Québec ELA 6 Ministerial Exam common mistakes
Québec ELA 6 Ministerial Exam · Understand the traps and how to avoid them.
Summarizing the passage's topic instead of answering the specific question asked (e.g., asked how the character's attitude changes, the candidate writes what the story is about).
Under time pressure, candidates default to retelling the text in order and lose track of the question's focus; they treat 'comprehension' as 'show I read it'.
What to do instead
Before writing, underline the question's key words (how, why, compare, infer) and draft an answer that begins by directly restating that focus; then check that every sentence supports the question rather than the plot.
Giving an inference with no textual evidence, or quoting a line without explaining how it proves the point.
Candidates confuse personal opinion with inference and assume the marker will 'see' the connection; they also believe a quotation speaks for itself.
What to do instead
Use a two-part frame for every inference: 'The text shows ___ (quote or precise detail), which suggests ___ because ___.' Train by writing three such frames per practice text and checking each has both evidence and reasoning.
Misreading the task's text type and audience-writing an opinion piece when a persuasive letter was requested, or addressing a teacher when the prompt names a peer audience.
Candidates skim the prompt, latch onto the topic, and ignore the situational details (format, recipient, purpose) that determine register and structure.
What to do instead
Before writing, fill a quick three-line plan: Purpose / Audience / Form. Verify the final text uses that form's conventions (greeting and sign-off for a letter, headline and lead for an article) and a register suited to the named reader.
Producing an essay-like block with no paragraphing, no transitions, and an introduction that merely repeats the prompt.
Candidates write in one continuous flow to save time and were never taught that organization is scored separately from ideas.
What to do instead
Plan three to five topic points before drafting; give each its own paragraph with a topic sentence and a linking word (however, therefore, in addition). Replace the copied prompt with an introduction that states a position or previews the points.
In an interaction task, writing only answers or only questions-never responding to the other speaker's actual words or building on them.
Candidates treat dialogue as two monologues and prepare their lines in advance instead of listening to what was said.
What to do instead
Practise the 'acknowledge-and-extend' move: begin each turn by referring to the partner's idea ('You mentioned…'), then add a reason, example, or counterpoint. In role plays, note one phrase you can echo back before preparing your own point.
Using an informal spoken register in a formal oral task, or a stiff written register in a peer discussion-e.g., slang in a presentation, or 'furthermore' in casual dialogue.
Candidates have one 'English voice' and do not consciously adjust for setting, relationship, and purpose.
What to do instead
Build a short register checklist (contractions, slang, sentence length, politeness markers) and rehearse the same idea in two registers-one for a class presentation, one for a friend-to feel the difference.
Confusing similar forms in context-its/it's, their/there/they're, affect/effect, lay/lie-or misplacing commas around subordinate clauses.
Candidates rely on sound rather than sentence structure and have memorized rules without practising them in real sentences.
What to do instead
Apply a substitution test (replace 'it's' with 'it is'; if it fails, use 'its') and a clause test (can the clause stand alone?). Do short editing passes on your own drafts targeting one error type at a time rather than all at once.
Inconsistent verb tense and faulty subject–verb agreement in longer sentences, especially when a phrase separates subject and verb.
As sentences grow, candidates lose the grammatical thread and match the verb to the nearest noun instead of the true subject.
What to do instead
Before submitting, read the draft aloud and bracket each subject; check the verb agrees with the head noun, not the intervening phrase. Keep a tense timeline (past events in past tense, general truths in present) and verify shifts are intentional.
Judging a literary text only by whether the character was likable or the ending was satisfying, without discussing technique, theme, or the author's choices.
Candidates respond as consumers of stories rather than analysts and have not learned to name devices (imagery, symbolism, narrative voice) and link them to meaning.
What to do instead
Use a response frame: What is the text doing? How does it do it (name a device and quote it)? Why does that matter (theme or effect on reader)? Practise writing one analytical paragraph per short story using all three moves.
Presenting an opinion as fact or accepting a claim without testing it-no counterargument, no evaluation of the source's reliability or bias.
Candidates equate strong feeling with strong argument and have rarely been asked to argue against their own position.
What to do instead
For each position, write the strongest opposing point and answer it. Ask three source questions (Who wrote it? For whom? What is omitted?) before using a claim, and label statements as fact, inference, or opinion in your notes.