Aomori Entrance Japanese common mistakes
Aomori Entrance Japanese · Understand the traps and how to avoid them.
When asked 「傍線部の理由を説明せよ」, the candidate copies a nearby sentence verbatim and stops, without stating the causal link in their own words.
Explanatory texts in this exam almost always place the answer across two clauses (a claim plus its grounds), and the ground clause often follows the claim with 「なぜなら」「～からだ」. Candidates trained to hunt for a single matching sentence latch onto the claim and miss that the question asks for the reason, not the assertion. Time pressure reinforces the shortcut.
What to do instead
Before writing, underline the question's demand word (理由 / どういうことか / なぜ) and then find two endpoints: the claim and its ground. Write a draft that physically joins them with 「～ので」「～ため」. Check that the draft contains a because-relation, not just a restatement. Practise on past explanatory passages by covering the model answer and writing the connector yourself.
The candidate answers a 「どういうことか」 question by paraphrasing only the final paragraph's conclusion, ignoring the definition or example given earlier in the passage.
Japanese explanatory writing often opens with a concrete example, then generalises, then returns to the example at the end. Candidates read the ending as the 'main point' and skip the middle where the abstract term is actually defined. The exam deliberately asks about the abstract term, not the closing example.
What to do instead
Map the passage's structure first: mark 例 / 定義 / 一般化 / 筆者の主張 in the margin. When the target word is an abstract noun or a coined term, locate its 定義 (often signalled by 「～とは」「～を～と呼ぶ」) and build the answer from that definition plus one supporting detail. Verify the answer would still be true if the closing example were deleted.
The candidate treats 「～ではない」 and 「～とは限らない」 as equivalent to a plain negative assertion, and selects an option that overstates the author's claim.
Partial negation and hedged claims are grammatically small but semantically decisive. Options in this exam frequently differ only by strength (always / sometimes / not necessarily). Candidates under time pressure match on topic words and ignore the scope of negation.
What to do instead
Circle every 否定 and 限定 expression (ない、とは限らない、必ずしも、むしろ、むしろ～ではない) while reading. When comparing options, ask for each: is this stronger or weaker than the passage? Eliminate any option whose strength exceeds the text. Drill with paired options that differ only in one qualifier.
In a literary passage, the candidate reports what happened in the plot rather than what the character felt, and answers a 心情 question with an action description.
Literary questions are phrased around 心情 but the passage conveys emotion indirectly through action, dialogue, and physical description (手が止まる、目をそらす). Candidates default to the narrative surface because it is easier to verify, and because school instruction often emphasises plot summary.
What to do instead
For every 心情 question, locate the 心情の変化 point (a before-and-after pair) and identify the trigger between them. Convert the physical description into an emotion word, then justify it by quoting the bodily or behavioural cue. Train by rewriting three action sentences per passage as 「～と感じている」 statements and checking them against the text.
The candidate attributes a line of dialogue or an inner thought to the wrong character, or reads a character's spoken words as the author's view.
Japanese literary passages frequently omit subjects, and quoted speech may be unmarked by 「と」 in casual registers. Candidates track speakers loosely and then build an interpretation on a misattributed line. The exam plants options that are plausible only under the wrong attribution.
What to do instead
While reading, annotate each quoted or thought segment with the speaker's initial in the margin. Check honorifics and sentence-final particles (だ / です / わ / の) which signal speaker and addressee. Before choosing, re-read the two lines above the quote to confirm who is acting.
The candidate translates a classical sentence word-by-word using modern Japanese meanings and produces a mistranslation of a 古語 whose sense has shifted.
High-frequency 古語 such as あはれ、をかし、うつくし、いと、さらなり、あまた have modern-looking forms but different senses; うつくし in particular means 'dear/lovable', not 'beautiful'. Candidates rely on shape similarity and never check the 古語辞典 entry.
What to do instead
Memorise a fixed list of roughly 100 exam-frequency 古語 with their modern equivalents and a one-line example each, grouped by false friend (modern-same, modern-different). In practice, whenever a word looks familiar, treat it as suspect and verify against the list before translating.
The candidate omits or misidentifies 係り結び: they fail to change the sentence-ending form after ぞ・なむ・や・か (連体形) or こそ (已然形), and mistranslate emphasis as question.
係り結び is a structural rule, not a vocabulary item, so it is not learned by memorising words. Candidates also confuse the question particle や・か with the emphatic 係助詞 use, and miss that こそ signals 已然形 rather than emphasis alone.
What to do instead
Build a habit: scan the sentence for ぞ・なむ・や・か・こそ first, before translating anything. Note the ending form, apply the rule (連体形 for four of them, 已然形 for こそ), and only then translate. Practise by identifying the 結び from the ending alone, then predicting which 係助詞 must appear earlier.
The candidate writes a kanji that is orthographically close but wrong, such as confusing 績/積, 概/慨, 暴/爆, or reading 促す as うながす when the furigana demands 促す＝せかす in context.
Kanji questions in this exam test same-on readings and radical distinctions (忄 vs 木 vs 氵), and candidates study by shape recognition rather than by component meaning. Reading questions exploit 熟字訓 and context-dependent readings that a shape-based memory cannot resolve.
What to do instead
Study kanji in radical families: for each pair, write the radical's meaning and one word per kanji. For readings, always learn a kanji inside two full words rather than in isolation, and record the reading that appears in the passage. Keep an error log of only the pairs you personally confuse, reviewed weekly.
The candidate uses a four-character idiom (四字熟語), 慣用句, or ことわざ with the right general meaning but the wrong nuance or wrong component order, e.g. writing 以心伝心 as 以心用心 or using 情けは人のためならず with its opposite sense.
Idioms are memorised as whole strings with a rough gloss, so a single substituted character survives recall. Proverbs with a deceptive literal reading are especially vulnerable because the candidate's first interpretation feels correct.
What to do instead
Learn each idiom with its four characters written out and one sentence of usage, not just a gloss. For proverbs, write the intended meaning and the common misreading side by side, and note which one the exam favours. Test yourself by filling a single missing character rather than recalling the whole phrase.
In the composition task, the candidate writes a general opinion with no connection to the prompt's data or stated condition, and never states a position until the final line.
Under time pressure, candidates fall back on memorised essay templates and pad with abstract statements about society. They also misread the task's conditions (字数, 段落数, 資料を踏まえる, 自分の体験を交える) and lose marks on requirements rather than on prose quality.
What to do instead
Spend the first two minutes writing a one-line 主張, two 理由 with evidence (one from the prompt material, one from experience), and a 結論, then draft to that skeleton. Underline each condition in the prompt and tick it off before finishing. Allocate the last three minutes to counting characters and checking that paragraph one already signals your position.