French 2 Quiz: Making Plans And Negotiating
9 questions · exam conditions
0:00
Making Plans And NegotiatingQuestion 1 of 9

Lire la conversation suivante :

Antoine : Qu'est-ce que tu vas faire ce week-end ? Nadia : Samedi matin, je vais aller au marché. L'après-midi, je vais rendre visite à ma grand-mère. Et toi ? Antoine : Samedi après-midi, je vais jouer au foot avec des amis. Le soir, je vais regarder un film. Tu veux venir ? Nadia : Je vais rentrer de chez ma grand-mère vers 19h. Si le film commence après 20h, je peux venir. Antoine : Le film commence à 20h30. On va se retrouver chez moi à 20h15 ? Nadia : Parfait !

Which of the following statements correctly identifies both a scheduling conflict that was successfully navigated and the near-future expression used to confirm the final arrangement?

The conflict was that Antoine wanted to meet at 19h but Nadia would not be home until 20h; the near-future expression confirming the plan is 'je vais rentrer' used by Nadia to describe her return.
The conflict was that Nadia was unavailable Saturday morning due to the market; they resolved it by meeting in the afternoon instead, and the near-future expression is 'je vais aller au marché' which triggers the renegotiation.
The conflict was Antoine's football game running into the evening; the near-future expression confirming the plan is 'je vais regarder un film' since it establishes the activity around which the meeting is organized.
The conflict was that Nadia needed to return from her grandmother's before meeting; they resolved it by choosing a 20h30 start time, and the near-future expression confirming the arrangement is 'on va se retrouver' proposed by Antoine.
← Back to quizzes

French 2 Quiz

French 2 Quiz: Making Plans And Negotiating

Practice Making Plans And Negotiating in French 2 with focused quiz questions that help you check what you know, review explanations, and build confidence with test-style prompts.

What this quiz covers

This quiz focuses on Making Plans And Negotiating, giving you a quick way to practice the rules, question types, and explanations that matter most for French 2.

How to use this quiz

Try each quiz question before looking at the correct answer. Use the explanations to review missed ideas, then come back to similar questions until the pattern feels familiar.

All questions

Question 1

Lire la conversation suivante :

Antoine : Qu'est-ce que tu vas faire ce week-end ? Nadia : Samedi matin, je vais aller au marché. L'après-midi, je vais rendre visite à ma grand-mère. Et toi ? Antoine : Samedi après-midi, je vais jouer au foot avec des amis. Le soir, je vais regarder un film. Tu veux venir ? Nadia : Je vais rentrer de chez ma grand-mère vers 19h. Si le film commence après 20h, je peux venir. Antoine : Le film commence à 20h30. On va se retrouver chez moi à 20h15 ? Nadia : Parfait !

Which of the following statements correctly identifies both a scheduling conflict that was successfully navigated and the near-future expression used to confirm the final arrangement?

  1. The conflict was that Antoine wanted to meet at 19h but Nadia would not be home until 20h; the near-future expression confirming the plan is 'je vais rentrer' used by Nadia to describe her return.
  2. The conflict was that Nadia was unavailable Saturday morning due to the market; they resolved it by meeting in the afternoon instead, and the near-future expression is 'je vais aller au marché' which triggers the renegotiation.
  3. The conflict was Antoine's football game running into the evening; the near-future expression confirming the plan is 'je vais regarder un film' since it establishes the activity around which the meeting is organized.
  4. The conflict was that Nadia needed to return from her grandmother's before meeting; they resolved it by choosing a 20h30 start time, and the near-future expression confirming the arrangement is 'on va se retrouver' proposed by Antoine. (correct answer)
Explanation: When a question asks you to identify both a scheduling conflict and a specific grammatical structure, you need to track two things simultaneously: the narrative logic of the conversation and the exact French expression used at a key moment. In this dialogue, the real tension emerges when Nadia says she won't be back from her grandmother's until around 19h and can only join Antoine if the film starts after 20h. That's the conflict — her return time creates a condition on her availability. Antoine resolves it by confirming the film starts at 20h30 and then proposes a meeting time with "on va se retrouver chez moi à 20h15" — a classic futur proche construction (aller + infinitive) that seals the arrangement. That makes D the correct answer. Answer A misidentifies the conflict entirely — Antoine never proposed meeting at 19h, and "je vais rentrer" describes Nadia's return home, not the confirmed plan between them. Answer B confuses a scheduling detail (the Saturday morning market) with a conflict. Nadia's market trip doesn't interfere with Antoine's invitation at all — it's simply background information about her day. Answer C misidentifies the confirming expression. "Je vais regarder un film" introduces the activity but doesn't finalize any arrangement — it's an invitation, not a confirmed mutual plan. As a strategy, when a question involves a conversation, trace the problem → negotiation → resolution arc carefully before evaluating grammar. The confirming near-future expression will appear at the moment both parties agree — look for on va or nous allons as signals of a shared plan.

Question 2

Voici un échange entre Élise et Romain :

Élise : Tu vas être là pour le dîner ce soir ? Romain : Normalement oui, mais je vais finir le travail tard. Disons vers 20h. Élise : Le dîner va commencer à 19h30. Si tu n'arrives pas à temps, on va manger sans toi. Romain : D'accord. Dans ce cas, est-ce qu'on peut décaler à 20h30 ? Élise : Non, les autres invités ne peuvent pas rester plus tard. Mais on va te garder une assiette. Romain : Très bien. Je vais essayer d'arriver avant 20h alors.

Which of the following best characterizes the outcome of this negotiation and the communicative function of Romain's final near-future statement?

  1. The negotiation results in a mutual compromise: dinner is moved to 20h00, and Romain's final statement 'je vais essayer d'arriver avant 20h' signals his commitment to the new agreed-upon start time for the meal.
  2. The negotiation succeeds partially: Élise agrees to keep a plate for Romain, which constitutes the binding joint plan, and Romain's statement 'je vais essayer d'arriver avant 20h' is a near-future expression confirming that 20h is the new negotiated dinner start time.
  3. The negotiation results in a full agreement: dinner is confirmed for 20h30 after Élise reconsiders, and Romain's statement 'je vais essayer d'arriver avant 20h' shows he will arrive early to help prepare before the later start time.
  4. The negotiation fails to produce a shared plan: Élise refuses to change the dinner time, and Romain's final statement 'je vais essayer d'arriver avant 20h' functions as a personal goal or intention rather than a confirmed joint arrangement, since the dinner will proceed at 19h30 regardless. (correct answer)
Explanation: When analyzing a dialogue for negotiation outcomes, you need to track two things separately: what was actually agreed upon by both parties, and what one person intends to do on their own. These are very different communicative acts. In this exchange, Élise holds firm on the 19h30 dinner time and explicitly refuses Romain's request to push it to 20h30. What she does offer is keeping a plate for him — a small accommodation, not a schedule change. Romain's final line, "je vais essayer d'arriver avant 20h," uses the near-future tense (aller + infinitif) to express a personal intention or goal. The word essayer ("to try") further softens it into an aspiration, not a promise. Since dinner remains at 19h30 and no new joint plan was created, D correctly identifies this as a failed negotiation with Romain expressing a unilateral personal goal. Answer A is wrong because dinner is never moved to 20h00 — Élise never agrees to any time change, so there is no "mutual compromise" to commit to. Answer B misreads the situation: keeping a plate is a courtesy gesture, not a "binding joint plan," and 20h is not a new dinner time. Answer C is the most misleading trap — Élise explicitly says "non" to 20h30, so the claim that she "reconsiders" is directly contradicted by the text. A useful strategy: when a question asks about negotiation outcomes, look for explicit agreement signals from both speakers. If only one person adjusts their expectations or expresses intent, that's a personal plan — not a shared one.

Question 3

Lisez cet échange de textos entre Priya et Léo :

Priya : Salut ! On va au concert vendredi soir. Tu viens ? Léo : Vendredi soir je ne suis pas libre. Je vais dîner avec ma sœur. Priya : Et samedi ? Le groupe va jouer aussi samedi. Léo : Samedi après-midi, ça marche. Mais je vais partir en week-end samedi soir. Priya : Le concert va commencer à 19h le samedi. C'est trop tard pour toi ? Léo : Oui, je vais prendre mon train à 18h30. Je vais rater le concert. Priya : Dommage ! On va te manquer.

Which statement most accurately analyzes why the negotiation between Priya and Léo fails to produce a joint plan, and identifies two near-future expressions from the passage that demonstrate this failure?

  1. The negotiation fails because Léo refuses to consider Saturday at all; the two near-future expressions showing this are 'je vais dîner' (Friday conflict) and 'je vais partir en week-end' (Léo's Saturday evening conflict, which closes off the only remaining option).
  2. The negotiation fails because Priya insists on Friday evening even after Léo explains his conflict; the two near-future expressions showing this failure are 'le groupe va jouer' (Priya re-proposing the same event) and 'je vais partir en week-end' (Léo's refusal to negotiate further).
  3. The negotiation fails because the Saturday concert starts at 19h but Léo's train departs at 18h30, making attendance impossible; the two near-future expressions demonstrating this are 'je vais prendre mon train' (Léo's conflicting commitment) and 'je vais rater le concert' (Léo's acknowledgment that he will miss it). (correct answer)
  4. The negotiation fails because neither person proposes a new day after Saturday proves impossible; the only near-future expressions present are 'on va te manquer' and 'je vais rater le concert,' both of which appear only after the negotiation has already collapsed and therefore cannot reflect active planning.
Explanation: When analyzing a negotiation in French reading comprehension, your job is twofold: identify why the plan collapses logically, and find the grammatical structures (here, futur proche: aller + infinitif) that directly illustrate that collapse. The negotiation actually progresses productively — Priya pivots from Friday to Saturday, and Léo initially accepts Saturday afternoon. The plan fails at a very specific, concrete moment: the Saturday concert starts at 19h, but Léo's train leaves at 18h30. Two near-future expressions mark this exact breakdown: "je vais prendre mon train" (his immovable prior commitment) and "je vais rater le concert" (his explicit acknowledgment that attendance is impossible). These expressions don't just describe the future — they function as the linguistic proof of why no joint plan can form. That's why C is the most accurate analysis. Choice A is wrong because Léo does consider Saturday — he accepts Saturday afternoon. The claim that he "refuses Saturday at all" misreads the dialogue. Choice B distorts the exchange: Priya never re-insists on Friday; she proactively proposes Saturday instead, which is cooperative, not obstructive. The expressions cited in B also misrepresent the moment of failure. Choice D is partially true — the negotiation has collapsed by the time "on va te manquer" and "je vais rater" appear — but it ignores that "je vais prendre mon train" appears during the negotiation and is the expression that directly causes the failure, making D's reasoning incomplete. Study tip: When a question asks you to pair a reason with specific evidence, always verify that each piece of evidence directly supports the reason stated — not just that both appear in the same passage.

Question 4

A student hears: « Je vais passer te chercher dans deux heures. » The student then hears the speaker add: « En fait, non — dans trois quarts d'heure. » If the first statement was made at 10h20, at what time should the listener expect to be picked up, based on the corrected plan?

  1. The listener should expect to be picked up at 11h05, calculated by adding three-quarters of an hour (45 minutes) to the original statement time of 10h20, since the speaker corrected himself to say dans trois quarts d'heure. (correct answer)
  2. The listener should expect to be picked up at 12h20, calculated by adding two hours to 10h20, since the first near-future statement establishes the binding plan and the correction is merely a suggestion that doesn't override it.
  3. The listener should expect to be picked up at 11h20, calculated by adding one hour to 10h20, since trois quarts d'heure is often misunderstood as one hour in casual spoken French and the near-future expression remains the operative plan.
  4. The listener should expect to be picked up at 11h50, calculated by adding the corrected time of three-quarters of an hour to the originally proposed two-hour pickup time of 12h20, subtracting the 30-minute difference between the two proposals.
Explanation: When you hear a near-future construction like « Je vais + infinitif » followed by a correction introduced by « En fait, non », the correction completely replaces the original plan. Your job is simply to apply the corrected time expression to the original reference point — the moment the statement was made. Here, the speaker corrects himself to say dans trois quarts d'heure. Trois quarts d'heure means three-quarters of an hour, or 45 minutes — not one hour, not some blended figure. Starting from 10h20 and adding 45 minutes gives you 10h20+0h45=11h0510\text{h}20 + 0\text{h}45 = 11\text{h}05. That makes A the correct answer. Choice B ignores the correction entirely and sticks with the original two-hour plan (10h20 + 2h = 12h20). In French, En fait, non signals an explicit reversal — treating the first statement as "binding" has no grammatical or conversational basis. Choice C misidentifies trois quarts d'heure as meaning one hour. This is a classic vocabulary trap: un quart d'heure = 15 minutes, une demi-heure = 30 minutes, and trois quarts d'heure = 45 minutes — memorize these as a set. Choice D invents a nonsensical calculation by adding the corrected duration onto the original pickup time, which confuses two separate reference frames. Study tip: Always anchor dans + time expression to the moment of speaking, and learn French time fractions (quart, demi, trois quarts) as fixed vocabulary. These appear frequently on French-2 listening comprehension questions precisely because they're easy to mishear or miscalculate under pressure.

Question 5

Écoutez (lisez) cet échange entre Julien et Amara :

Julien : On va organiser la fête d'anniversaire de Clément la semaine prochaine. Tu es disponible quand ? Amara : Je suis libre jeudi soir et vendredi soir. Et toi ? Julien : Moi, je vais être occupé jeudi — j'ai une réunion. Vendredi soir, je vais rendre visite à mes parents. Mais je vais être libre samedi toute la journée. Amara : Samedi, je vais travailler jusqu'à 17h. Après ça, je suis libre. Julien : Parfait. On va organiser la fête samedi à 18h alors. Amara : Super — et on va inviter tout le monde pour 18h30, pour avoir le temps de préparer ?

Which answer most precisely describes the difference between the time Julien and Amara plan to arrive/prepare and the time they plan to have guests arrive, and what near-future structure is used to propose inviting guests?

  1. Julien and Amara plan to be ready at 17h00 after Amara finishes work, and guests are invited for 18h00; the near-future structure used is 'on va inviter' followed by an infinitive and time expression.
  2. Julien and Amara plan to set up starting at 18h00 and invite guests for 18h30, a 30-minute buffer; the near-future structure used is 'on va inviter' followed by an infinitive and time expression. (correct answer)
  3. Julien and Amara plan to set up starting at 18h00 and invite guests for 18h30, a 30-minute buffer; the near-future structure used is 'on va être invités' which is a passive near-future construction Amara uses.
  4. Julien and Amara plan to start at 17h00 when Amara finishes work and invite guests for 18h00, a 60-minute buffer; the near-future structure 'on va organiser' is the expression Amara uses to finalize the guest invitation.
Explanation: When reading a French dialogue like this one, you need to track two things simultaneously: the actual schedule details mentioned and the grammatical structures used to express future plans. The near-future tense (futur proche) is formed with conjugated aller + infinitive, so identifying that pattern is just as important as understanding the content. Looking at the dialogue carefully, Julien proposes organizing the party at 18h ("on va organiser la fête samedi à 18h"), meaning he and Amara plan to arrive and begin preparing at that time. Amara then suggests inviting guests for 18h30 ("on va inviter tout le monde pour 18h30") — giving them a 30-minute window to prepare before guests arrive. The structure Amara uses is exactly on va inviter (conjugated aller + infinitive inviter), a classic futur proche construction. That makes B correct: a 30-minute buffer, with 'on va inviter' + infinitive. Answer A incorrectly states the setup time is 17h00 — that's when Amara finishes work, not when the party preparation begins. It also misrepresents the guest arrival time as 18h00 instead of 18h30. Answer C identifies the correct timing (18h setup, 18h30 guests) but misidentifies the grammar — "on va être invités" would be a passive construction ("we will be invited"), which is not what Amara says at all. Answer D confuses 17h00 as the start of preparation and 18h00 as guest arrival, and wrongly attributes the invitation phrase to "on va organiser," which is Julien's line about planning the party, not inviting guests. As a study tip: always re-read the dialogue to separate scheduling facts from grammatical structures — exam questions often test both at once, and conflating them leads straight to the wrong answer.

Question 6

Deux amis, Camille et Théo, discutent par messages. Camille écrit : « Je vais aller au cinéma samedi soir. Tu veux venir avec moi ? » Théo répond : « Je ne peux pas samedi — j'ai un dîner en famille. Est-ce qu'on peut y aller dimanche après-midi à la place ? » Camille répond : « Dimanche après-midi, je vais faire du sport avec Lucie. Mais je suis libre dimanche soir. » Théo écrit : « D'accord, mais je vais finir mon travail vers 20h. Est-ce que 20h30 ça te convient ? » Camille répond : « Oui, allons-y ! »

Based on the conversation, which statement most accurately describes the final plan that Camille and Théo have negotiated?

  1. They will go to the cinema on Saturday evening at a time that works for both of them after Théo cancels his family dinner.
  2. They will go to the cinema on Sunday evening at 20h30, after Théo finishes his work and Camille completes her afternoon sport session. (correct answer)
  3. They will go to the cinema on Sunday afternoon, replacing Camille's sport session with Lucie so that the three of them can go together.
  4. They will go to the cinema on Sunday evening at 20h00, since Théo said he would finish his work around that time and Camille agreed immediately.
Explanation: When a reading comprehension question asks you to identify a "final plan," your job is to trace the full negotiation — every proposal and counter-proposal — rather than stopping at the first agreement you spot in the text. Here, Camille proposes Saturday evening, but Théo declines due to a family dinner and suggests Sunday afternoon instead. Camille is unavailable Sunday afternoon (sport with Lucie) but offers Sunday evening. Théo accepts Sunday evening but specifies he won't finish work until around 20h, proposing 20h30. Camille agrees with "Oui, allons-y!" — so the confirmed plan is Sunday evening at 20h30, making B the most accurate description. Looking at why the other choices miss the mark: A is wrong on two counts — the cinema was never scheduled for Saturday, and Théo does not cancel his family dinner; he simply can't attend Saturday. C fabricates a detail entirely — Camille never suggests replacing her sport session or inviting Lucie to join them at the cinema. D is a close but critical miss: Théo says he'll finish around 20h ("vers 20h"), which is why he proposes 20h30 as the actual meeting time — not 20h00. Confusing an estimated completion time with the agreed arrival time is a classic reading trap. A useful strategy: on detail-tracking questions like this, mentally "timestamp" each plan change as you read. The final agreement is what matters, and distractors often recycle earlier, rejected proposals or slightly misquote a key detail (like a time) to catch readers who skimmed.

Question 7

A student wants to suggest meeting next Tuesday in French using a near-future expression and the correct time marker. Which of the following is the most grammatically and contextually appropriate option for this interpersonal exchange?

  1. « Nous allons nous retrouver mardi prochain — ça te va ? » — because allons with nous correctly forms the near future and mardi prochain is the standard way to specify next Tuesday in a negotiation context. (correct answer)
  2. « On va se retrouver le mardi — ça te va ? » — because va with on correctly forms the near future and le mardi specifies next Tuesday as a recurring scheduled day.
  3. « Tu vas te retrouver mardi prochain — ça te va ? » — because vas with tu forms the near future correctly and mardi prochain is paired with the second-person subject to make the invitation more direct.
  4. « On va se retrouver mardi dernier — ça te va ? » — because va with on correctly forms the near future and mardi dernier is a common time marker used when confirming plans set earlier in the week.
Explanation: When suggesting a future meeting in French, you need to check two things simultaneously: (1) that the near-future construction (aller + infinitive) matches its subject, and (2) that the time marker actually means "next Tuesday" rather than something else entirely. Option A gets both right. Nous allons nous retrouver mardi prochain correctly pairs allons (first-person plural of aller) with the reflexive nous retrouver, and mardi prochain is precisely the standard expression for "next Tuesday" in French. The tag ça te va ? adds a natural, interpersonal negotiating tone — exactly right for suggesting a meeting. Now look at why the others fail. Option B uses on va se retrouver, which is grammatically valid near-future construction, but le mardi means "on Tuesdays" as a habitual, recurring event — not specifically next Tuesday. This is a classic trap: the article le before a day of the week signals repetition, not a single upcoming date. Option C correctly forms tu vas as near future, but tu vas te retrouver means "you are going to meet up" — it places the action on the listener alone, which is grammatically awkward and logically odd for a mutual meeting invitation. Option D pairs on va correctly but uses mardi dernier, which means "last Tuesday" — the opposite direction in time, making it impossible to suggest a future plan. Your study tip: memorize the contrast between le lundi (every Monday, habitual) and lundi prochain (next Monday, specific). This distinction appears frequently in French-2 contexts and is a reliable trap on scheduling and interpersonal exchange questions.

Question 8

A student needs to respond to: « On se retrouve où et à quelle heure demain ? » The student wants to suggest meeting in front of the train station at half past two in the afternoon. Which response uses the near-future construction and the correct time expression most accurately?

  1. « On va se retrouver devant la gare à deux heures et demie de l'après-midi. » — correctly uses on va + infinitive for the near future, devant la gare for the location, and deux heures et demie with de l'après-midi to specify 14h30 unambiguously. (correct answer)
  2. « On va se retrouver devant la gare à la demie de deux heures. » — correctly uses on va + infinitive for the near future, devant la gare for the location, and à la demie de deux heures as the standard colloquial expression for half past two.
  3. « Nous allons nous retrouver à la gare vers deux heures moins le quart. » — correctly uses nous allons + infinitive for the near future, à la gare for the location, and deux heures moins le quart which equals 13h45, close enough to 14h30 in informal speech.
  4. « On va se retrouver devant la gare à deux heures trente du matin. » — correctly uses on va + infinitive for the near future, devant la gare for the location, and deux heures trente du matin since du matin is the standard qualifier used with 30-minute increments past the hour.
Explanation: When responding to questions about meeting time and place in French, you need to juggle three things simultaneously: the futur proche construction, the correct location preposition, and an accurate, unambiguous time expression. A mistake in any one of these makes the response wrong. The futur proche works by taking a conjugated form of aller + an infinitive. For the subject on, that means on va + infinitive — so on va se retrouver is perfectly correct and natural. The location "in front of the train station" requires devant la gare, not just à la gare (which simply means "at the station," without specifying outside/in front). Finally, 2:30 PM in French is expressed as deux heures et demie, and to clarify it's the afternoon rather than 2:30 AM, you add de l'après-midi. Answer A hits all three targets cleanly and is the correct choice. Answer B fails on the time expression: à la demie de deux heures is not standard French phrasing. You might hear et demie after the hour, but this construction is simply not how French speakers say "half past two." Answer C contains two errors: à la gare omits devant (missing "in front of"), and deux heures moins le quart means 1:45 PM (13h45) — nowhere near 2:30 PM. The claim that it's "close enough" is false. Answer D uses du matin, which means AM. Saying deux heures trente du matin places the meeting at 2:30 in the morning — the opposite of what was intended. Study tip: Always double-check AM/PM qualifiers (du matin vs. de l'après-midi) and location prepositions (devant, derrière, près de) — these small words are frequent trap points on French exams.

Question 9

During a spoken negotiation, a student hears their partner say: « Je ne vais pas pouvoir venir avant la fin de la semaine prochaine. » The student wants to respond by proposing they meet the following Monday (i.e., the Monday after next week ends) using a near-future expression and an appropriate time marker. Which response is most appropriate?

  1. « Alors on va se retrouver lundi prochain ? » — because lundi prochain refers to the Monday immediately following the current week, which aligns with the partner's availability after next week ends.
  2. « Alors on va se retrouver lundi dernier ? » — because lundi dernier in this context refers forward to the last possible Monday within the negotiated window, which is the Monday after next week ends.
  3. « Alors on va se retrouver lundi en huit ? » — because lundi en huit is the standard French expression meaning 'a week from Monday,' which correctly places the meeting on the Monday after next week, matching the partner's stated availability. (correct answer)
  4. « Alors on va se retrouver lundi en quinze ? » — because lundi en quinze means 'in fifteen days from Monday,' which correctly captures the idea that the meeting must wait until after all of next week has passed before the partners can meet.
Explanation: When navigating time expressions in French, the key is understanding that certain phrases encode relative distance from the present — and confusing them is one of the most common errors in spoken negotiation contexts. The partner says they cannot come before the end of next week, meaning the earliest they're available is the Monday that follows next week — essentially, a week from this coming Monday. French has a precise idiomatic expression for exactly this: lundi en huit. The phrase en huit literally refers to an eight-day span (today plus seven more days), which in everyday French means "a week from [that day]." So lundi en huit = the Monday one full week beyond the nearest upcoming Monday — landing perfectly after next week ends. This makes C the correct and most natural response. A is tempting but wrong. Lundi prochain means the very next Monday from today, which falls within next week — not after it ends. This directly contradicts the partner's stated availability. B is clearly incorrect. Lundi dernier means last Monday — a past reference. Using it to refer to a future meeting is a grammatical and logical error; it does not function as a forward-looking marker in any French context. D trips up students who conflate en huit and en quinze. Lundi en quinze means two weeks from Monday (a fifteen-day span), which would push the meeting too far — one week beyond what the partner actually requires. Study tip: Memorize the pair — en huit = one week out, en quinze = two weeks out. These appear frequently in oral French exams and are easy to mix up under pressure.