Kumamoto Entrance Japanese common mistakes
Kumamoto Entrance Japanese · Understand the traps and how to avoid them.
When asked 傍線部「どういうことか」in an 説明文, the candidate copies a nearby sentence almost verbatim into the answer box instead of restating the content in their own words.
The line is usually a paraphrase or metaphor whose literal wording does not answer the question; copying feels safe because the words appear in the text, and under time pressure the candidate grabs the nearest complete sentence rather than tracking the 指示語 chain back to the antecedent.
What to do instead
Before writing, underline the 指示語 (これ・それ・このように) in the target line and draw an arrow to the sentence it points to; then rewrite the answer so that the key noun from the passage is retained but the predicate is replaced with one that states the abstract claim. Practise by covering the model answer and writing a 20–30 character summary, then comparing only the predicate.
In 論説文 the candidate answers a 理由 question by citing what the author criticises (the 反対意見) rather than what the author asserts, producing an answer that is the logical opposite of the model.
Explanatory prose typically opens with a counter-view (「〜という意見がある」) before the author's 主張, and the counter-view is introduced with more concrete examples, so it reads as the main content. Candidates also miss the 逆接 marker (しかし・むしろ) that flips the argument.
What to do instead
Map the paragraph structure before answering: mark every 逆接 and まとめ表現 (つまり・要するに・したがって) and label each paragraph A (author) or B (counter). The answer to any 理由 or 主張 question must come from an A paragraph. Do this on three practice passages and check that the final 要するに sentence matches your answer.
In 小説 the candidate explains a character's feeling using only the emotion word in the text (「悲しかった」) or a bare adjective, without grounding it in the scene, action, or dialogue that produced it.
Literary passages rarely state feelings directly; they are conveyed through 情景描写, gesture, and silence. Candidates who read for plot rather than for 心情の変化 miss the indirect cues and fall back on a generic label, which loses the 理由 marks that accompany the 心情 marks.
What to do instead
For every 心情 question, locate the 心情 before and after the target line and state the change (「〜から〜へ」). Quote one concrete action or piece of scenery as evidence and attach it with 「〜という様子から」. Train on passages with no explicit emotion words so the habit of reading behaviour as feeling is forced.
In 古文 the candidate translates a sentence using modern Japanese meanings for words that changed meaning (e.g. あはれなり, をかし, うつくし, いとほし) and answers the 心情 or 内容 question from that mistranslation.
Modern readers assume cognates carry their current sense; 古文単語 are also polysemous and their sense depends on genre (和歌 vs 物語 vs 随筆), so a single memorised gloss misleads. Candidates also skip the 敬語 layer, which encodes who is speaking to whom.
What to do instead
Keep a 古文単語 list organised by 感情語 (あはれ・をかし・うれし・いとほし) with the genre-specific sense noted, and before answering identify the 敬語 verbs to fix the speaker–listener relation. Read the 主語補助 line: if the subject is unstated, resolve it from 敬語 before interpreting feeling.
In 漢文 the candidate reads 返り点 in the wrong order, or treats 置き字 (而・矣・焉) as pronounced words, producing a 書き下し文 that reverses subject and object.
返り点 are read bottom-up (レ点 then 一二点) and the rule interacts with 置き字 and 再読文字 (未・将・当・応), which beginners handle one at a time. Without writing the 訓読 sequence out, the eye jumps to the topmost mark and the sentence order inverts.
What to do instead
Always write the 訓読 order in the margin as numbers (① ② ③) starting from the character nearest the レ点, then read the numbers aloud before writing 書き下し文. Memorise the 再読文字 set with their two readings (「未だ〜ず」「まさに〜べし」) and drill ten short sentences daily, checking 置き字 are dropped in the 書き下し.
On 漢字の書き取り the candidate produces a character that is correct in shape but wrong in 送り仮名 or in a subtle component (e.g. 専 vs 博, 概 vs 慨), or writes the 音 reading where the context demands the 訓 reading.
The exam tests 同音異義語 and 同訓異義語 in context, and candidates memorise isolated words rather than the phrase; small component differences are invisible when writing fast, and 送り仮名 rules (「表す」vs「現す」) are learned by feel rather than by rule.
What to do instead
Study 漢字 in collocation, never alone: write the whole phrase and its reading (「気概」「感慨」). Group 同訓異義語 by meaning (あらわす＝表す/現す/著す) with one example sentence each. For 送り仮名, apply the 活用 rule: write the 送り仮名 that changes with the word's conjugation.
On 慣用句・四字熟語 the candidate picks an option that is semantically plausible but collocationally wrong (e.g. 「耳が痛い」used for physical pain), or confuses two idioms sharing one kanji.
Idioms are stored as vague wholes; the body-part or key kanji triggers a guess, and the distractor is built to match the literal meaning of that kanji. Candidates also ignore the sentence's subject and register, which constrain which idiom fits.
What to do instead
Learn each idiom with its fixed subject and a one-line situation (「耳が痛い」＝自分の弱点を指摘されてつらい), and record the pair it is confused with. Before choosing, substitute each option into the sentence and check the subject and the 肯定/否定 polarity match.
On 文法 questions the candidate identifies the 品詞 or 文の成分 by the word's position or by its meaning rather than by its 活用 and 接続, and mislabels 連体詞, 副詞, or 形容動詞.
School grammar classifies by formal behaviour (活用の有無, 言い切りの形, what it modifies), which differs from the intuitive meaning-based categories candidates carry from English or from everyday use. 連体詞 (大きな・あらゆる) and 副詞 look similar in a sentence.
What to do instead
Apply a fixed test for each word: does it 活用? what is its 言い切り? what does it modify (体言 or 用言)? Write the 品詞分解 of one sentence per day with the test written beside each word. For 文の組み立て, identify the 主語 by asking 「何が/誰が」 of the 述語, not by position.
In 作文 the candidate writes a general opinion with abstract nouns (「大切だ」「必要だ」) and no personal experience, and the piece drifts off the 課題の条件 (字数, 段落数, 「体験を交えて」).
Under timed conditions candidates reach for safe generalities, and they draft without first extracting the 条件 from the prompt. Without a concrete episode the 理由 and 具体例 sections collapse into repetition, which caps the score regardless of length.
What to do instead
Spend the first two minutes underlining every 条件 in the prompt and writing a three-line 構成メモ: 意見 → 体験（時・場所・行動）→ 結論. Force at least one specific detail (a number, a place, a quoted remark) into the 体験 paragraph, and reserve two minutes at the end to count 字数 and check 段落 and 文体 (だ・である) consistency.
The candidate allocates time evenly across sections, so 古文・漢文 and 作文 are rushed at the end, and 漢字 questions are answered last with no review, losing easy marks to 送り仮名 and 誤字.
The 現代文 passages feel long and absorbing, so the candidate over-invests there; classical sections are perceived as hard and are deferred, and 作文 is left with too little time to plan. Easy 知識 marks are then sacrificed for uncertain 読解 marks.
What to do instead
Fix a section budget in advance (e.g. 漢字・語句 first for 10 minutes, then 現代文, then 古文・漢文, then 作文 with a hard 25-minute floor), and practise with a timer that you check at section boundaries. Do 漢字 and 語句 first because they are fast and high-yield, and never start 作文 with less than the planned floor remaining.