LCA English and Communication common mistakes
LCA English and Communication · Understand the traps and how to avoid them.
Choosing an answer that matches a word from the passage but answers a different question, such as picking a detail sentence when the question asks for the writer's main point.
The candidate scans for familiar vocabulary and stops at the first option containing it, so surface word-matching replaces actual comprehension of what the question is asking and what the passage says.
What to do instead
Before reading the options, restate the question in your own words and decide what kind of answer is required (main idea, detail, inference, tone). Then test each option against the passage and reject any that is true but does not answer this specific question.
Treating a hedge such as 'some researchers suggest' or 'in many cases' as if it were an absolute claim, then rejecting the correct option as too weak or accepting a stronger wrong one.
Candidates read for gist and overlook qualifying words, so they import their own assumptions about how confident the writer is and misjudge the strength of the claim.
What to do instead
Underline every qualifier (some, often, may, tends to, in most cases) and every absolute (all, never, proves, always). Match the option's strength of claim to the passage's strength of claim; an option that is stronger or weaker than the text is wrong even if it is on topic.
Marking an inference option as correct because it is plausible in real life rather than because it follows necessarily from the passage.
Candidates bring outside knowledge into the task and confuse 'likely true in the world' with 'supported by this text', which is easy to do when the topic is familiar.
What to do instead
For each inference option, ask which specific sentence or sentences force that conclusion. If you cannot point to textual evidence that makes the inference necessary, treat the option as unsupported and eliminate it.
Writing sentences in which the grammatical subject does not agree with its verb, especially when a long phrase sits between them, as in 'the range of options available to students were limited'.
The candidate's ear tracks the nearest noun rather than the head noun, and under time pressure the intervening plural noun overrides the true subject.
What to do instead
Before finalising a sentence, bracket the subject and find its head noun, then check the verb against that head. Practise with constructions containing of-phrases, along with, and each/every so the pattern becomes automatic.
Producing comma splices and run-ons by joining two independent clauses with only a comma, or by stringing clauses together with no punctuation at all.
Candidates punctuate by where they would pause when speaking, which does not reliably signal a clause boundary in writing.
What to do instead
Test each clause by asking whether it could stand alone as a sentence. If two such clauses are joined, use a full stop, a semicolon, or a comma plus a coordinating conjunction. Read the draft aloud and mark every place you pause, then verify the grammar at each mark.
Writing an essay that answers the prompt only in the final paragraph, after several paragraphs of general background on the topic.
Candidates front-load context because it feels safe and easy to write, and they postpone committing to a position, so the introduction never states a thesis and the body has no argument to develop.
What to do instead
Draft a one-sentence thesis before writing anything else and place it at the end of the introduction. Outline each body paragraph as a claim plus evidence plus link back to the thesis, and delete any paragraph that does not advance that thesis.
Describing evidence instead of analysing it: quoting or summarising a source and then moving straight to the next point without explaining how the evidence supports the claim.
Candidates equate including evidence with arguing, often because they were rewarded in earlier study for gathering material rather than interpreting it.
What to do instead
After every piece of evidence, write two sentences: one stating what the evidence shows and one stating why that matters for your claim. If you cannot write the second sentence, the evidence is not doing any work and should be cut or replaced.
Missing the second part of a multi-part listening or speaking task, such as answering the first question asked but not the follow-up, or noting one speaker's view and ignoring the other's.
Attention is consumed by formulating a response or by note-taking, so the candidate stops listening once they have something to say and misses the remainder of the turn.
What to do instead
Note keywords rather than full sentences so attention stays on the audio, and keep listening until the speaker clearly finishes. Before responding, restate the whole question to yourself, including any second clause, and check your answer covers each part.
Choosing a vocabulary option that is close in general meaning but wrong in register or collocation, for example selecting 'commence' to fill a casual gap or pairing a verb with a noun it does not naturally take.
Candidates learn words as single definitions without their typical partners, so they judge options by rough synonymy and ignore how the word behaves in context.
What to do instead
Learn new words in collocation chunks (draw a conclusion, raise a concern, meet a deadline) and tag each one for register (formal, neutral, informal). When answering, read the whole sentence and check both meaning and whether the word naturally combines with the surrounding words.
Presenting an argument that only attacks the opposing view, or only defends one's own, without engaging the strongest version of the other side or acknowledging counter-evidence.
Candidates treat argument as advocacy and assume that conceding any point weakens their case, so they build one-sided essays that ignore the complexity the task rewards.
What to do instead
Include a paragraph that states the strongest counter-argument fairly, then rebut it with evidence or explain why it does not overturn your position. Signal the move explicitly (critics argue that...; however, this overlooks...) so the reasoning is visible to the reader.
Using informal abbreviations, contractions, and chat-style phrasing in academic or professional writing, such as 'don't', 'etc.', and 'a lot of' in a formal report or examination essay.
Candidates transfer habits from messaging and social media and are not taught to distinguish between registers, so they do not notice the mismatch between their phrasing and the expected audience.
What to do instead
Maintain a personal list of informal forms with their formal equivalents (don't/do not, a lot of/many, get/obtain, kids/children) and run a targeted check for them during proofreading. Read the finished text imagining a formal reader such as an examiner or employer, and adjust anything that would sound out of place.