JLPT Test N1 in 07/2011

The passage mentions 'eating tableware with our eyes' but doesn't explicitly state that merely 'gazing' at it will strengthen affection. It emphasizes paying attention and taking 'one more step' to deepen interest, which implies more than just passive viewing.

The passage focuses specifically on 'yakimono' (pottery/ceramics) and tableware. It does not broaden the scope to 'art in general'.

The passage discusses the variety of Japanese pottery as a characteristic and the affection people have for it, but it doesn't suggest that *introducing* various tableware into the home is the way to strengthen affection. It's about the existing relationship and deepening interest through attention.

The passage explicitly states the opposite: 「弱者は苦しい嘘をついてでも自らの尊厳を守ろうとします。」 (The weak try to protect their dignity even by telling painful lies), implying they are *not* honest.

The passage argues that 'reason' (論理的に正しいこと) is for the strong, and that the weak's apologies are not based on reason but are a 'procedure or ritual' to resolve their disadvantage.

The passage states that the strong try to blame the weak logically, but from the weak's perspective, it often means nothing. The weak's apology is a temporary measure, not a reliance on 'correct arguments' (正論) to resolve their disadvantage.

The 3rd and 4th-month revisions were *only* for special vehicle tires. The 9th-month revision is for *all* tires, including general vehicle tires, which were not part of the earlier revisions.

The passage states that summer and winter tires (for special vehicles) were already revised in March and April. The September revision is a *single* revision for *all* tires, not two further revisions for summer and winter tires specifically.

This option is close but not entirely accurate. The September revision includes *all* tires, meaning both special vehicle tires (which were already revised) and general vehicle tires (which were not). Option 3 is more precise by highlighting the inclusion of general vehicle tires that were not revised in spring.

The passage mentions 'broader social context' but doesn't specify 'social problems'. The focus is on how children realize themselves and experience stress within that context, which is about personal development and resilience, not necessarily tackling societal issues.

The passage emphasizes moving *beyond* their previous living environment (生活圏を出て) into a wider social context, not just facing themselves in daily life.

While taking on roles is part of development, the passage specifically highlights the experience of facing stress and realizing oneself in a *wider social context* outside their usual living sphere, which is more than just daily roles.

The author's expression 'perfect pentagon' is described as 'scientific' and 'different from furyu', not 'unscientific' or 'tasteful'.

The passage doesn't suggest the author didn't understand the beauty of cherry blossoms. Rather, his *way* of expressing that beauty (scientifically) was what caused the laughter.

The author acknowledges that 'actually, few petals would show a perfect pentagon in a mathematical sense,' but this is part of the 'idealization' process in science, not the reason he was laughed at. The laughter was about the *approach* to beauty, not the factual accuracy of the shape.

This describes abstraction (抽象化), which is about extracting a specific feature ('pentagonal shape'). Idealization goes a step further by treating that extracted feature as perfect or ideal, even if it's not in reality.

The passage discusses the scientific approach to understanding natural phenomena, not necessarily the 'mathematical beauty' of flowers. Idealization is a method for simplification, not an aesthetic judgment.

The passage does not compare cherry blossoms to other flowers in terms of their pentagonal shape. Idealization is about treating the chosen feature as perfect, not as 'closer' to perfect than others.

While finding universal laws might imply commonalities, the specific example given is about finding the gene that determines the rotational symmetry of petals, which leads to understanding *how* the shape is determined, not just that commonalities exist.

The passage contrasts scientific aesthetic with 'furyu' and focuses on finding universal *laws* about natural phenomena, not necessarily finding universal beauty in flowers.

The passage states that it's 'undoubtedly determined by genes' (遺伝子で決定されていることは間違いない), implying it's already known or strongly believed, not something to be *proven* by abstraction and idealization. These methods help *find* the universal law related to this genetic determination.

While 'liveability' (住みやすさ) is mentioned as important for usefulness (有用性), it's contrasted with 'asset value' which is presented as the 'general standard'.

This is part of the 'usefulness' (有用性) that the author emphasizes as *more* important than the general standard, not the general standard itself.

The passage mentions that it's necessary to keep expenses below budget for future economic changes, but this is a separate point about financial planning, not the 'general standard' for evaluating a house's worth.

While structure is mentioned as part of 'usefulness', the primary emphasis for a 'final residence' is on one's 'way of life' and 'range of movement', which encompasses more than just structure.

The passage advises keeping expenses *below* budget (予算を大きく下回る出費に抑えておくことも必要である), not choosing something 'around the same amount' as the budget.

The author explicitly contrasts the 'asset value' (世間一般の価値基準) with the 'usefulness' (有用性) and personal lifestyle, stating that for a final residence, the latter is more important.

The author argues *against* relying solely on general value standards, emphasizing personal lifestyle instead.

While financial prudence is mentioned, the main point is not about asset value but about personal utility and lifestyle, especially for a 'final residence'.

The passage emphasizes planning for the future, especially for old age, and making a definitive choice for a 'final residence' based on a clear understanding of one's future life, not changing preferences over time.

The passage refers to 'humans' (人間) in general, not just 'modern people' (現代の人々). Also, it's not that the view is 'unstable' (定まらない) but that it can be 'distorted' (歪められた).

Similar to option 1, the passage refers to 'humans' (人間) in general, not specifically 'modern people' (現代の人々).

While our way of life (生き方) is influenced, the primary focus of the paragraph is on our *perception* (認識) and *way of seeing things* (ものの見方), and how it can be distorted, not that it's unstable.

The passage implies the world is *too vast and turbulent* for our existing perception, not that our perception has become 'narrower'.

The passage mentions '固まった世界認識' (fixed world perception) as dangerous, implying that perceptions *do* get fixed, and the problem is that this fixed perception cannot cope with the changing world, not that it's unstable and easily misled.

While the information environment is highly developed, the problem isn't just about 'catching up' to the environment itself, but that our *perception* (世界認識) is inadequate for the *vastness and constant change* of the world, which is exacerbated by the information environment.

While changing perception is mentioned, simply 'getting more information' is explicitly stated as insufficient: 「断片的な情報をいくら集めたところで、「世界」の認識は何も変わらない。」 (No matter how much fragmented information one gathers, the perception of the 'world' will not change at all.)

The author states that one cannot be 'completely free' (完全に自由になることはない) from these constraints, so 'overcoming' them entirely is not the proposed solution.

While not being swallowed by the information torrent is mentioned, the solution is not to be 'free from the framework' but to make the framework flexible and understand its limits.

While 'words' are mentioned, the illusion is not about the ability to convey anything, but about the scope of one's own thought and knowledge – believing one can think 'globally' and 'encompass everything'.

The author explicitly states that what one can know is 'small' (小さい) and that one must 'endure this smallness' (この小ささに耐えていかなければ). The illusion is about overestimating one's own capacity, not about the inherent limitlessness of knowledge itself.

This is the opposite of the author's point. The author emphasizes that what one can know is 'small' and that thinking one can learn everything from the world is an illusion.

The passage explicitly states that 'people cannot think globally' (人は世界的にものを考えることなどはできない). The focus is on understanding one's *own* limited capacity, not on what one can do for the world.

The passage contrasts the 'smallness' of what one can know with the 'empty boasting' of scholarship. The wisdom lies in accepting limitations, not in accumulating endless knowledge.

The passage emphasizes individual capacity and self-awareness (我が身ひとつの能力でできることを知り抜いている), not explicitly working for others.

While cultivating soil and planting seedlings are mentioned, the emphasis is on *nurturing* them to grow into good crops, not just selecting and planting.

Cultivating the soil (temperament) is part of the process, but the ultimate goal is to grow the 'spiritual harvest' (精神の作物), not just continuous improvement of the soil itself.

The passage explicitly rejects the idea of 'world standard' (世界標準) in the context of individual work and knowledge, emphasizing the 'smallness' of what one can achieve individually.

The passage states that everyone is born with their own temperament (自分の気質を背負って生まれる). The process is about cultivating *that* given temperament, not finding a new one.

The passage contrasts 'culture' with 'know-it-alls' (物識り), implying it's not just about accumulating specialized knowledge, but about a deeper, personal cultivation.

This option describes 'knowledge' (知識) itself, but the author defines 'culture' as the 'spiritual harvest' (精神の作物) that grows from one's temperament through learning, not merely the accumulation of knowledge from books or studies.

A primarily warns about the negative effects, not future tasks for problem-solving. B is not critical of the current situation in a blaming way, but rather seeks to understand its underlying causes.

A presents the problem and its effects, but B is the one that points to social background as a cause (e.g., lack of same-age children, diminishing nature).

This is the reverse of the correct answer. A warns about the impact, and B points to social background and future tasks.

While A implies the importance of parent-child interaction, its main point is the *harm* of media contact. B acknowledges the importance of outdoor play but focuses on the societal reasons why it's difficult for parents to facilitate it.

A states that media immersion *causes* a lack of real-life experience, implying media contact itself is the problem. B does state that simply excluding TV isn't a solution, but this option misrepresents A's primary point.

A clearly states the negative impact of long media exposure. B, however, does not conclude that parents should show TV appropriately, but rather that the underlying reasons for excessive viewing need to be addressed for a fundamental solution.

The villagers have deep thoughts *about* nature, but nature itself is not the 'intangible thing' through which they express their thoughts.

The thought about 'life' (生命) is the *content* of the thought expressed through meal etiquette, not the form of expression itself.

Gratitude (感謝) is also a *content* of the thought, specifically the thought that creates the meal etiquette, not the intangible form of expression.

While living with nature is implied, the passage doesn't specify 'without destroying nature' or 'how villagers should be' in that context. It's a broader 'thought about nature'.

Gratitude is mentioned in the context of meal etiquette, but not as the primary thought about nature itself for the villagers.

The passage doesn't suggest a need to 'restore nature' (自然を取り戻す) or focus on 'utilizing nature' (自然を利用する農業). It's about living *within* nature and having thoughts about it, agriculture, and the village.

While food involves effort, the passage specifically emphasizes 'life' (生命) and gratitude for it, not the 'labor' (労力) involved in production.

The passage speaks of 'gratitude' (感謝) for receiving life, not a sense of 'sinfulness' (罪深い) for having to eat.

While agriculture is mentioned elsewhere, the specific explanation for meal etiquette focuses on 'life' (生命) in general, not specifically the produce of agriculture or gratitude to farmers.

The passage doesn't state that deep thoughts *only* exist in intangible forms. It says that intangible forms *also* exist alongside tangible ones like art and music.

The author explicitly corrects his initial belief that academic papers (a form of writing) were the *only* suitable method, implying he no longer considers written forms to be 'supreme' (最上).

The passage notes that modern thought has come to prioritize written forms, but this is presented as a negative development (「いつの間にか人間の上に君臨し、現実を支配する手段になっていった」), not something the author respects. The author argues that deep thoughts *can* be intangible, not that they *must* be.

This job pays 900 yen/hour, which is less than the Japanese Soba Restaurant Staff.

This job pays 950 yen/hour, which is less than the Japanese Soba Restaurant Staff.

This job pays 850 yen/hour, which is less than the Japanese Soba Restaurant Staff.

Only one job would be incorrect as there are more options that fit the criteria.

Only two jobs would be incorrect as there are three jobs that fit the criteria.

All four jobs would be incorrect because the Chinese Restaurant Staff job requires a minimum of 3 days/week, which Yamada cannot meet.