LGCSE English Language common mistakes
LGCSE English Language · Understand the traps and how to avoid them.
When answering a comprehension question worth several marks, the candidate writes a single short sentence that gives only the surface meaning, then stops, so a four-mark question receives a one-mark answer.
Candidates treat every question as requiring one answer rather than reading the mark allocation as a signal of how many distinct points, quotations or layers of meaning are needed. Under time pressure they also confuse 'answering the question' with 'exhausting the text' and leave obvious secondary points unwritten.
What to do instead
Before writing, convert the mark tariff into a target count: roughly one developed point per mark, plus one spare. For a four-mark question, plan at least four distinct points or two points each supported by a short embedded quotation and a comment on its effect. Practise by rewriting past answers against the mark scheme, noting exactly which points were missed and where the evidence was available in the passage.
The summary task is answered by copying out a long stretch of the source, or by listing isolated details in the order they appear, without grouping them into the required focus.
Candidates do not separate the selection stage from the writing stage. They underline everything that looks relevant, then lift whole sentences because paraphrasing feels risky, and they never reorganise the material around the specific bullet point or question focus.
What to do instead
Use a two-pass method: first read with the focus in mind and note only points that answer it, in note form of no more than five or six words each; then close the source and write the summary from the notes, combining related points into single sentences. Practise paraphrasing by changing word class and sentence structure (for example, turning a cause-and-effect sentence in the source into a noun phrase). Aim for concise, linked sentences, not a sequence of fragments.
In language-analysis questions the candidate identifies a technique by name ('the writer uses a metaphor', 'this is emotive language') and then moves on, without quoting the words or explaining the effect on the reader.
Technique-spotting is easier to teach and easier to remember than effect analysis, so revision often stops at labelling. Candidates also assume naming the device earns the mark, and they lack a reliable sentence routine for moving from feature to effect.
What to do instead
Adopt a fixed three-part comment: quote the exact words, name what the choice does (connotations, associations, contrast, sound), then state the effect on the reader or the impression created. Ban device names that are not followed by a quoted example and an effect. Rehearse with short extracts: choose one word, list three associations it carries, and write a single sentence connecting the strongest association to the writer's purpose.
Structural features are ignored or confused with language features, so answers about structure describe word choices rather than shifts in focus, chronology, paragraph length, repetition of motifs or the movement between opening and ending.
Many candidates have never been taught structure as a separate analytical category and default to the vocabulary of language analysis. They also read the text as a container of content rather than as a sequence the writer has deliberately arranged.
What to do instead
Learn a short structural checklist: where the passage begins and ends, what changes in between, shifts in time or place, changes of narrator or perspective, one-sentence paragraphs, repeated images, and widening or narrowing focus. Practise by summarising a passage as a sequence of movements ('opens with..., narrows to..., widens to..., returns to...') before writing any analysis, then link each movement to its effect on tension or the reader's understanding.
Evaluation questions are answered with personal opinion alone ('I think the writer is right because I agree') or with unsupported judgement ('this is very effective'), without weighing the evidence or considering an alternative viewpoint.
Candidates read 'evaluate' as an invitation to give a view rather than to judge the strength of a case. They also lack the vocabulary of evaluation and are reluctant to concede anything to a viewpoint they disagree with.
What to do instead
Use a judgement-plus-evidence-plus-counterpoint structure: state what the writer claims, cite the specific evidence or technique used, judge how convincing it is and why, then acknowledge the strongest opposing consideration before concluding. Build a bank of evaluative verbs and qualifiers (persuasive, overstated, selective, balanced, one-sided, compelling because...). Practise judging the same passage twice, once sympathetically and once sceptically, to make counter-argument habitual.
In transactional writing the candidate produces a piece with the right content but the wrong register and form: a letter with no address or sign-off, an article with no headline, a speech with no address to the audience, or informal slang in a formal task.
Under timed conditions candidates draft content first and run out of time for the conventions, and many have not internalised the distinctive features of each form. Register slips because they write as they speak rather than imagining a specified reader.
What to do instead
Before writing, spend two minutes producing a form checklist for the stated task: audience, purpose, and the three or four conventions the form demands (headline and subheading for an article; salutation, structured paragraphs and sign-off for a letter; direct address and rhetorical questions for a speech). Match register explicitly by naming the reader in the plan and choosing vocabulary suited to them. Check the conventions are present in the final two minutes.
Persuasive pieces assert a position repeatedly without developing arguments, and rhetorical devices are bolted on (a triplet here, a rhetorical question there) without connection to the point being made.
Candidates equate persuasion with force of feeling and repetition of the thesis. Devices are learned as a list to be ticked off rather than as tools serving an argument, so they sit ornamentally on top of undeveloped content.
What to do instead
Plan three or four distinct arguments, each with a claim, a reason and a concrete example or consequence, before drafting. Attach each device to a specific argument: use a triplet to compress three consequences of one claim, a rhetorical question to expose a gap in the opposing case, and statistics or anecdote to support a particular point. After drafting, annotate each device and delete any that is not doing argumentative work.
Descriptive writing becomes a plot summary or a list of events ('then we went... and then we saw...'), while narrative writing lacks a clear shape and ends abruptly without resolution or deliberate final image.
Candidates default to recount because it is the familiar mode, and they mistake event for interest. They also draft without planning an ending, so the narrative runs out of time or stops wherever the clock does.
What to do instead
For description, freeze time and expand a single moment through sensory detail, precise verbs and varied sentence structure, avoiding a sequence of events. For narrative, plan a five-part arc (situation, rising complication, turning point, consequence, resonant final image) in five lines before writing, and write the final image first so the piece is aimed at it. Practise opening and closing paragraphs as standalone exercises.
Sentence boundaries are insecure: comma splices and run-on sentences join independent clauses with a comma, while fragments are punctuated as full stops. Dialogue punctuation and apostrophes are also inconsistent.
Candidates punctuate by ear and by pause rather than by grammatical structure, and they have not been taught to test whether each side of a comma could stand alone. Apostrophe errors persist because possessive and plural forms are confused under time pressure.
What to do instead
Apply a two-question test to every comma joining clauses: can each side stand alone, and is there a conjunction? If yes to the first and no to the second, use a full stop, semicolon or colon instead. Proofread once solely for sentence boundaries, reading aloud or marking each main verb. Drill apostrophes with a short rule card (possession versus contraction, its versus it's, plural nouns ending in s) and apply it during a dedicated final check rather than while drafting.
Vocabulary is chosen for impressiveness rather than precision: long or unusual words are inserted where they do not fit, and the same common words (good, bad, very, a lot, thing) are repeated throughout, weakening precision in both analysis and composition.
Candidates believe sophisticated vocabulary is rewarded in itself and borrow words from revision lists without knowing their collocations or register. Meanwhile everyday imprecision goes unnoticed because it feels natural.
What to do instead
Replace evaluation with precision: for each vague word, substitute one that names the exact quality (for 'good' use 'convincing', 'vivid', 'measured'; for 'bad' use 'flawed', 'misleading', 'harsh'). Learn new words in phrases and in context, and use each new word in a sentence about a text you have read before using it in an exam. In proofreading, highlight every instance of very, really, a lot and thing, and replace or delete each one.