JLPT Test N1
問題8 次の(1)から(4)の文章を読んで、後の問いに対する答えとして最もよいものを、 1・2・3・4から一つ選びなさい。
Reading Passage
何かを学ぶということは、もちろん問題に答える知識や技術を身につけるという意味もあるけれど、それは実は学ぶことの本質ではない。ぼくらは本や学校で、これまでひとが見出してきたさまざまな秩序、筋道を学ぶ。だけどそうやってさまざまな「型」を学ぶことによって今まで見えていなかった。あるいはぼんやりとしか見えていなかった。「型やぶり」なものが見えてくるようになる。つまりは、学べば、学ぶほど、見えてくる問題は増えるというわけだ。
English Summary & Annotations
筆者は、学ぶことの本質とは、どのようなことだと考えているか
Detailed Explanation
Why this is correct:
The passage states that learning various 'forms' (型) allows one to see 'unconventional' (型やぶり) things that were previously unseen or only vaguely seen. Therefore, the essence of learning is to recognize problems that were not noticed before by learning 'forms'.
Why other options are incorrect:
This option suggests that the essence of learning is to acquire knowledge and skills to see various orders and paths, which the author explicitly states is NOT the essence of learning, but merely a part of it.
This option suggests challenging existing 'forms' without adhering to them, but the passage emphasizes learning 'forms' first to then see beyond them, not to disregard them from the start.
This option suggests thinking for oneself instead of learning what others have found, which contradicts the passage's point about learning 'forms' discovered by others.
このメールがもっとも伝えたいことは何か。
Detailed Explanation
Why this is correct:
The email states, '予約ページによりますと、宿泊の可否についてはメールでご連絡いただけるとのことですが、いまだメールをいただいておりません。' (According to the reservation page, we should receive an email regarding the availability of accommodation, but we have not received it yet.) This clearly indicates the main purpose is to confirm if the reservation has been processed and confirmed.
Why other options are incorrect:
While the email lists reservation details, the primary concern is the lack of confirmation, not just a general check of details. The sender wants to know if the reservation is 'established'.
The email does not suggest any malfunction with the reservation page; it's about the lack of a confirmation email.
The email explicitly asks to change the dinner time from 19:00 to 18:00, which is earlier, not later. The option states '遅らせてほしい' (want to delay), which is incorrect.
筆者によると、医療関係者に求められていることは、何か。
Detailed Explanation
Why this is correct:
The passage states that one of the challenges for medical professionals is to make patients reconsider their self-serving interpretations and treatment actions, and to focus only on medically required treatment activities. This means guiding patients towards a medical understanding of their condition.
Why other options are incorrect:
The passage implies that patients' interpretations are 'self-serving' and need to be re-evaluated, not simply listened to and reconsidered for treatment methods.
While showing medical views is part of it, the core is to guide the patient's internal understanding, not just present information for their agreement.
The passage focuses on aligning the patient's understanding with medical reality, not necessarily directing them towards the 'latest' treatment methods.
<u>矛盾である</u>とあるが、何が矛盾か。
Detailed Explanation
Why this is correct:
The passage defines a diary as a private record not meant to be read by others. The contradiction arises when the author of the diary, acting as a 'strange reader,' considers the possibility of others reading it (e.g., if stolen or after death) and worries about what might be written. This act of anticipating an external audience contradicts the diary's inherently private nature.
Why other options are incorrect:
The contradiction is not in writing secrets, but in the author's own anticipation of others reading it, which goes against the private nature of a diary.
The passage does not mention writing the diary to be easily readable by others; it's about the author's internal consideration of external readers.
While the diary might be read by others, the contradiction specifically refers to the *author's act of anticipating* this, which is at odds with the diary's private purpose.
問題9 次の(1)から(3)の文章を読んで、後の問いに対する答えとして最もよいものを、 1・2・3・4から一つ選びなさい。
Reading Passage
十年絵を描いてきて、最近になってようやく筆の止めどころが、わかってきたかな、と思います。描きすぎずに筆を置くコツが少しずつわかってきた。
最初のうちは、筆が多くなるものなんです。描きたいという気持ちが強いだけに、まだ、足りない。まだ、足りないという気になって、どんどん、描き出してしまう。だけど、それを無理して、セーブすることはないと思います。やっぱり、①とことん行ききっちゃったほうがいいんですよ。何事も。
たとえば、空腹のときに腹いっぱい食べて満腹感というものを味わっておかないと、加減というものが、わかりません。人間、満腹のことを知っているから、これはまだ五分腹八分といったら、この程度だという加減がわかる。一回とことんやってみることで、抑えることや、行き過ぎないことの良さが初めてわかるものですからね。
(中略)自分が描きたいモチーフそのものと対峠して、自分の感じたところで、筆を進めている分には、いいんですが、客観的にそれを見て、ここが足りない。あそこが、足りないと思って描き出してしまうと、やめどころが、わからなくなってしまいます。それは、自分が、どう見て、どう感じたかという気持ちを素直に絵にするということとは、違ってくる。②絵を説明してしまうことになる。そうすると、絵が、うるさくなります。
客観的な目を持つことも、確かに大事なことではあるんですが、見たまま感じたままのストレートな気持ちを解説してはいけないと思うんです。
English Summary & Annotations
筆者は、絵を描き始めた時、どのように描いていたか。
Detailed Explanation
Why this is correct:
The author states, '最初のうちは、筆が多くなるものなんです。描きたいという気持ちが強いだけに、まだ、足りない。まだ、足りないという気になって、どんどん、描き出してしまう。' (At first, one tends to use the brush too much. Because the desire to draw is strong, one feels it's not enough, not enough, and keeps drawing more and more.) This indicates drawing based on strong emotion.
Why other options are incorrect:
The author mentions learning 'how to stop' (筆の止めどころ) recently, implying they didn't know it when they started.
The author explicitly states they used to draw 'too much' (筆が多くなる), not that they tried to avoid drawing too much.
The author says they drew 'more and more' because the desire was strong, not that they suppressed that desire.
①<u>とことん行ききっちゃったほうがいいんですよ</u>とあるが、なぜか。
Detailed Explanation
Why this is correct:
The author uses the analogy of eating until full (満腹感) to understand moderation (加減). By experiencing something to its extreme (とことん行ききる), one can then understand the value of holding back or not going too far. Therefore, going all the way helps one understand the importance of not overdoing it.
Why other options are incorrect:
The passage doesn't say it helps understand 'how much' one wants to draw, but rather the 'right amount' or 'moderation'.
The passage is about the act of drawing and its moderation, not about identifying the subject matter one wants to draw.
The passage emphasizes the importance of *not* adding too much, not the enjoyment of adding more.
②<u>絵を説明してしまう</u>ことについて、筆者は、どのように考えているか。
Detailed Explanation
Why this is correct:
The author states that when one draws by objectively looking at the painting and thinking 'this is not enough, that is not enough,' it becomes difficult to stop. This deviates from honestly expressing one's feelings and sensations, leading to the painting becoming 'noisy' (うるさくなります), meaning it becomes overly detailed and loses its original feeling. This is because the artist is explaining the painting rather than simply expressing their feelings.
Why other options are incorrect:
The issue is not drawing too much 'as one wishes,' but drawing too much based on an *objective assessment* rather than subjective feeling.
The problem is not suppressing the desire to draw, but rather over-explaining the drawing through excessive detail, which makes the expression less natural.
The issue is that drawing from an objective viewpoint, when overdone, makes the painting 'noisy' and less expressive of the artist's true feelings, not necessarily that it fails to impress viewers.
<u>その起点</u>とあるが、何の起点か。
Detailed Explanation
Why this is correct:
The passage states, '科学が飛躍的な成果をもたらす現場では、誰もが実生活の中で、体験する新鮮な驚きや、たわいのない、思いつきの類がその起点となっている。' (In fields where science brings about dramatic results, fresh surprises and trivial ideas experienced in daily life are the starting points.) Therefore, 'その起点' refers to the starting point of major scientific inventions and discoveries.
Why other options are incorrect:
While fresh ideas from daily life are the *source*, the '起点' (starting point) refers to what these ideas lead to, which is major scientific inventions and discoveries.
The passage mentions 'experiences in daily life' but specifies 'fresh surprises and trivial ideas' as the starting point for scientific achievements, not just any scientific experience.
The passage discusses the origin of scientific breakthroughs, not science that is useful in daily life.
筆者は科学における思いつきや驚きを、どのようなものと考えているか。
Detailed Explanation
Why this is correct:
The passage explains that '思いつきや驚きは、新しい確かな「ものの見方」へのきっかけでしかなく、科学とは、それらをとことん洗練する創意工夫の営みにほかならない。' (Ideas and surprises are merely triggers for a new, certain 'way of looking at things,' and science is nothing but the endeavor of refining them thoroughly through ingenuity.) This means they are opportunities to gain a different perspective.
Why other options are incorrect:
Ideas and surprises are *triggers* for a new way of looking at things, not the essence of the scientific way of looking at things itself.
The passage states that science refines these ideas, not that they connect scientific theories to daily events.
Ideas and surprises are the *starting point* for ingenuity and refinement, not something that arises *during* the process of ingenuity.
科学を発展させた人々に共通している姿勢は、何か。
Detailed Explanation
Why this is correct:
The passage states that people who truly developed science share the attitude of being surprised by something, looking at what they previously took for granted from a slightly different angle, and then making what they saw from that different angle consistent and certain. This involves not leaving ideas and surprises as they are, but trying to see things differently from common sense.
Why other options are incorrect:
The passage emphasizes looking at things from a *different* angle, not explaining surprises with existing scientific knowledge.
While 'changing perspective' is mentioned, the core idea is to refine these insights and make them certain, not just to acquire original thinking.
The passage suggests thinking about whether common sense can become richer, not denying common sense itself.
①<u>そういう人間の傾向</u>とあるがどのような傾向か。
Detailed Explanation
Why this is correct:
The passage states that many people admire individuality but secretly desire to be 'average' (人並み). They become anxious if they deviate from or fall behind others. Discovering that others share the same thoughts brings great relief, leading them to immediately form groups. This tendency is to seek comfort and security by grouping with others who share similar thoughts, even while aspiring to be unique.
Why other options are incorrect:
The passage states people admire individuality but secretly desire to be average, not that they don't truly acknowledge individualists.
The passage says they group with those who share 'the same thoughts' (同じ思い), not necessarily those with similar 'individuality'.
While they desire individuality, the tendency described is to group with those who share the *same thoughts* for reassurance, not necessarily with strong individualists.
何か②<u>個としての価値を否定されてしまうことにつながる</u>のか。
Detailed Explanation
Why this is correct:
The passage explains that people know they are mostly ordinary, and their future is limited. Being told this explicitly (規定される) feels like their life is being painted with a hopeless, definitive image, which leads to feeling that their value as an individual is denied. It's about the feeling of losing hope and purpose when one's ordinariness is confirmed.
Why other options are incorrect:
While it relates to limits and future, the core is the feeling of being *denied* as an individual, not just feeling anxious about the future.
The passage states that being told one's future is ordinary 'uproots the essential condition of the will to live' (生の意欲の本質的条件を根こそぎにしてしまう), which is about losing the will to live, not just being reminded of one's ordinariness.
The passage talks about being 'ordinary' (凡庸さ), not 'incompetence' (無能さ).
筆者の考えに合っているのはどれか。
Detailed Explanation
Why this is correct:
The author concludes that humans, while generally aware of their finite existence, always leave some unknown parts within that scope. It is there that they barely seek confirmation of their individuality. This means that by leaving room for the unknown in their own lives, people maintain their will to live.
Why other options are incorrect:
The passage doesn't state that humans expand their possibilities to enhance their value, but rather maintain hope by leaving unknown parts.
The passage states that people seek confirmation of their individuality by leaving unknown parts, not that they gain confirmation to enhance their value.
The passage focuses on maintaining the will to live by leaving unknown parts within one's finite existence, not constantly searching for new hope.
問題 10 次の文章を読んで、後の問いに対する答えとして最もよいものを、1・2・3・4 から一つ選びなさい。
Reading Passage
そんなことをやっていられるというのはうらやましいことです」などと言われ、①何とも複雑な心境になるのである。
だが、コペルニクス的転回を遂げたと言っても、過言ではない近年の文化研究の進展の中で、政治や社会の話と切り離して文化が論じられるなどということが幻想である、というより、そのような幻想自体、すでに一定の政治的社会的イデオロギーの刻印を帯びたものにほかならなかったということが明らかにされてきた。いまや、音楽研究者の中にも、政治や社会から切り離された純粋な「音楽そのもの」がどこかに宙に浮いたような形で存在しているなどと素朴に信じているような人は、誰もいないだろう。
音楽研究に関わる人々の意識も代わり、研究の内実も大きく変わってきているにも関わらず、むしろ、音楽研究の世 界の外側にいる人のほうが、音楽を「純粋」な形で囲い込みたがっているように思われるのは②皮肉なことだ。社会科学の最先端で議論をしている人が、音楽の話になったとたんに、30年前の音楽研究に戻ったかのような古典的なデータや図式でものを考えていることが明らかになるような場面に、これまで、何度か出会ってきた。歴史学者などが中心になって、編んだ領域横断的な論集などで、音楽の部分だけはひどく浮世離れした古めかしい論文が掲載されており、音楽研究の最近の成果と大きく切り離してしまっているようなこともしばしばある。ここ十数年で、音楽研究 者の目に映る音楽の世界もずいぶんと変わっているのに、われわれの発信が不足しているために、その面白さを十分に 伝え切れていない。そんな気がするのである。
English Summary & Annotations
①<u>何とも複雑な心境になる</u>とあるが、なぜか。
Detailed Explanation
Why this is correct:
The author states that people often say, 'It's enviable that you can do such things in this harsh world,' implying that art and culture are seen as detached from real-world political, economic, and social life, and thus unnecessary or a 'waste' in difficult times. This makes the author feel complex because their field is perceived as irrelevant or a luxury.
Why other options are incorrect:
The issue is not that the value of art/culture is not highly evaluated, but that it's seen as separate from and unnecessary for real life.
The author's complex feeling stems from the *perception* that the relationship is weak, not that it is actually becoming weak.
The statement 'そんなことをやっていられるというのはうらやましいことです' (It's enviable that you can do such things) implies that the research is seen as not useful in real life, which is the core of the complex feeling.
筆者によると、近年の音楽研究者は、音楽をどのようにとらえているか。
Detailed Explanation
Why this is correct:
The passage states that recent cultural research has revealed that the idea of culture being separate from politics and society is an illusion, and that this illusion itself was stamped with a certain political and social ideology. It concludes that no music researcher would now naively believe in 'pure music itself' existing in a vacuum. This means they now see music as deeply intertwined with politics and society.
Why other options are incorrect:
The passage mentions that in difficult times, art/culture is often seen as unnecessary, not that it's most needed.
The passage discusses music research in the context of cultural research, implying it's comparable to other arts/cultures, not that it cannot be discussed on the same level.
The passage explicitly states that the idea of music being 'pure' and separate from real life is an illusion that modern researchers no longer believe in.
②<u>皮肉なことだ</u>とあるが、何が皮肉なのか。
Detailed Explanation
Why this is correct:
The author finds it ironic that while music researchers' understanding has evolved to see music as deeply connected to society, people outside the field still want to enclose music in a 'pure' form, thinking about it with outdated concepts. This means outsiders want to treat music as something special and detached from reality, which is contrary to the current understanding within the field.
Why other options are incorrect:
The irony is that outsiders are *not* engaging in cutting-edge discussions about music; they are stuck in old ways of thinking.
The irony is about the *perception* of music as pure, not about whether outsiders enjoy it purely.
The irony is that outsiders *don't* understand music well in the modern sense; they hold outdated views.
現在の音楽研究者のあり方について、筆者はどのように述べているか。
Detailed Explanation
Why this is correct:
The author states that despite the changes in music researchers' awareness and the content of their research, their communication is insufficient, and they haven't been able to fully convey the interesting aspects of their work. This implies that they need to disseminate their research findings more effectively.
Why other options are incorrect:
The passage focuses on communicating the *new understanding* of music's connection to society, not just its universal value.
While discussing cutting-edge research is important, the author specifically points out the lack of *transmission* of these results to the outside world.
The passage indicates that their awareness and research have *already* changed, and the problem is the lack of communication of these changes, not a need to change their approach.
問題 11 次の A と B の文章を読んで、後の問いに対する答えとして最もよいものを、I・ 2・3・4から一つ選びなさい。
Reading Passage
近年食品問題への関心が高い。その多くは食品の安全性を不安視する声だ。すでに政府は中立の立場で公正に科学的評価を行う機関を設置し、企業も独自の検査や表示を行うなどの対策を始めた結果、以前より安全性は向上していると言える。
しかし残念ながら、まだ消費者の安心感には結びついていない。今後必要なのは、安全な者は安全だと消費者が正しく理解できることではないだろうか。科学的に安全だと判断された食品が、消費者にも安全だと認知されれば消費者の安心につ ながる。そのためには、提供する側のわかりやすい説明とともに、消費者側もそれを理解するための科学的知識を備える必要があるだろう。
B
発生した食品事故に対して適切な対策がとられ、科学的に安全が証明された後も、いつまでもその食品の消費回復が見られないということはよくある。消費者が納得しないのである。
(中略)安全に関しては、絶対安全ということはありえないにしても、コストさえ掛ければ技術的に安全度を上げることが可能である。しかも安全度は多くの場合、科学的に数値として明示できる。しかし安心の場合には、示された客観的な事実に納得するかどうかは、消費者一人一人の主観によっており、これを説得するのは簡単なことではない。安全を安心に繋げる難しさには、フードシステムに対する消費者の信頼の程度が大きく関係する。消費者と生産者あるいは、政府の間に信頼関係が構築されていれば安全証明がほぼ同時に安心へと繋がる。
English Summary & Annotations
AとBの認識で共通しているのは何か。
Detailed Explanation
Why this is correct:
Both passages A and B acknowledge that despite efforts to improve food safety (scientific evaluation, company inspections), consumers still lack a sense of '安心感' (peace of mind/security). They both highlight that safety measures alone are not enough to achieve consumer confidence.
Why other options are incorrect:
Neither passage explicitly states that consumer opinions are not reflected in safety measures. They focus on the gap between scientific safety and consumer peace of mind.
Both passages emphasize the importance of scientific proof for safety, but note that it doesn't automatically lead to consumer peace of mind.
Passage B explicitly states that 'absolute safety is impossible' (絶対安全ということはありえない), contradicting this option.
AとBは、どうしたら消費者が安心を得られると述べているか。
Detailed Explanation
Why this is correct:
Passage A states that consumers need to correctly understand that safe products are safe, which requires clear explanations from providers and scientific knowledge from consumers. Passage B states that consumer peace of mind depends on their trust in the food system, and that trust between consumers, producers, and government leads to safety proof almost simultaneously leading to peace of mind. Thus, A emphasizes consumer understanding through knowledge, and B emphasizes trust between parties.
Why other options are incorrect:
While A mentions consumers understanding, neither passage states that consumers gaining more interest in food safety is the direct way to achieve peace of mind.
While B mentions trust, and A mentions clear explanations, neither states that *both* passages agree that reliable explanations from producers alone are sufficient.
A mentions consumers acquiring scientific knowledge, but B focuses on building trust, not just producers providing more precise safety certifications.
問題 12 次の文章を読んで、後の問いに対する答えとして最もよいものを、1・2・3・4 から一つ選びなさい。
Reading Passage
「外から帰ったら、手を洗いなさい」
「ごちそうさまを言いなさい」
(中略)どんなに声に威厳を込めたつもりでも、新聞をよみながらだと、まるでだめ。
[お父さんはこういっているけど、手を洗うっていうのは、別に大事なことじゃないんだな」
きちんと目を見ていないと、子どもはたちまちそう判断してしまいます。よそ見をしながら口やかましく繰り返しても、①「ごちそうさま」を言うようにはならないのです。目を見て話すことは、分かり合い、メッセージを伝え、コミュニケーションをよくする秘訣。これは子供に限ったことではありません。仕事でも家庭でも、すべての場において有効です。
大人になると、ぎくしゃくすることは頻繁にあります。
環境も価値観も考え方も違う人たちの集まりである以上、意見が食い違ったり、誤解が生じてトラブルになることは珍しくありません。
「じっくり話し合えば、ちゃんと分かり合える」というのは、僕の見たところ、残念ながら理想論。どちらかが妥協したり、お互いがちょっと意見を曲げたりして合わせているだけで、100パーセントの解決などありえないのが現実です。
あげくの果てに「話しても無駄だし、まだ同じことの繰り返しか」とうんざりし、コミュニケーションをあき らめてしまう一ほうっておくとこんな事態に陥ることも、珍しくはありません。
それでもコミュニケーションを諦めたくないと思ったとき、僕はこの秘訣を思い出しました。いくら意見が食い違っ ても、どんなにトラブルが燃え上がっても、必ず相手の目を見て話をするということを。
考え方がまるで合わず、最後まで言い分は平行線をたどるような議論でも、相手の目を話し読ければ、不思議なことに相手に尊敬の念が湧いてきます。たとえ「この人の言っていることは、間違っている!」と思っていても、相手の目を見ていれば、「その人の人間性」に対しては、別の気持ちを抱くようになります。意見は認められなくても、人としては認められるということです。
言い合っても目と目を見つめ合っていれば、不思議な一体感すら生まれます。結果として解決には到らなくても、悪い方向には向かわない。これだけは、何度も試した僕の保証付きです。
疲れていたり、へこんでいたりすると、人は目を見て話すことができません。そして下を向いていればいるほど、よくない事態が悪化します。
さあ、洗い物をしながら大事な話をするのはやめましょう。パンコンから顔を上げて、まっすぐ目を見て話しましょう。 理解できない相手でも、受け入れられない相手でも、この秘訣を知っていれば、②何か別の関係は生まれるはずです。
English Summary & Annotations
子供は、①<u>「ごちそうさま」を言うようにはならない</u>とあるが、なぜか。
Detailed Explanation
Why this is correct:
The passage explains that if a parent gives instructions while looking away (e.g., reading a newspaper), the child will quickly judge that the instruction is not important. Therefore, even if the parent repeatedly says 'gochisousama' loudly, the child won't say it because the parent's true feeling that the phrase is necessary is not conveyed through eye contact.
Why other options are incorrect:
The passage focuses on the parent's communication method (eye contact), not on the parent setting an example by saying 'gochisousama' themselves.
The passage states that repeating loudly while looking away is ineffective, not that being loud is counterproductive in itself.
The issue is the lack of conveyed importance from the parent, not that the child hasn't formed a habit yet.
大人同士の人間関係について、筆者はどのように述べているか。
Detailed Explanation
Why this is correct:
The author states, 'じっくり話し合えば、ちゃんと分かり合える」というのは、僕の見たところ、残念ながら理想論。どちらかが妥協したり、お互いがちょっと意見を曲げたりして合わせているだけで、100パーセントの解決などありえないのが現実です。' (From my perspective, the idea that 'if you talk it through carefully, you'll understand each other' is unfortunately an ideal. The reality is that 100% resolution is impossible, with one side compromising or both bending their opinions slightly to align.) This means even with discussion, complete mutual understanding might not be achieved.
Why other options are incorrect:
The author states that 100% resolution is impossible, implying that simply discussing until the end doesn't guarantee understanding.
The author says compromise happens, but it doesn't eliminate misunderstandings; it just allows for alignment without full resolution.
The passage states that abandoning communication can lead to trouble, but it doesn't say that trouble is rare if communication is abandoned.
②<u>何か別の関係が生まれる</u>とあるが、どういうことか。
Detailed Explanation
Why this is correct:
The passage explains that even if opinions don't align and arguments go nowhere, looking into the other person's eyes can surprisingly evoke respect for them. Even if one thinks 'what this person is saying is wrong!', looking into their eyes makes one feel differently about 'that person's humanity'. This means that even if opinions differ, the other person's character or humanity is acknowledged.
Why other options are incorrect:
The passage explicitly states that opinions might not be accepted ('意見は認められなくても'), so it's not about accepting their opinions.
It's about recognizing the other person's humanity, not just accepting their attitude.
It's about acknowledging the person, not necessarily understanding or accepting their values.
この文章で筆者が言いたいことは何か。
Detailed Explanation
Why this is correct:
The author repeatedly emphasizes that looking into someone's eyes is a secret to understanding each other, conveying messages, and improving communication, applicable in all situations (children, work, family). Even when opinions clash, eye contact fosters respect and a sense of unity, preventing situations from worsening. The core message is the importance of eye contact in communication.
Why other options are incorrect:
The author states that 100% resolution is an ideal, not a guaranteed outcome of eye contact and discussion.
While eye contact helps prevent misunderstandings, the broader point is about improving communication and fostering respect, not just avoiding misunderstanding.
The focus is on mutual understanding and respect through eye contact, not solely on making oneself understood.
問題13 次のページは、市民農園の利用者募集案内である。下の問いに対する答えとして最もよいも のを、1・2・3・4から一つ選びなさい。
Reading Passage
市民農園は、小面積の土地を利用して野菜や花作りを楽しむための貸し農園です。野菜や花作りに興味はあるけれど育てる場所がないといった方々は、市民農園を利用してみませんか。
【対象者】原口市内にお住まいの人または市内にお勤めの人
【利用期間】2014年4月~2015年3月(最長3年間の継続利用が可能)
【農画の場所・特徴・料金】今回募集する農園は以下の4か所です
場所 特徵 料金/年
① 原口市東山 指導を受けながら、共同で楽しく野菜や花の栽培ができます(栽培する野菜や花は、農園によって決められています)。 8,000円
② 原口市西川 10m2を個人で借りて、自由に野菜や花の栽培が楽しめます。必要な種、苗、農具などは準備してあります。必要に応じて栽培指導を受けられます。種、苗などは各自で準備してください。農具は貸し出します。 5,000円
③ 原口市三田 10m2を個人で借りて、自由に野菜や花の栽培が楽しめます。種、ページを12月)、15日で出しだな 3,000円
④ 原口市池沢 50mを個人で借りて、じっくり野菜や花の栽培が楽しめます。必要に応じて栽培指導を受けられます。種、苗、必要な農具は、各自で準備してください。農業用大型機械の貸し出を行っています。 5,000円
①②③は市街地に近い、比較的利用しやすい場所にあります。④は豊かな自然に囲まれた郊外に あります。③④では栽培指導は行っていません。
【応募方法】 往復はがきに、(1)利用を希望する農園の場所、(2)利用者の名前・住所・電話番号を記入し、市役所市民課市民農園可係宛に送ってください。希望者が多い場合は抽選になります。
【応募締め切り】 2014年3月2日 当日消印有効
【問い合わせ先】原口市役所市民課市民農園係 電話:031 (389) 6930
English Summary & Annotations
ムディさんは、市民農園を借りたいと考えている。作る野菜自分で決めたいが、農作業の経験がないので作り方を教えてほしいと思っている。ムディさんはどの農園を借りたらよいか
Detailed Explanation
Why this is correct:
Mudi wants to choose her own vegetables (自由に野菜や花の栽培が楽しめます) and needs cultivation guidance (栽培指導を受けられます) because she has no experience. Farm ② (原口市西川) allows individual cultivation (10m2を個人で借りて、自由に野菜や花の栽培が楽しめます) and offers cultivation guidance (必要に応じて栽培指導を受けられます). Farm ① also offers guidance but the vegetables are decided by the farm. Farms ③ and ④ do not offer guidance.
Why other options are incorrect:
Farm ① offers guidance but the vegetables are decided by the farm, which contradicts Mudi's desire to choose her own vegetables.
Farm ③ allows choosing vegetables but does not offer cultivation guidance.
Farm ④ allows choosing vegetables but does not offer cultivation guidance.
原口市の市民農園を借りる際に、留意しなければならないことはどれか。
Detailed Explanation
Why this is correct:
The table for Farm ② (原口市西川) states '種、苗などは各自で準備してください。農具は貸し出します。' (Seeds, seedlings, etc., please prepare yourselves. Farm tools are lent out.) And for Farm ④ (原口市池沢), it states '種、苗、必要な農具は、各自で準備してください。' (Seeds, seedlings, necessary farm tools, please prepare yourselves.) This indicates that for some farms, users must prepare their own tools.
Why other options are incorrect:
The '対象者' (eligible persons) section states '原口市内にお住まいの人または市内にお勤めの人' (People living in Haraguchi City OR working in the city), so it's not limited to residents only.
The '利用期間' (usage period) states '(最長3年間の継続利用が可能)' (continuous use for a maximum of 3 years is possible), meaning it's a maximum, not a requirement to borrow for 3 years or more.
The '応募方法' (application method) states '希望者が多い場合は抽選になります' (If there are many applicants, there will be a lottery), meaning early application doesn't guarantee a spot, but a lottery decides.