HAVO Engels common mistakes
HAVO Engels · Understand the traps and how to avoid them.
Choosing an answer because it repeats words from the passage, without checking whether it actually answers the question asked.
Under time pressure the eye latches onto lexical overlap ('distractor matching'); the brain treats recognition of familiar words as confirmation of meaning, and HAVO texts are written to reward exactly this trap.
What to do instead
Before marking an option, cover the options, restate the question in your own words, then find the sentence in the text that settles it and underline it. Only then read the options and reject any option whose support you cannot point to in that underlined sentence.
Answering a 'what does the writer think/claim' question with a fact that appears in the text but is not the writer's opinion or main point.
Candidates read for content ('is this true in the text?') instead of for function ('is this what the writer is asserting here?'). Detail sentences and examples feel safe because they are literally in the text.
What to do instead
Classify each question first: detail, main idea, opinion, purpose, or inference. For opinion/purpose questions, locate signal words (however, therefore, in my view, the point is) and check whether the option describes the writer's stance rather than a supporting fact.
Reading the whole text word by word before looking at the questions, then running out of time on the last text.
School habit of 'read everything first' plus fear of missing something. It feels thorough but doubles reading time because the text is read once for general meaning and again for each question.
What to do instead
Use a fixed routine per text: read the title, introduction and first sentence of each paragraph (about 60 seconds), then read the questions, then scan for the relevant paragraph. Practise with a timer so each text gets a set budget and the last text is never rushed.
Ignoring the Dutch instructions and the question type, for example writing a summary when an essay is asked for, or answering in Dutch.
Candidates skim the assignment because the English prompt looks familiar, or they translate the task mentally and lose the genre, audience and word count requirements.
What to do instead
Underline the verbs in the assignment (describe, argue, advise, compare), the audience, and the required length before writing a single word. Make a three-line plan that explicitly matches those underlined elements, and check the plan against the assignment before starting.
Writing sentences that are grammatically Dutch with English words: wrong word order after time expressions, missing do-support in questions and negatives, and 'since' + present tense for duration.
Direct translation from Dutch syntax. The vocabulary is correct so the sentence feels right, and these errors are exactly what Dutch-speaking candidates produce under pressure.
What to do instead
Keep a personal list of five high-frequency structures (question formation, negation, adverb placement, present perfect for duration, comparatives) and rewrite one Dutch sentence into English for each structure daily. In the exam, re-read your own text once only for these five structures.
Producing a text that is far below the required word count or padded with repetition and filler sentences to reach it.
Weak planning: candidates start writing immediately, run out of content after two sentences, then repeat the same idea in different words, which costs marks on content and coherence.
What to do instead
Before writing, generate at least three concrete points or examples per paragraph in note form. Aim for roughly 10 percent above the minimum word count in the plan, so the draft has real content and the final trim still leaves enough words.
Using no linking words or using them mechanically ('Firstly... Secondly... Moreover...') without a logical relation between sentences.
Linking words are taught as a checklist for 'coherence', so candidates insert them as decoration rather than to signal a real contrast, cause or example.
What to do instead
For each paragraph, decide the relation between sentences first (contrast, cause, example, result) and then pick one connector that expresses exactly that relation. Delete any connector you cannot justify by pointing to the logical link it marks.
Register mismatch: writing 'hey' and contractions in a formal letter, or writing stiff formal prose in an informal message to a friend.
Candidates focus on grammar and vocabulary and forget that the assignment specifies a reader and a relationship, which determines tone, greeting and closing.
What to do instead
Decide the register in the plan: formal (no contractions, full forms, Dear..., Yours faithfully/sincerely) or informal (contractions, direct address, friendly closing). Write the opening and closing first, then keep the body consistent with that choice.
Misreading a multiple-choice option that is almost right: missing a negation, a qualifier (some, most, always) or a scope word that makes the option false.
The eye skips small function words when scanning for meaning, and test writers deliberately vary quantifiers and negations between the passage and the options.
What to do instead
When two options look similar, write the difference between them in the margin (for example 'all vs some', 'positive vs negative') and return to the text to check that exact element. Treat every quantifier and negation in an option as a claim that must be verified.
Leaving answers blank or guessing on the last questions because of poor time allocation across the whole exam.
Candidates spend too long on one difficult text or on polishing the writing task, and never practise the exam as a whole under time, so they do not know their own pace.
What to do instead
Do at least two full timed run-throughs and record minutes per section. Set a hard cutoff per text (for example 15 minutes), move on when it is reached, and reserve the final minutes for transferring answers and checking the writing task against the assignment checklist.