NY Regents ELA common mistakes
NY Regents ELA · Understand the traps and how to avoid them.
Answering multiple-choice reading questions from personal opinion or general knowledge instead of returning to the passage - the student picks the option that matches what they believe about the topic (e.g., 'school should start later') rather than what the text says.
The topic feels familiar, so the brain supplies an answer before the text is consulted; students also run out of time and default to intuition.
What to do instead
Before bubbling any answer, point to and number the lines that support it; if no line can be cited, the option is wrong. Practice by covering the answer choices and writing a one-sentence answer from the text first, then matching it.
Selecting a choice that is factually true according to the passage but does not answer the specific question asked - e.g., the question asks for the author's main purpose and the student picks a supporting detail.
Students read the options as 'which of these is in the story?' rather than holding the exact wording of the stem in mind; distractors are deliberately built from true text details.
What to do instead
Rewrite the stem as a question ending in a blank or 'because...' before reading the options, then test each choice by physically inserting it into that sentence. Eliminate any option that is true but does not complete the rewritten stem.
On paired Part A/Part B items (which claim + which evidence), treating the two parts as separate questions - choosing a strong-sounding claim in Part A and a quotation that is merely about the same topic in Part B.
Each part is answered in isolation as it is encountered, and a quotation can be genuinely about the topic without proving the chosen claim.
What to do instead
Answer Part A, then read every Part B quotation back against the Part A wording: the lines must contain the specific idea asserted, not just the same subject. If no quotation supports the chosen claim, change the claim, not the evidence.
On literary passages, retelling the plot in constructed responses and choosing answers about what happens rather than how the narrator or character feels, changes, or reveals - the response summarizes events instead of analyzing them.
Plot is the easiest thing to comprehend and to write about, and summary feels like it satisfies 'use evidence from the text.'
What to do instead
Annotate each story for a before/after shift in the narrator or main character (attitude, understanding, situation) and build every response around that shift: 'At first ___, but by ___ the narrator realizes ___ because ___.'
Dropping a quotation or paraphrase into a source-based essay with no attribution and no explanation - the paragraph presents evidence and then moves straight to the next point, leaving the reader to infer how the evidence supports the claim.
Students equate 'using sources' with 'including quotes' and have not internalized that the reasoning between evidence and claim is what earns credit on the rubric.
What to do instead
Use a fixed paragraph frame: claim sentence → introduce the source by author/title → quotation → two sentences beginning 'This shows that...' and 'This matters because...' Every quotation must be followed by analysis that names the idea the quotation proves.
Writing an argument that only stacks support for one side and never acknowledges the opposing view, or acknowledging it only to dismiss it in a sentence ('Some people disagree, but they are wrong').
Students believe mentioning the other side weakens their position, and under time pressure the concession paragraph is the first thing cut.
What to do instead
Plan a required counterclaim move before drafting: state the strongest opposing reason fairly in one sentence, concede what is valid, then rebut with specific evidence. Keep it as its own short paragraph so it cannot be skipped.
Drifting off the thesis - the introduction announces one position, but body paragraphs summarize both sources or shift to a different claim, so the essay reads as a report on the topic rather than an argument.
Students draft by summarizing sources in the order they read them rather than by outlining claims first, and the position mutates as new evidence is encountered.
What to do instead
Write the thesis as one sentence with a 'because' clause before drafting, then outline body paragraphs as reasons, each labeled with the source that supports it. After drafting, check every topic sentence against the thesis and rewrite any paragraph that could appear in an essay arguing the opposite side.
Choosing a dictionary meaning of a words-in-context item based on the most familiar sense, ignoring how the word functions in the sentence and whether the passage's tone is positive or negative.
Students recall the most frequent definition first and stop, and multiple-choice options are built from other real senses of the same word.
What to do instead
Substitute each option into the original sentence and read the full sentence aloud; discard any option that creates a mismatch in tone or logic. Also ask what the sentence would lose if the word were replaced with a neutral synonym, to catch connotation.
Naming a technique without analyzing it - responses such as 'the author uses imagery to make the passage interesting' or 'the author uses rhetorical questions to engage the reader,' with no reference to the specific words or their effect on meaning.
Students have memorized a device list and believe identifying the label is the task; they lack a vocabulary for describing effect and fear being wrong about interpretation.
What to do instead
Force a three-part sentence every time: name the device → quote the exact words → state what it makes the reader feel, picture, or conclude (tied to the author's purpose). If the third part could be written without reading the passage, rewrite it.
Losing points on conventions in extended writing through sentence-boundary errors - comma splices, run-ons, and fragments - and by joining independent clauses with 'however' or 'therefore' as if they were conjunctions.
Under timed conditions students write in long chains of clauses that mirror speech, and they proofread for words and ideas rather than for sentence structure.
What to do instead
Reserve three minutes to proofread only for sentence boundaries: circle every period, then check that each circled unit has a subject and a verb and stands alone. Apply a fixed repair set - period, semicolon, or comma + 'and/but/so' - to every splice found.