Balearic PAU French (UIB) common mistakes
Balearic PAU French (UIB) · Understand the traps and how to avoid them.
Answering comprehension questions by copying a full sentence from the text verbatim, even when the question asks for a reformulation, a synthesis, or a personal judgement (e.g. "Expliquez en vos propres mots pourquoi...").
Under time pressure, candidates locate the relevant lines and treat copying as a safe strategy; they have often practised only locating information, not reformulating it, and lack the paraphrastic vocabulary (synonyms, nominalisation) to restate an idea.
What to do instead
Before writing, underline the source sentence, then close it off and write a 6–10 word answer using at least one synonym and one grammatical transformation (verb → noun, active → passive). Train with short texts: for each question, produce two versions, one literal and one reformulated, and compare. Check that your answer would still be true if the original sentence had never existed.
Confusing the question type and answering with the wrong format: giving a yes/no when the question starts with "Pourquoi", giving a personal opinion when it asks "D'après le texte", or answering a "vrai/faux" item without justifying from the text.
Candidates skim the question stem and jump to the content word; the exam mixes question types in one exercise, and the instruction words (D'après le texte, Selon l'auteur, À votre avis, Justifiez) carry the scoring logic but are not salient.
What to do instead
Circle the instruction verb in every question before reading the options or writing. Build a one-page table of instruction verbs (identifier, expliquer, justifier, comparer, résumer, donner votre avis) with the required answer shape for each. Practise a set of questions on one text where you only label the type, without answering, then answer.
Missing implicit meaning and inference: treating a text as a list of facts, so questions about the author's intention, tone, or the function of an example are answered with literal content that does not address the question.
School reading habits focus on literal extraction; inference requires noticing connectors (pourtant, en revanche, or, certes… mais), modality (semble, prétend, heureusement), and rhetorical questions, which candidates read past as decoration.
What to do instead
Do a "connector hunt" on each practice text: highlight every contrast, concession and causal connector and write what it signals about the author's stance. Then answer one inference question per text and justify with the connector plus the clause it governs. Practise distinguishing fact from opinion by marking each paragraph F or O.
Answering vocabulary-in-context items with the most frequent dictionary meaning of the word rather than the meaning it has in the passage (e.g. reading "un stage" as a stage/phase, or "assister à" as to assist).
Candidates rely on a single memorised gloss and on resemblance to English or Catalan/Spanish; French has many faux amis and polysemous words, and the exam deliberately selects context-dependent items.
What to do instead
For each item, cover the options and write a synonym that fits the sentence, then match to the options. Keep a personal faux-amis and polysemy log organised by word, with the sentence context and the correct sense. Revise collocations rather than isolated words (faire un stage, assister à une réunion, une carrière / une voiture).
Losing points on grammar items because of interference from Catalan/Spanish: omitting obligatory subject pronouns, misusing passé composé vs imparfait, forgetting agreement of the past participle with avoir when the direct object precedes, and dropping partitive articles after negation.
The source languages allow null subjects, have different tense-aspect distributions, and lack the same participle-agreement rule; candidates translate structure rather than apply French rules, and the error is invisible to them when rereading.
What to do instead
Drill the four high-yield contrasts in isolation with 10 sentences each, then in a mixed text where you must justify each choice aloud (why imparfait here?). For participle agreement, apply a mechanical check: find avoir, find the direct object, ask whether it precedes the verb. Reread your own writing only for these four points using a checklist.
Producing a written expression that is off-task or under-length: ignoring the required register and text type (lettre formelle, courriel, article, argumentation), not covering all bullet points in the prompt, and writing well under the required word count.
Candidates write what they can say rather than what is asked, because they plan in their head instead of on paper; register markers (vous vs tu, formulas of address, opening and closing of a formal letter) are under-practised, and time management leaves the writing task last.
What to do instead
Spend 3–4 minutes on a written plan: list the required text type, the register, and one line per prompt bullet, then allocate a paragraph to each. Memorise a small template bank (formal email opening/closing, article headline and lead, concession and conclusion formulas) and practise writing to a 5-minute plan under timed conditions. Count words at the end and add one developed example if short, not filler sentences.
Writing accurate but simplistic sentences with no connectors and no varied structures, so the expression task scores low on range despite few errors; or the opposite, attempting complex structures (subjunctive, si-clauses) and breaking them.
Candidates play safe to avoid errors, or use memorised complex phrases without controlling the trigger conditions (e.g. using subjunctive after espérer, or "si + conditionnel" in the same clause).
What to do instead
Learn ten connectors with their register and punctuation (de plus, en revanche, par conséquent, certes… mais, bien que + subj., même si + indic.) and force yourself to use five in every practice essay. For complex structures, write the rule on a card with two correct and two incorrect examples, and self-correct your essays using a highlighter for each attempted complex structure.
Confusing cultural references or reducing the francophone world to France: not knowing the status of French in Belgium, Switzerland, Canada/Québec, or francophone Africa, and misreading questions about laïcité, the education system, or French media institutions.
Preparation focuses on hexagone culture and on stereotyped images (Paris, gastronomy); institutional vocabulary (laïcité, collectivité, canton, communauté française) is rarely taught explicitly, so candidates guess.
What to do instead
Build a one-page comparative table: country/region, official status of French, one institution, one linguistic feature (e.g. septante/nonante, dépanneur). Learn five key institutional terms with a one-line definition each. Practise by matching short authentic-style notices or headlines to their country or institution and justifying the clue.
Treating listening/reading of unfamiliar authentic material as all-or-nothing: stopping at the first unknown word, or abandoning a task because the accent or register is unfamiliar (Québec, Suisse, African French).
Candidates are trained on textbook French and graded readers; they lack tolerance of ambiguity and have no strategy for extracting the gist before detail, so one unknown word blocks the whole segment.
What to do instead
Practise a two-pass method: first pass for gist (who, where, what stance) with no dictionary; second pass for detail. Train with short authentic clips and texts from different francophone regions, noting three regional features each time. Keep an "unknown words" list but only add words that recur or block meaning.
No self-assessment loop: candidates repeat the same errors across practice tasks because they never build a personal error log or revise their own corrected work, and they prepare only by doing full mock exams.
Feedback is received as a mark rather than as information; there is no habit of classifying errors (lexical, grammatical, strategic, cultural), so the same mistakes recur and revision time goes to what is already mastered.
What to do instead
After every practice task, classify each error into one of four categories and record it with the corrected sentence. Before the next task, review the last five entries and set one specific target (e.g. no missing subject pronouns). Alternate full mocks with targeted drills on your top two error categories, and review the log weekly to confirm categories are shrinking.