Ishikawa Entrance Japanese common mistakes
Ishikawa Entrance Japanese · Understand the traps and how to avoid them.
When asked to identify the main claim of an explanatory text, the candidate quotes the most emphatic or final sentence of the passage as the answer, even when that sentence is a supporting example or a concession the author later qualifies.
Expository prose in this exam often front-loads a topic and saves the actual thesis for a mid-passage pivot (「しかし」「むしろ」「要するに」). Candidates read for tone rather than for argument structure, so emphasis and position substitute for logical role, and the closing rhetorical flourish gets mistaken for the conclusion.
What to do instead
Before answering, label each paragraph in the margin with a single function word: 主張, 例示, 対比, 譲歩, 結論. Answer only from the paragraph labelled 主張 or 結論. Practise by taking past passages and underlining every concessive marker (「確かに…だが」「もちろん…しかし」) to see how the author's real position sits after the concession, not before it.
The candidate answers a 'what does the author mean by X' item using the everyday meaning of the phrase rather than the meaning it carries within the passage, and picks the option that sounds most natural in isolation.
Literary and expository passages use words in extended or ironised senses (「甘い」 meaning lenient, 「重い」 meaning burdensome responsibility). Candidates rely on their first lexical association and never check whether the surrounding two sentences license that reading.
What to do instead
For every vocabulary-in-context item, cover the four options, reread the sentence plus one sentence on each side, and write your own paraphrase in plain words first. Then match your paraphrase to an option. If your paraphrase and your chosen option differ in any way, discard the option.
In literary passages, the candidate attributes an emotion or judgement to the narrator that actually belongs to a character, or vice versa, and answers questions about 'the speaker's feelings' from the wrong viewpoint.
Japanese literary texts shift viewpoint without explicit pronouns, and interior monologue is often unmarked. Candidates track events but not who is perceiving them, so they merge narrator and character into one voice.
What to do instead
On the first read, mark every quoted thought or speech with the name of the person whose head it comes from, and mark narration separately. For any feeling question, locate the exact clause expressing the feeling and ask: is this inside quotation marks, inside a と-clause of thought, or in the narrative frame? Answer only from the frame the question asks about.
The candidate translates kanbun by reading the kanji in Japanese word order without applying the return marks, producing a sentence whose grammar is superficially plausible but whose subject and object are reversed.
Candidates learn the レ点 and 一二点 symbols as decoration rather than as a parsing algorithm, so under time pressure they skip the reordering step and read left to right. Chinese-influenced syntax also puts the object before the verb, which the untrained eye reads as subject-first.
What to do instead
Apply a fixed mechanical routine every time: locate every レ点, 一二点 and 上中下点, number the reading order in pencil above the characters, then read aloud in that numbered order before writing any translation. Do ten short kanbun passages this way with the order written out, and check each against a translation only after finishing.
When handling classical Japanese, the candidate reads auxiliary verbs such as けり, なり, ぬ, む at face value in modern meaning and misidentifies tense, hearsay, or intention, which then corrupts the whole translation.
Several classical auxiliaries have two or more distinct functions (なり = assertion vs. hearsay; ぬ = completion vs. negation; む = intention vs. supposition) distinguished only by attachment form. Candidates memorised meanings as a flat list without the connection rules, so they cannot disambiguate.
What to do instead
Build a one-page table organised by attachment form (未然形, 連用形, 終止形, 連体形) rather than by meaning, and for each auxiliary list its functions in that row. Drill by classifying the preceding form first, then choosing the function. In exams, always identify the stem form before translating the auxiliary.
The candidate answers grammar items by ear, choosing the particle or conjugation that 'sounds right', and systematically fails items testing に vs. で, は vs. が, or れる/られる ambiguity.
Conversational fluency rewards fluency over analysis, and spoken Japanese tolerates ellipsis that written exam items do not. Candidates have never explicitly mapped particles to grammatical roles, so subtle distinctions collapse under exam pressure.
What to do instead
For particle items, state the role aloud before choosing: が = subject marker, を = direct object, に = target/recipient/time point, で = location of action/means, は = topic with contrastive force. For は/が, decide whether the sentence introduces new information (が) or contrasts known information (は). Do twenty minimal-pair sentences and justify each choice in writing.
The candidate writes kanji that are graphically close to the target but wrong in one component, such as confusing 氏 and 紙's right side, 未 and 末, or 博 and 薄, and loses marks on the writing section despite knowing the reading.
Recognition memory is stronger than production memory. Candidates have read the kanji many times and feel confident, but they have rarely written it, and the exam's writing items test recall of exact stroke components, not recognition.
What to do instead
Maintain a production-only list: for each kanji you miss, write it ten times from memory with the reading spoken aloud, then test yourself the next day by writing from the meaning alone. Group confusable pairs (未/末, 博/薄, 待/持) and write both side by side with a note on the distinguishing stroke.
On kanji reading items, the candidate gives the on-reading where the context requires the kun-reading, or applies a common reading to a compound that uses a less frequent one (熟字訓 such as 今日, 大人, 下手).
Candidates memorise one reading per kanji and treat it as the default. Japanese compounds, however, are read as wholes, and some are not decomposable into component readings at all, so the default strategy fails precisely on the items designed to test it.
What to do instead
Learn vocabulary as whole words with their readings attached, never as isolated kanji. Keep a dedicated list of 熟字訓 and irregular compounds and review it weekly. In the exam, if a compound's reading does not match any familiar pattern, ask whether it is a special reading before guessing.
In the composition section, the candidate writes a fluent, personal essay that never explicitly answers the prompt, or answers it only in the final line after a long preamble.
School writing habits reward build-up and personal reflection, while exam prompts are scored on whether a clear position is stated and supported. Candidates also fear committing to a position and hedge so heavily that no claim is identifiable.
What to do instead
Use a fixed three-part structure: state your position in the first two sentences, give two concrete supporting reasons each with an example, and restate the position in the last sentence. Before writing, spend two minutes drafting a one-line answer to the prompt and check every paragraph against it.
On listening items, the candidate selects the option matching the first number or fact mentioned, then stops listening, missing the correction or condition that arrives later in the track.
Working memory is overloaded by continuous speech, so candidates latch onto the first salient token as an anchor. Exam listening scripts are deliberately written with mid-track revisions (「いや、やっぱり」「ただし」) that invalidate the initial figure.
What to do instead
Take notes in two columns: provisional and final. Write the first figure in the provisional column, and only move it to final when the speaker confirms it without later revision. Train by listening to tracks that contain deliberate self-corrections and noting every change of number, date, or plan.