function, so they cannot distinguish 'my brother, who lives in Victoria' from 'my brother who lives in Victoria.'
What to do instead
Test whether the clause or phrase is essential: remove it and ask if the sentence still identifies the same person or thing. If removal changes which entity is meant, it is restrictive and takes no commas; if the sentence still makes sense, it is non-restrictive and takes a pair of commas.
Choosing a word by approximate sound or general vibe rather than precise meaning, confusing pairs such as affect/effect, imply/infer, comprise/compose, or less/fewer.
These pairs are near-homophones or near-synonyms learned through exposure rather than definition, and exam pressure pushes candidates toward the most familiar-looking option.
What to do instead
Build a personal list of confusable pairs with a one-line definition and an original example sentence for each. In the exam, substitute a plain synonym for the doubtful word and check whether the sentence still says what you intend.
Ignoring connotation and register, selecting a synonym that is technically denotative but wrong in tone, such as 'childish' for 'childlike' or 'notorious' for 'famous.'
Vocabulary study often pairs words with single definitions, so candidates never learn the attitudinal shading or the formal-informal dimension that determines fitness in context.
What to do instead
When learning a new word, record its connotation as positive, neutral, or negative and note one collocation it commonly appears in. In questions asking for the best word, rank options by tone and eliminate those that clash with the surrounding attitude.
Judging an argument on whether the conclusion is agreeable rather than on whether the evidence supports it, so a well-reasoned argument for an unwelcome conclusion is marked weak.
Evaluating reasoning requires separating belief from inference, and candidates default to assessing the claim's truth or popularity instead of the strength of the link between premises and conclusion.
What to do instead
Restate the argument in premise-conclusion form before evaluating. Then ask only two questions: are the premises adequate, and do they actually support this conclusion? Note unstated assumptions and ask whether they are warranted.
Accepting a causal or statistical claim without checking for alternative explanations, sample size, or the difference between correlation and causation.
Causal language in a passage reads as a conclusion to be understood rather than a claim to be tested, and candidates lack a routine for interrogating evidence.
What to do instead
For every causal or numerical claim, ask what else could produce the same result, how the data were gathered, and whether the comparison group is appropriate. Name the flaw explicitly in your own words before looking at the options, then match your formulation to the closest choice.