NYS ELA common mistakes
NYS ELA · Understand the traps and how to avoid them.
Choosing an answer that is true in the passage but does not actually answer the question asked (for example, picking a detail about a character's appearance when the question asks about her motivation).
Under time pressure, candidates recognise a familiar phrase in an option and stop reading the stem carefully, treating 'supported by the text' as the only criterion instead of 'answers this specific question'.
What to do instead
Before reading the options, restate the stem in your own words and identify the exact task word (infer, compare, explain, describe). After choosing, cover the options and ask whether your choice directly answers that restated question; if it only describes the text, discard it.
Quoting or citing textual evidence that is related to the topic but does not logically support the claim being made.
Candidates treat evidence selection as a keyword-matching task, scanning for a word from the claim rather than checking whether the sentence actually proves it.
What to do instead
Apply the 'because' test: insert the word 'because' between the claim and the quoted evidence and read the result aloud. If the sentence does not read as a valid causal or logical link, the evidence is wrong even if the topic matches.
Reading a literary passage as a plot summary and missing figurative language, tone, or the narrator's attitude, then answering as if the text were literal.
Candidates default to literal comprehension because it is faster, and they have not practised separating what happens from how it is conveyed.
What to do instead
Annotate the passage in two columns: what happens and how it is said (word choice, imagery, punctuation). When a question mentions tone, attitude, or effect, return only to the 'how' column and select the option that describes the language rather than the events.
Treating an informational text's central idea as its topic, producing an answer like 'the passage is about volcanoes' instead of a claim the author makes about volcanoes.
Topic and central idea feel interchangeable in casual reading, and topic-level answers are always present as distractors, so they look safe.
What to do instead
Force the answer into a full sentence with a verb and a point of view ('The author argues that...'). If your answer cannot be phrased as a claim someone could disagree with, it is a topic, not a central idea.
Judging an argument's strength by personal agreement rather than by whether the reasoning and evidence in the text are sufficient.
Evaluating claims triggers prior beliefs, and candidates unconsciously reward options that match their own opinions and reject sound ones that do not.
What to do instead
Before evaluating, label the claim, the evidence, and the link between them. Ask only: does this evidence, as presented, make the claim more likely? Practise with passages on topics you have strong views about so the habit is trained under pressure.
Ignoring the writing prompt's audience, purpose, and format requirements and producing a generic essay that fits any prompt.
Candidates memorise a structure and reuse it, or skim the prompt for the topic and skip the bullet points that specify role, audience, and required elements.
What to do instead
Underline every requirement in the prompt (role, audience, purpose, required number of details or sources) and convert them into a checklist. Before writing, state your audience and purpose in one sentence; after writing, tick each checklist item against the draft.
Writing an essay with a clear claim but body paragraphs that summarise the source instead of connecting evidence to the claim.
Summarising is easier and feels productive, and candidates often mistake retelling for analysis because it fills space.
What to do instead
End every body paragraph with a sentence that begins 'This shows that...' and links the evidence back to the thesis. If that sentence merely repeats the evidence, the paragraph needs analysis, not more summary.
Using transitions and academic phrasing mechanically ('Firstly... Moreover... In conclusion') without tracking whether ideas actually contrast, sequence, or cause each other.
Candidates are taught transition lists as a checklist and insert them without checking the logical relationship between the sentences they join.
What to do instead
Delete every transition, read the two sentences, and name the relationship (contrast, cause, addition, example) before choosing a connector. Then select the connector that matches that named relationship rather than the most formal-sounding one.
Losing points on conventions through comma splices, run-ons, and inconsistent verb tense in longer sentences, even when the ideas are strong.
Under timed conditions, candidates write longer sentences to sound sophisticated and stop monitoring sentence boundaries and tense consistency.
What to do instead
Reserve two minutes to proofread only for sentence boundaries: circle every subject-verb pair and confirm each sentence has exactly one independent clause or a correct conjunction. Then scan verbs for tense consistency within each paragraph.
Misreading the prompt's task word (argue versus explain versus narrate) and producing the wrong genre, or answering a text-based prompt with personal opinion only.
Candidates skim the prompt, see a familiar topic, and begin writing from a rehearsed mode; task words look similar and are rarely practised in isolation.
What to do instead
Before planning, write the task word and the genre it demands at the top of the page ('explain = inform, no side-taking'; 'argue = take a position and defend it'). Check the opening and closing sentences of the draft against that label; if either contradicts the required mode, revise before continuing.