JLPT Test N1

While '誘発させる' (induce) is mentioned, the core idea is about imitation, not solely purchasing desire. The passage emphasizes imitation as the prerequisite for a trend.

The passage explicitly states that a trend *doesn't* form if only a specific designer's item sells; it requires imitation by many people, not just inducement by a specific designer.

The passage contradicts this by saying that if only a specific designer's item sells, it won't become a trend. It needs to be imitated by a wide audience.

This option incorrectly states the deadline for call charge statements as August 1st, whereas it should be August 31st.

This option incorrectly states both the deadline for the application form (July 17th instead of July 10th) and the deadline for call charge statements (August 1st instead of August 31st).

This option incorrectly implies that both documents have the same deadline of August 31st, whereas the application form has an earlier deadline of July 10th.

While the internet *can* provide deeper information, the author's main point is the *danger* of narrowing one's view if not used consciously, not just the benefit of deep information.

This is a partial truth about the internet's utility, but it misses the author's critical perspective on its potential negative impact of narrowing one's worldview.

The passage says if you *don't* use it consciously, *only* limited information (aligned with your values) gathers, leading to a narrow view. Option 4 states you *won't get* information aligned with your values, which is the opposite of what the text implies.

This is a pessimistic view, suggesting alienation, which is unlikely to be the main point of a text aiming to express the author's core thought on human existence.

While recognizing others is important, the question asks for the author's view on *their own* thought, and option 3 focuses more directly on the inherent meaning and value of each individual.

This option is about self-discovery and finding one's place, but option 3 emphasizes the inherent meaning and value that each person *already possesses*.

The issue described is not ambiguity or fragmented information, but rather distortion and inaccuracy of the overall picture and nuances.

The passage states that it's *easy* to simplify with insufficient knowledge ('生半可にしか知らないときのほうが、簡単にざっくり単純化できたりします'), not difficult.

This describes the 'slump' phase that occurs *after* deeper study, not the 'scary thing' which is the negative consequence of *oversimplification* with *insufficient* knowledge.

It's not that deep explanations *cannot* be given, but that *easy-to-understand* explanations become difficult because the complexity of the subject becomes apparent with deeper knowledge.

The passage implies the topic becomes *more* complex with deeper study, making it difficult to explain, not that it's simple but hard to explain.

This describes the problem of *oversimplification* (the 'scary thing' mentioned earlier), not the 'slump' which occurs when knowledge deepens and the complexity of the subject makes simple explanation difficult.

While not giving up is implied, the specific action is to deepen knowledge and find the core essence, not just to analyze the cause of the slump.

The advice is to go *beyond* initial simplification and delve deeper into the subject, not to reflect on the previously simplified explanations.

This option is close but misses the crucial part about thinking through the 'essence' (キモ) after deepening knowledge. The passage emphasizes finding the core, not just how to simplify after gaining sufficient knowledge.

The passage doesn't claim adults cannot understand children's worlds; rather, it highlights the difference in perspective when reading something written from a child's viewpoint.

The shift occurs *despite* or *before* any attempt to adjust one's perspective. The problem is the initial discrepancy, not the attempt to align.

While it's true that adult and child experiences differ, the core reason for the 'shift' is the fundamental difference between the adult's reading perspective and the child's perspective from which the book is written.

This is still reading from an adult perspective and doesn't address the core issue of recalling one's *own* childhood perspective to bridge the gap.

Comparing oneself is a *potential outcome* or *realization* that can occur after recalling one's childhood perspective, not the method to resolve the perspective shift itself.

Reading *to* a child is a different act than reading *as* a child or recalling one's own childhood perspective. The goal is to understand the child's viewpoint from within.

While it might lead to self-reflection, the primary reason given is the confrontation with one's inner child and the resulting change in one's own perspective, which then influences how one views children today.

The purpose is not to find 'problems' with children, but to gain a renewed understanding and empathy for them by connecting with one's own past self.

While one might understand their past self better, the passage emphasizes the impact on one's *current* views and understanding of *children today*, stemming from the realization of the inner child.

While '人間の接触が煩わしいものに感じる傾向も増大した' (tendency to find human contact bothersome increased) is mentioned, '無関心になった' (became indifferent) is too strong and not the full picture of the societal changes described.

The passage describes *why* the style fit (due to deeper societal changes), not just that it happened to align with people's preferences without underlying reasons.

The passage doesn't explicitly state that people's food preferences became similar; rather, it implies a shift towards convenience and less social eating due to changing lifestyles.

While the number of stores might increase, the passage emphasizes its role as a homogenizing force and its integration into a global network, not just its quantity.

The passage uses '割り込み' (intruding) and '組み込む' (integrating), implying a subtle homogenization rather than an active attempt to '壊そうとしている' (try to destroy) diverse food forms.

The passage doesn't state that local restaurants are adopting fast food's simplicity; rather, it describes fast food itself as intruding and homogenizing the food landscape.

While interest in food might lessen and social bonds weaken, '興味を失い' (losing interest) is too strong. The passage describes a more subtle, unconscious shift towards becoming '遊民' (socially disconnected) and accustomed to simplified food.

The passage mentions weakening human relationships but does not suggest an increased tendency for people to become engrossed in work or play as a direct impact of fast food.

While getting used to the same menu is mentioned, the broader impact is on losing interest in *diverse* food cultures and becoming accustomed to a *globally uniform* one, not just losing interest in diverse food cultures in general.

While responsible behavior is mentioned, '子供を養い' (raising children) is not stated as a general requirement for being a 'suitable member of society'.

The focus is on being a 'suitable member' of society, which implies fitting into a collective, rather than simply 'living freely'.

The passage mentions skills and knowledge relevant to one's role (e.g., farmer, fisherman) and the ability to interact well with others, but '他者に尊敬されること' (being respected by others) is not explicitly stated as a component of 'suitability'.

While differences might exist, the passage attributes the difficulty to broader '社会観•人間観' (views on society and humanity) clashing, not specifically between educators and the general public.

Children's subjectivity is presented as one *example* of a clashing view, not the sole or overarching reason for the difficulty in sharing the educational philosophy.

While societal changes might contribute to the diversity of views, the passage explicitly states the difficulty comes from *clashing views* on society and humanity, rather than just the fact of change itself.

The author argues that *all* education involves some form of societal expectation or 'coercion', so this option contradicts the author's overall stance that education is not free from such expectations.

The author does say that children won't become independent if left alone, implying it doesn't grow naturally, but the core point of comparison is that fostering judgment is still a societal 'expectation', making it similar to the author's view in that fundamental aspect.

While both might aim to foster judgment, the author's point is that the *nature* of this fostering is still an 'expectation' from society, making it similar in that fundamental aspect, not just the shared goal.

This describes the view of those who 'feel resistance' to the author's initial definition, not the author's final conclusion about the inherent nature of education.

Similar to option 1, this reflects a specific educational philosophy that the author discusses but does not represent the author's overarching conclusion about education's fundamental nature.

The author emphasizes the *importance of shared understanding* for the coercion to be meaningful, not simply accepting 'influential educational views' without critical assessment.

While electronic dictionaries are portable, this might not be the *most emphasized* common advantage compared to the speed of lookup, and physical dictionaries can also be portable to some extent.

This describes a technical feature of electronic dictionaries (data storage capacity) rather than a direct benefit experienced by the user in terms of usability, which is what the question implies.

Not all electronic dictionaries require internet access, and this might not be a common point of discussion for all types of electronic dictionaries or in both hypothetical texts.

It's unlikely that Text A would state digitalization is unavoidable while Text B suggests students find physical dictionaries *more* appealing than electronic ones, as this creates a contradiction in the overall argument.

It's improbable that Text A would claim physical dictionaries will cease to be used as dictionaries, as the common argument is usually for their continued relevance alongside electronic versions, not their obsolescence.

While physical dictionaries can be enjoyed, the core argument for their value usually revolves around the unique learning process they offer (e.g., encountering related words while browsing), rather than simply being 'enjoyable to read like a book'.

This is too broad and philosophical. The context is specifically about the effectiveness of advertisements in capturing attention.

The passage doesn't question the necessity of ads in general, but rather their effectiveness in being noticed and remembered by people.

This is a detail of '表現の話' (expression), which the author says is *already* being discussed, implying it's not the 'more fundamental thing' that is being overlooked.

The focus is on *blocking* external information due to preoccupation, not just an inability or unwillingness to *remember* many things.

While many ads are seen, the problem is the recipient's *active blocking* of information due to their preoccupation with personal matters, not an inability to choose due to information overload.

The passage implies that recipients are too busy with their own lives to process external information, rather than explicitly stating they feel no necessity to see ads.

The passage explicitly states the opposite: that mere stimulation 'doesn't penetrate deep into the heart'.

The author argues against the effectiveness of mere stimulation, not for increasing its intensity. The point is that stimulation alone is insufficient.

The author implies that while it might grab attention momentarily, it's not truly effective or 'necessary' for genuine engagement, as it doesn't lead to understanding or interest.

While considering the recipient's perspective is implied, the emphasis is more specifically on *organizing* and *strategizing* the information itself to overcome the mental barrier, rather than just appealing to them.

'発信し続ける' (continuing to transmit) is not the main point; the emphasis is on *how* to transmit effectively (organized and strategic), not just the act of continuous transmission.

'ストレートに伝える' (conveying directly) is not the primary advice; the author stresses the need for careful organization, logic, and strategic tone to penetrate the recipient's mental barrier, which is more nuanced than just being direct.

While a newsletter is a common membership benefit, the question asks for a service relevant to her specific interest in theater viewing, and a discount on performances is a more direct and significant benefit for a theater student.

This option is too broad. It's less likely that *all* performances at *all* affiliated theaters would be discounted, especially if a specific 15% discount for the main theater is available for students.

A discount at the shop is a minor benefit compared to performance discounts for a theater student, and may not be universally offered or as significant as a direct performance discount.

While initial payments might be direct, it's less common for recurring annual fees to be paid directly each year, as automatic transfers are more convenient for both parties.

It's less common for both the initial enrollment fee and recurring annual fees to be handled solely through bank transfers, especially if direct payment at the office is an option for the initial fee.

It would be inefficient and less convenient for the member to have to go to two separate locations (the office and a financial institution) to complete the enrollment and payment setup. Typically, the automatic transfer setup can be initiated at the office itself.