Yamanashi Entrance English common mistakes
Yamanashi Entrance English · Understand the traps and how to avoid them.
While listening, the candidate stops writing to mentally translate the last sentence into Japanese, then misses the next two utterances and cannot answer the following question.
School English training encourages word-by-word translation into Japanese, so the candidate treats comprehension as a translation task rather than as real-time processing; working memory is consumed by translation and nothing is left for incoming speech.
What to do instead
Practise 'chunk listening': listen to a 40–60 second passage once and write only keywords (who, where, number, decision) in English or simple symbols, never full Japanese sentences. Do 10 short passages per session with the audio played once only, then check answers. Train the habit of letting an unknown word pass and re-attaching at the next discourse marker (but, so, actually, in the end).
The candidate answers a listening question using a word they heard rather than the meaning of the whole exchange, choosing an option that repeats a phrase from the audio but contradicts the speaker's final decision.
Distractor options are built by recycling words from the recording; candidates under time pressure match surface words instead of tracking the speaker's conclusion, which is often signalled late by 'Actually, let's not' or 'I changed my mind'.
What to do instead
Before listening, underline the question focus (what will the woman do / how many / why). While listening, mark any change of plan with an arrow or '×' next to the earlier idea. After listening, answer only from the final stated decision, and explicitly reject options that merely repeat heard vocabulary.
On short reading passages, the candidate reads the passage first in full, then reads the questions, and runs out of time or re-reads the passage two or three times.
The candidate treats the passage as a text to be understood completely rather than as a source of answers to specific questions; without a purpose for reading, every sentence feels equally important.
What to do instead
Adopt a question-first routine: skim the question stems (not the options) to know what to look for, then scan for the relevant sentence, read that sentence plus the one before and after, and answer. Time each short passage at 2–3 minutes and log which line gave the answer, so the candidate practises locating rather than translating.
The candidate chooses an answer that is true in general knowledge or plausible in real life but is not stated in the passage, especially on inference questions.
Japanese entrance reading items often include options that are reasonable common sense; candidates confuse 'sounds true' with 'supported by the text', and the habit is reinforced because some school tests reward background knowledge.
What to do instead
For every chosen option, the candidate must point to the exact words in the passage that support it, or state the logical link in one sentence ('the passage says X, and X means Y'). Practise classifying options into stated / inferable / not mentioned, and physically cross out the not-mentioned ones.
On dialogue passages, the candidate ignores speaker labels and speaker-change lines, so they misattribute an opinion or feeling to the wrong person.
The candidate reads dialogue as a continuous block of text and does not track who says what; pronouns like 'she' and 'that' then have no clear referent in the candidate's mind.
What to do instead
Annotate while reading: write A and B in the margin and put a tick or cross next to each name to record that person's stance. Circle every pronoun and draw an arrow to its referent. Do five short dialogues per session with this annotation until it becomes automatic.
The candidate fills a grammar gap by choosing the option that 'sounds right' in Japanese translation, ignoring the grammatical signal in the surrounding words (preposition, auxiliary, conjunction, or noun form).
Translation-based intuition works for simple sentences but fails on items testing tense agreement, articles, infinitives versus gerunds, and prepositions, because Japanese does not mark these features the same way.
What to do instead
Teach a signal-first procedure: identify the word immediately before and after the blank, decide the required part of speech, then check agreement, tense, and collocation. Keep an error notebook organised by category (tense, preposition, article, word form) and re-test only the categories the candidate has previously got wrong.
The candidate memorises single Japanese–English word pairs and then uses a word with the wrong collocation or register, for example choosing a formal Latinate verb in a casual dialogue or pairing a verb with the wrong preposition.
Vocabulary lists in Japan are often organised by translation equivalent, so candidates never see which words co-occur; near-synonyms look interchangeable when only the Japanese meaning is stored.
What to do instead
Record new words in chunks, not alone: 'make a decision', 'take part in', 'be likely to'. Sort vocabulary by situation (shop, school, club, travel) and by formality, and write one original sentence per item set in a realistic dialogue line.
In dialogue-completion items, the candidate writes a grammatically correct sentence that does not respond to the previous speaker's actual function (for example answering a request with an offer, or replying to an invitation with an unrelated comment).
The candidate focuses on form and forgets that the blank must perform a communicative act; they also overlook cues such as question tags, 'Would you like…', or a follow-up line that reveals the expected response.
What to do instead
Label the preceding line's function first (invitation, request, apology, opinion, suggestion), then choose the matching response pattern. Practise with a list of function–response pairs and always read the line after the blank to confirm the reply fits the flow.
The candidate writes a composition with correct grammar but no clear structure: no topic sentence, ideas in the order they occurred, and no linking words, so the reader cannot follow the argument.
School writing practice often rewards sentence-level accuracy and length rather than organisation, and candidates have never been taught a repeatable paragraph plan under exam time pressure.
What to do instead
Use a fixed three-part plan before writing: state your position in one sentence, give two reasons each with a concrete example, close with a restatement. Allocate 2 minutes to plan, 8 to write, 3 to check. Require at least three linking devices (first, for example, however, therefore) and verify each paragraph has one main idea.
On integrated reading–writing tasks, the candidate copies long phrases from the source passage or adds personal opinions and outside facts instead of summarising and connecting the given texts.
The candidate treats the task as a free composition or as a copying exercise; they do not distinguish the source authors' claims from their own voice, and paraphrasing skill is underdeveloped.
What to do instead
Practise a two-column note sheet: source A's claim, source B's claim, and where they agree or conflict. Write the response using sentence frames that mark attribution ('The first passage argues that…', 'While A focuses on…, B points out…') and paraphrase every borrowed idea by changing both wording and sentence structure. Check that no copied run of more than four words remains.