MB Français 40S common mistakes
MB Français 40S · Understand the traps and how to avoid them.
Reading the question stem in French but planning the answer in English, then translating sentence by sentence into French, producing calques like « Je suis d'accord avec le point que l'auteur fait » instead of « Je partage le point de vue de l'auteur ».
Under time pressure, candidates revert to their stronger language to organize ideas and only switch to French at the writing stage, so English syntax and idioms leak into the final text.
What to do instead
Do all planning in French: brainstorm with French connectors and French key words from the text, and build an outline of French sentences rather than English notes. Keep a personal list of ten high-frequency calques to avoid (faire une décision, être en charge de, réaliser que in the English sense) and check the draft against it.
Treating the reading comprehension passage as a search-and-match exercise: copying a sentence that contains a key word from the question, even when that sentence answers a different question or expresses the opposite view.
Keyword matching feels safe and fast, and candidates distrust their own paraphrase of the passage, so they lift surface text instead of verifying meaning.
What to do instead
Before answering, locate the relevant paragraph, then restate its idea in your own French words in the margin; only answer if your paraphrase supports the option. For inference and tone questions, identify the sentence that would have to be false for each wrong option and eliminate on that basis.
Writing an essay with no thesis in the introduction, drifting through three loosely related paragraphs, and ending with a summary that adds no position.
Candidates generate ideas as they write rather than committing to a defensible stance, often because they fear the topic is too broad or they misunderstand what « prise de position » requires.
What to do instead
Draft a one-sentence thesis in French before writing (« Certes..., mais... »), then allocate one paragraph per argument, each with a topic sentence that advances the thesis. Reserve five minutes at the end to rewrite the conclusion so it states the position and its consequence, not a recap.
Using connectors interchangeably - « cependant », « par ailleurs », « en effet », « donc » - so that a concession appears where a cause is meant, or two ideas are merely juxtaposed with « de plus » when the logic is contrast.
Connectors are memorized as a list of synonyms for 'and/but/so' rather than as logical operators, and candidates insert them as decoration at the start of sentences.
What to do instead
Learn connectors in functional pairs (cause: car, en effet, puisque; consequence: donc, par conséquent, ainsi; concession: certes, bien que + subjunctive, toutefois; addition: de plus, en outre, par ailleurs) and practise labelling each sentence in your own drafts with its logical function before choosing the connector.
Producing grammatically correct but lexically flat text: « très bon », « beaucoup de choses », « il y a des avantages et des inconvénients » repeated throughout, with no precise or abstract vocabulary from the course themes.
Candidates write around words they cannot retrieve instead of learning the thematic lexicon, and they avoid risk by reusing the safest expressions.
What to do instead
Build theme-based vocabulary sheets (identité, environnement, technologie, justice sociale) with collocations rather than isolated words, and practise rewriting a bland sentence three ways using a precise verb or noun. Deliberately include a small number of newly learned items per essay and verify their register in a dictionary.
Mishandling the subjunctive and hypothetical structures: writing « il faut que nous allons » or « si j'aurais le temps » in an argument about a hypothetical measure.
The rules are learned as conjugation drills disconnected from meaning, and spoken French habits override written norms under exam pressure.
What to do instead
Memorize a short trigger list (il faut que, bien que, avant que, pour que, douter que) and practise ten sentences per trigger aloud. For hypotheses, drill the fixed pattern « si + imparfait → conditionnel présent » and « si + plus-que-parfait → conditionnel passé » until it is automatic, then proofread every si-clause in the draft.
Neglecting agreement and tense consistency in longer written production: past participles left unagreed with a preceding direct object, adjectives not matched to plural or feminine nouns, and narration sliding between passé composé and présent.
Attention is consumed by content generation, so local grammar checks stop; errors cluster in complex sentences the candidate would catch in isolation.
What to do instead
Leave eight to ten minutes for a targeted proofread in fixed passes: verbs and tenses first, then noun-adjective and participle agreement, then pronouns. Read the text backwards sentence by sentence so meaning does not mask form errors.
Answering oral or written response questions about a literary or media excerpt with personal opinion only, ignoring the text's point of view, tone, or rhetorical strategies, and citing no textual evidence.
Candidates conflate 'reacting' with 'analysing' and are more comfortable stating their own view than interpreting the author's choices.
What to do instead
Use a fixed analytical frame for every excerpt: identify the enunciator and audience, the tone, two stylistic devices with quoted evidence, and the intended effect. Practise the formula « L'auteur recourt à ... afin de ... », which forces a link between a textual feature and an effect.
Misreading the task verb in the prompt - writing an argumentative essay when the prompt asks to compare and evaluate, or describing a phenomenon when asked to take a position on it.
Candidates skim the prompt and start from a familiar essay template rather than decoding what is being asked.
What to do instead
Underline the task verb and the object of the task in the prompt before planning (décrire, comparer, expliquer, prendre position, analyser), and write a one-line French restatement of the task at the top of the plan. Check the finished text against that restatement before submitting.
Poor time allocation: spending most of the period on the reading section or on a long first draft, then leaving the final essay unfinished or omitting the conclusion entirely.
Candidates treat each section as open-ended and do not rehearse under timed conditions, so they discover the time problem only during the exam.
What to do instead
Rehearse with a written timing plan (for example, minutes budgeted per section plus a reserved proofreading block) and practise at least two full timed run-throughs. In the exam, write the conclusion before polishing the body, so a complete position always exists on the page.