Andalusia PAU Portuguese common mistakes
Andalusia PAU Portuguese · Understand the traps and how to avoid them.
In the reading-comprehension section, the candidate answers using only the sentence where the key word appears, without reading the surrounding paragraph, and so misses the contrast or negation that follows.
Under time pressure candidates scan for lexical matches and treat the first matching line as the answer; Portuguese texts often place the thesis after a concessive clause ("embora", "apesar de", "não obstante"), so the isolated sentence reverses the meaning.
What to do instead
Before answering, locate the keyword, then read one full paragraph before and after it; underline concessive and negative markers (embora, apesar de, não, jamais, longe de) and check the answer against them. Practise with texts containing a concessive-then-main-clause structure until the pattern is recognised automatically.
The candidate confuses the personal infinitive with the future subjunctive in written production, writing "se eu fazer" or "quando eu vou" instead of "se eu fizer" and "quando eu for".
Both forms look like the infinitive or present tense, and Spanish-influenced intuition (the candidate's L1) offers no reliable parallel because Spanish uses a different subjunctive paradigm; the candidate has memorised the conjugation tables but not the triggers.
What to do instead
Memorise the trigger list for future subjunctive (se, quando, enquanto, assim que, logo que, caso, sempre que referring to future) and drill the irregular trio fazer/fizer, ir/for, ser/for, ter/tiver, vir/vier. Write ten original sentences using each trigger, then check them against the list before submitting.
In the written production task, the candidate writes a well-formed but generic essay that never addresses the specific prompt question, or addresses only part of a two-part prompt.
Candidates rehearse memorised topic sentences and reproduce them regardless of the prompt; under exam stress they read the prompt once and start writing, missing the second requirement or the required register (formal letter versus opinion article).
What to do instead
Before writing, spend three minutes producing a prompt breakdown: identify the communicative situation, the addressee, the required text type, and each explicit question, numbering them. After drafting, tick each numbered question in the margin to confirm it is answered, and check that the greeting and closing match the required register.
The candidate treats Portuguese and Spanish as interchangeable and produces portuñol forms such as "también" for "também", "pero" for "mas", "hay" for "há", or "muito" placed before an adjective where Portuguese requires it after.
The candidate's L1 is Spanish and the languages share enough lexicon that interference goes unnoticed during fluency-oriented writing; the candidate reads for meaning rather than form, so false friends pass unchecked.
What to do instead
Keep a personal interference log of the twenty highest-frequency Spanish-to-Portuguese swaps and review it weekly. In the final five minutes of any writing task, run a targeted check for that list only (mas/mais, muy/muito, también/também, pero/mas, hay/há, nada/nao), rather than a general reread.
When asked to transform or reformulate a text (for example, turning direct speech into reported speech, or an active sentence into the passive), the candidate changes the words but keeps the original tense and deixis, producing a sentence that is grammatically correct but semantically wrong.
The task is treated as paraphrase rather than as a grammatical operation; candidates do not systematically adjust tense backshift, pronouns, and time and place markers (hoje, aqui, amanhã) together.
What to do instead
Apply a fixed four-step checklist to every reformulation: (1) shift the reporting verb and backshift the tense, (2) reassign pronouns, (3) shift time expressions, (4) shift place expressions. Do the four steps in order and reread the result as a standalone sentence to confirm the meaning is preserved.
In reading mediation, the candidate summarises the source text by copying whole sentences verbatim, or produces a summary so compressed that the source's stance and hedging disappear.
Candidates believe close copying is safer than reformulating, and they lack practised strategies for compressing without losing stance; they also omit the attribution and audience framing the mediation task requires.
What to do instead
Practise the two-column method: left column for the source's key propositions, right column for the target reader's needs. Then write the mediation from the right column only, without looking at the source wording, and add explicit attribution ("segundo o texto", "o autor defende que") plus the hedging the original carried.
The candidate answers vocabulary items by choosing the option that looks like the Spanish cognate rather than the one that fits the Portuguese context, falling for false friends such as "largo" (wide, not long), "rato" (moment, not rat), "oficina" (workshop, not office), "exquisito" (delicious, not exquisite).
Cognate intuition is fast and feels reliable, and the candidate has not built a personal list of high-frequency false friends; exam distractors are deliberately built on exactly these pairs.
What to do instead
Build a false-friends list organised by the Spanish word that triggers the error, with a Portuguese example sentence for each. In the exam, when two options seem plausible, insert each into the full sentence and check collocation and register rather than relying on the shape of the word.
On questions about the sociocultural context of Portuguese-speaking countries, the candidate applies a Brazil-only frame to Portugal, Angola, Mozambique or Cabo Verde, or conflates spelling reforms with pronunciation changes.
Most study material available online is Brazilian, and the candidate generalises from it; the Acordo Ortográfico is often misremembered as having changed pronunciation or as applying identically in all signatory countries.
What to do instead
Learn a compact comparison grid: for each country, one fact on orthographic norm, one on a distinctive lexical or syntactic feature, and one on a cultural or historical marker. For the Acordo Ortográfico, be able to state clearly that it addressed spelling, not pronunciation, and note the differing implementation timelines.
The candidate manages cohesion by stringing clauses together with "e" and "mas", producing a text that is grammatically correct but lacks the subordination and discourse markers expected at this level.
The candidate writes as they speak and has not internalised the written-register connectors; fear of error makes simple coordination feel safer than subordination.
What to do instead
Memorise a working set of connectors by function (cause: uma vez que, dado que; consequence: portanto, por conseguinte; contrast: no entanto, contudo, ainda que; addition: além disso, acresce que) and practise inserting at least four different functions into every practice essay. Check the draft and replace repeated "e" and "mas" with a functional alternative.
The candidate runs out of time because they read the whole text before looking at the questions, then write the production task with no planning or checking time.
Reading everything first feels thorough but wastes time on irrelevant paragraphs, and the production task is left to the end with no buffer; candidates also underestimate how long the reformulation task takes.
What to do instead
Adopt a fixed time budget and rehearse it in mock conditions: read the questions first, then scan the text for the relevant sections; allocate a defined block to each task and reserve the last minutes for the interference and connector checks. Practise with a timer until the budget is automatic.