JLPT Test N1 in 12/2016

While free expression is implied as a positive outcome of the teacher's waiting, the passage's main point is the teacher's specific action of 'waiting' to facilitate this, not just a general need for free expression.

The passage focuses on drawing out students' thoughts by creating space for them to speak, not on the teacher imagining what students are thinking.

This option contradicts the passage, which states that '沈黙し、「待つ」という行為も時には大切であろう' (the act of being silent and 'waiting' is sometimes important).

The announcement states that internet reservations will be accepted '同様に' (similarly) to counter reservations, meaning the period remains the same, not changed.

The announcement says internet reservations will be '24時間可能' (available 24 hours), but it doesn't state that this is *longer* than previous internet reservation hours, as there was no internet reservation system before February 1, 2017.

The announcement says 'これまで管理事務所窓口で受け付けておりましたが、2017年2月1日よりインターネット上の予約システムでも行うことができるようになります。' (Reservations have been accepted at the management office counter, but from February 1, 2017, they will also be available via the internet reservation system.) The word 'でも' (also) indicates that counter reservations will still be possible.

The passage implies that simply having one's own values understood is not enough; a more active creation of new, shared values is needed.

The passage explicitly states that '自己の価値観を保存したままで、他者の価値観を理解するという方略だけでは十分ではない' (the strategy of understanding others' values while preserving one's own is not sufficient). Instead, it calls for relativizing one's own values.

While finding common points might be part of the process, the passage goes further, emphasizing the *creation* of *new* shared values, not just finding existing commonalities.

The passage does not suggest that ordinary people making ordinary things results in something special. It's about the author's unique perspective as both 'strange' and 'ordinary'.

The passage doesn't say that a 'strange person' making ordinary things creates something special. It's about using the 'ordinary' perspective to understand 'special' things.

The author explicitly states that they are both 'strange' and 'ordinary' and that the 'ordinary' perspective is crucial for creating 'special' things, contradicting the idea that only a 'strange' perspective is needed.

The passage discusses the domestication of wolves into dogs, so the mystery isn't about choosing wolves over dogs, but about domesticating wolves at all.

The passage explicitly calls wolves '肉食獣' (carnivores) and '恐ろしい' (fearsome), so humans clearly recognized them as such.

The passage mentions that humans could hunt without dogs, implying dogs weren't *needed* for hunting, but it doesn't state that wolves would be a 'hindrance' to hunting. The mystery is more about the initial idea of domestication given their dangerous nature and lack of necessity.

The passage suggests wolves approached humans, not that humans initially relied on them. Reliance came later as they hunted together.

The passage states '弱いオオカミだけでは、狩りをすることができない' (weak wolves alone cannot hunt), contradicting the idea that they were good at hunting.

The passage mentions '群れの中での順位が低い' (low status within the pack), but not explicitly that they were '追い出された' (expelled) from the pack.

The passage mentions low status in the pack but doesn't suggest they used humans to avoid danger from their own kind.

The passage states that weak wolves could '手助けをする' (help) humans, and 'やがて人間と犬とが共に狩りをするようになった' (eventually humans and dogs began hunting together), implying a mutual development, not that humans *forced* them to help initially.

The passage suggests wolves scavenged for leftovers, not that humans actively provided them with food from the start. The initial interaction was the wolves seeking food.

While children will become adults, the passage focuses on *how* they observe adults, not their desire to grow up quickly.

The passage mentions adults failing, but it's about children observing how adults handle failures, not children thinking about their own future failures.

The passage mentions '僕はあんな大人にはならないだろうけれど、あんなふうにするのもすてきだなと感じることもあるに違いない' (I probably won't become an adult like that, but I'm sure I'll sometimes feel that doing things that way is wonderful), indicating that even if they don't want to be exactly like that adult, they still find something positive, not just a negative desire.

The passage focuses on the *perception* of the future itself (boring, not fun), not specifically on the child's confidence in becoming a 'wonderful adult'.

The passage is about the child's outlook on their future as an adult, not about what they should do in the present.

The passage emphasizes the general lack of appeal or joy in adulthood, not specifically the inability to find what they want to do in the future.

The author explicitly says 'わが身をつくろって、いいかっこするのではない' (not to put on airs and try to look good), contradicting this option.

While the goal is a happy future for children, the method proposed is showing them 'ベテランらしいところ' (what a veteran child does), not simply 'guiding' them.

The passage is about adults *being* charming and showing their true selves, including how they handle failures, rather than just 'teaching' children about an attractive adult world.

While they saw reporters as '世俗' (worldly/secular), the change is about their *engagement* with media, not necessarily a newfound 'trust' in media itself.

The passage mentions caring about colleagues' eyes before, but the current situation is about actively engaging with media, not primarily about caring more about reporters' eyes.

The passage states that universities and institutes *now* 'メディア戦略を練る' (develop media strategies), implying this is a new development, not something they did before and now rely on reporters for.

The problem is the opposite: journalism *is* making articles based on what scientists provide, potentially too uncritically.

The passage suggests scientists are becoming *better* at PR, and the problem is journalism becoming a mere '宣伝係' (publicity agent), not that scientists are dissatisfied.

While understanding might be an issue, the core problem highlighted is the lack of independent judgment and the tendency to simply transmit information provided by scientists, rather than a lack of understanding.

The passage focuses on the responsibility of science journalism, not on scientists understanding journalism's position.

The passage is about science journalism's role and strategy in relation to scientists, not about scientists re-evaluating their relationship with journalism.

The core message is about journalism's independence and critical role, not about ensuring science's value is recognized.

The passage says people *don't* consciously think about trees despite them being familiar, so making them aware isn't the primary role mentioned.

The passage mentions that towns without trees might *seem* modern/futuristic, but then immediately contrasts this with a lack of comfort, indicating this is not a positive role of trees.

The passage doesn't mention escaping from the troubles of reality. It focuses on the aesthetic and emotional benefits of trees in the urban environment.

While people's lives are considered, the passage emphasizes '植生' (vegetation), '歴史性' (historicity), and '未来性' (futurity), not just personal preferences.

The passage mentions '歴史性' (historicity) but focuses on *planting* new trees with meaning, not just preserving existing historical ones.

This is one aspect mentioned ('季節の移ろいの中で、人々がその木をどのように眺めながら暮らしていくのか'), but not the sole meaning of 'それ'. The meaning is broader, encompassing all the factors mentioned before the phrase.

The passage mentions that information exchange is already '盛んとなり' (thriving), so the author isn't asking for *more* of that, but for a broader impact.

The passage acknowledges that individual gardens are already '立派になりました' (splendid), so the author's ambition is not for *more* individual beauty, but for collective beauty.

The author says '個々の部分と共有の部分が美しくなってこそはじめて全体が美しくなる' (only when both individual and shared parts become beautiful does the whole become beautiful), indicating a need for both, not prioritizing shared over individual.

The passage mentions wishing for children's bright future while cherishing trees, but it doesn't state that cherishing trees *causes* children to become interested in nature.

While '手入れ' (maintenance) is part of '愛でる', the core idea is the '愛でる心' (cherishing heart), not just the physical act of maintenance.

The passage states that we observe trees through seasons and *then* cherish them, implying that interest in seasonal changes is part of the process that leads to cherishing, but not the sole cause of the 'cherishing heart'.

While A implies listening to opposing views, it doesn't explicitly state 'recognizing each other's ideas' as the main benefit. B does mention '相手の人間性が見えてくる' (the other person's personality becomes visible), but the core benefit highlighted is knowing their '本音' (true feelings).

A does mention '意見を交換し合う' (exchanging opinions), but B does not state that 'foolish talk will be accepted'. It says 'バカらしいと思う話もあるかもしれないが' (there might be foolish talk), but the benefit is about true feelings, not acceptance of foolishness.

A mentions '自由に発言する権利' (right to speak freely), but this is a characteristic of the setting, not the primary *benefit* highlighted. B does not mention finding common points.

While A emphasizes listening, B emphasizes initiating conversation, not primarily listening.

Neither passage suggests an equal speaking ratio. A prioritizes listening, and B suggests initiating to encourage the other person to speak.

A does mention thinking about the intent ('なぜあの人はこのような発言をするのか'), but its main point is 'いかに聞くか' (how to listen). B suggests *starting* the conversation oneself, not making the other person speak first.

The passage emphasizes the *value* of the craftsmen's information for the design process itself, not just for confirming the author's own methods.

While the author meets '様々な職人' (various craftsmen), the focus is on the *type* of information they provide (practical, experience-based), not on learning about the diversity of architectural design.

The passage mentions meeting craftsmen, but the 'enjoyment' is specifically tied to the '情報' (information) they provide, which is crucial for bridging the gap between abstract designs and reality, not just observing their work.

The passage explicitly states that if the designer lacks confidence, '鉛筆の線にもその迷いを見て取ることもできる' (one can even see that hesitation in the pencil lines), implying that even less experienced or confident people draw them, and their state is visible.

The passage contrasts traditional drawings with CAD, stating that CAD drawings make it '設計の全体を把握しにくい' (difficult to grasp the whole design) because they are 'きれい過ぎて' (too clean). This implies traditional drawings *do* allow for better overall grasp and detail through their imperfections.

The passage states that 'すてがたい様々な種類の情報が塗り込められている' (various types of information that are hard to discard are embedded), indicating that information *is* readable, not difficult to read. It also mentions emotions, but the 'difficult to read' part is incorrect.

The passage discusses the nature of information (abstract vs. concrete) and risk detection, not the difficulty of selecting necessary information from a large volume.

The passage mentions that '頭から生み出されたものが暴走している' (things created solely in the mind are running wild), but it doesn't explicitly state that 'risky information' is flooding the system. The focus is on the *detection* of risks.

The passage states that it's *difficult* to detect risks using '旧来の経験側' (traditional empirical methods) due to computers, not that these methods are no longer *needed* or valued. In fact, the author implies they are still valuable but harder to apply.

The passage states that it's *difficult* to detect risks using traditional empirical methods with computers, not that these methods are the primary way to *avoid* all risks from computerization.

While the author notes that hand-derived information is '効率は悪いが' (inefficient), the main point is not to abandon efficiency but to recognize the *value* of what is lost in its pursuit.

The author is not advocating for simply preserving tradition for its own sake, but for recognizing the inherent *value* and unique information that comes from manual work, which is being forgotten.

あおば大学図書館 (Aoba University Library) does not allow lending ('貸出: 不可'). Also, an introduction letter takes '約5日' (about 5 days) to issue, so it wouldn't be available tomorrow.

中山工業大学図書館 (Nakayama Kogyo University Library) does not allow lending ('貸出: 不可').

さくら大学図書館 (Sakura University Library) is not listed as a mutual use agreement school, so an introduction letter would be required. This letter takes '約5日' (about 5 days) to issue, so it wouldn't be available tomorrow. Furthermore, it's not guaranteed that a non-partner library would allow lending even with an introduction letter, as the document states '受けられるサービスについては、各図書館に問い合わせてください。' (Please inquire with each library about available services).

For '② 他大学の図書館に複写を依頼し、取り寄せる' (requesting copies), it states: '申し込みは、本学図書館受付、または本学図書館ホームページ上で行ってください。' (Applications can be made at this university's library counter, *or* via this university's library website), not necessarily the owning university's website.

For '② 複写を依頼し、取り寄せる', it states: '一度に依頼できる件数は5件までです。' (The number of items that can be requested at once is up to 5), meaning more than 2 items can be requested.

For '③ 資料の借用', it states: '資料の往復送料などは全額利用者負担となります。' (All round-trip shipping costs, etc., are borne by the user), meaning the *full amount*, not half.