JLPT Test N1 in 12/2018

The passage mentions words becoming like "fresh food" where freshness is valued, implying a rapid turnover of words, but it doesn't explicitly state a concern about *new* words overflowing. The core concern is the *quality* of thought behind words.

While speed is mentioned as a priority, the passage focuses on the *neglect of deep thought* itself, not necessarily the direct consequence of making wrong judgments. It's a plausible consequence but not the author's primary stated concern.

The passage implies that deep thought is *neglected* because of speed, not that people *can't keep up* with the internet speed due to thinking. The problem is the devaluation of deep thought.

The email explicitly says "今回ご送付いただいた請求書はこちらで処理いたしますので" (we will process the invoice you sent this time), meaning no resending is needed for October.

The change is in the *department* handling invoices (from individual departments to Accounting), not necessarily a change in the person in charge of the Materials Management Department. The key is the *new process* and *new recipient department*.

While the method changes, the most direct and actionable message is *who* to send it to from November, which is covered by option 4. Option 3 is too general.

While the passage mentions "思いあがった気持ち" (arrogance) of teachers who see themselves as professionals, the core argument is about the *method* of influence, not just overconfidence in ability. It's a related point but not the main idea.

The passage doesn't suggest teachers should face themselves. It suggests that students learn by observing teachers' "後ろ姿" (figure from behind) and choosing who to be influenced by, implying teachers should just *be* themselves, not necessarily "face themselves."

The passage mentions students observing "後ろ姿" (figure from behind), which could imply observing their work ethic, but it explicitly argues *against* actively trying to convey or influence. So, "actively showing" contradicts the author's point.

The author states that efficiency *is* linked to diligence and thus carries ethical value, not that there's discomfort in this association.

The author acknowledges that efficiency is highly valued in modern society but questions its *over-application*, not its general effectiveness.

The passage says efficiency "倫理的な価値をも帯びている" (also carries ethical value) because it's linked to diligence, but the author's main point is the problematic *extension* of this value, not its inherent importance as an ethical measure.

While "purely sensory 'first impression'" is mentioned as the origin, the emphasis is on *listening to one's inner voice* and not being swayed, which is about recognizing existing feelings, not necessarily "polishing" a sensibility.

The passage doesn't focus on finding music that matches one's interests, but rather on how one *reacts* to any music.

The passage mentions that it's difficult to put feelings into words ("まだうまくそれを言葉に出来ないでいるのか"), and the focus is on *understanding* the feeling, not necessarily articulating it.

The issue isn't that they are different, but that the external information *influences* one's own perception, making it hard to discern one's true reaction.

The passage implies that people *do* try to think about it, but it's hard due to external factors, not a lack of trying.

The passage says "他人の意見や反応だって気になる" (others' opinions and reactions are a concern), implying they *affect* one, but not necessarily that one *thinks* they are more important. The author advocates for listening to one's inner voice.

While listening to the end is part of it, the core is the *desire not to stop*, not just whether it leaves an impression.

The passage emphasizes the *uninterrupted* experience ("細切れにすることへのためらい," "立ち去りがたいような感覚"), not the desire to resume later.

This contradicts the passage, which states the importance of *hesitation to fragment* the music.

The passage mentions that existing work alone isn't enough for *growth*, not that employees can't find good in it.

The passage mentions that companies *used to* disallow side jobs due to concerns about negative effects, but it doesn't state that these concerns have been *proven false*. Instead, it highlights new reasons for allowing them.

While government support is mentioned, it's a *contributing factor* to the trend, not the fundamental reason *why companies themselves* are changing their stance. The core reason is the perceived limitation of main jobs for growth.

While diverse experience is mentioned as a benefit for companies (社員一人ひとりの創造性と生産性の向上に期待をかける), and income increase is a common reason for side jobs, the passage doesn't explicitly state income increase as a benefit *for employees* in this context. The focus is on career building and low-risk entrepreneurship.

This is not mentioned in the passage.

The passage talks about building a "second career," not necessarily finding a *better-suited* job to replace the main one.

While this might be a good strategy, the passage doesn't state it as a *requirement* from the author.

The passage mentions "従業員のモチベーション向上" (improved employee motivation) as an effect of side jobs, but it doesn't state that employees *must* maintain motivation for the main job as a requirement for doing a side job.

The passage gives an example where imitating led to failure, implying that imitation without purpose is bad, but it doesn't explicitly say one *must* challenge new fields. The core is the "sense of purpose."

Satisfaction is not the direct reason given for the "dense quality" of each moment.

The passage mentions time passing quickly for older people, but not that the "dense quality" comes from knowing the importance of remaining time.

This is a consequence mentioned later, not the reason for the "dense quality" of each moment.

While the author mentions not finding what they wanted to do, the passage emphasizes the *lack of things to do* and *emptiness*, not necessarily that things didn't go as wished.

The passage states "やれといわれたことをやるのは嫌だが" (I hated doing what I was told), but it doesn't say that was *all* they were told to do, nor is it the primary reason for their dissatisfaction with that age. The core issue is the internal lack of purpose and fulfillment.

The passage implies that uncertain dreams are a source of worry in youth, and getting older means *not* having to chase them, leading to peace. It doesn't suggest re-recognizing their value.

The passage says "夢は潰れて現実となり、その繰り返しの末に人生が現実ばかりで満たされるようになることが、歳をとるということにほかならない。" (Aging means that dreams are crushed and become reality, and after repeating this, life becomes filled only with reality.) It's about the *absence of uncertain dreams* bringing peace, not that reality is *more wonderful*.

The passage suggests that aging means dreams *become reality* (in a sense of being grounded), and the peace comes from *not* having uncertain dreams, not from realizing them.

It was simple, but the passage implies *less* diversity, not necessarily easier habitation.

This is not mentioned in the passage.

The author believes biodiversity was *lower* in that era, not diversifying.

The passage doesn't quantify the time needed in relation to human intervention duration.

The passage says vegetation *will* establish itself ("植生が成立することになります") even if the soil hasn't fully recovered, not that it's difficult to establish.

The passage implies recovery *is* possible, but it's a long and complex process, not that it will *never* recover.

The intervention was for *survival* and *resource extraction*, not explicitly for receiving blessings.

The passage explicitly states, "その介入は、決して生物多様性のためではなく" (That intervention was by no means for biodiversity).

The passage attributes current biodiversity to *human intervention*, not its absence.

The author suggests understanding the *consequences* of leaving it to nature, not just passively observing.

The passage asks to understand *both* human and biological losses, not to prioritize human losses in a specific way for intervention.

The author questions the funding for continued intervention and suggests careful consideration, not a direct recommendation to invest funds for restoration.

This contradicts the clear statements in both passages.

This contradicts the clear statements in both passages.

This contradicts the clear statements in both passages.

This is mentioned only in Passage A.

This is mentioned only in Passage A.

This is explicitly mentioned in Passage B, but not in A. Passage A talks about getting help for weaknesses, not necessarily finding a place to leverage strengths.

The passage says handmade goods "あふれてた" (overflowed/were abundant), implying they were accessible, and the focus was on the *desire for functionality and cheapness* in purchased goods, not the unaffordability of handmade items.

The passage mentions paying money, but the reason for mass production's effectiveness was *cheapness*, not a willingness to pay any price.

The passage implies handmade goods were abundant and provided "思い" and "かけがえのなさ," suggesting satisfaction, but people didn't demand these qualities from *purchased* goods, only functionality and low cost.

This contradicts the passage, which says people started seeking differences *through products*.

The passage describes people *continuing* to seek specific products (luxury cars, fashion trends) to differentiate themselves, not doubting it.

The passage describes how capitalism *made people believe* their value was judged by products, implying they *still tried* to enhance value this way, even if it's a contradiction.

The passage mentions "もう買いたいモノがないという現状" (the current situation of nothing left to buy) as a *manifestation* of the contradiction, not the contradiction itself.

The contradiction is that conforming to models to be *individual* leads to *lack of individuality*, not a failure to fit in.

This is a general psychological concept, not the specific contradiction described in the passage regarding consumption and individuality.

The passage suggests becoming aware of the contradiction, but not necessarily by *not owning things*. It's about the *source* of satisfaction.

This contradicts the author's critique of mass consumption and the pursuit of material possessions for happiness.

While functionality is mentioned in the context of early mass production, the ultimate point of return is "feelings" and "irreplaceability," not just basic function.

This option incorrectly applies the resident rate to the friend.

This option incorrectly applies the non-resident (not with resident) rate to the friend.

This option incorrectly applies the non-resident (not with resident) rate to both Sabrina and her friend.

This option incorrectly states that proof is needed at the time of application, not at the time of stay.

This option incorrectly states the end date of the application period (September 30th instead of September 24th).

This option incorrectly states the start date of the application period (June 1st instead of April 1st) and that proof is needed at the time of application.