JLPT Test

The passage states that customers will be contacted by the affiliated company, not that they should contact the customer center. The customer center is for inquiries, not for initiating the re-repair process for eligible customers.

The passage states that the company has identified the defect and will contact customers. It does not require customers to have experienced a new defect after the initial repair, nor does it ask them to contact the customer center to initiate the re-repair.

The announcement specifically states that the defect was found in repairs done between April and August 2019, and re-repairs will be conducted for products repaired 'during that period' (その期間に修理をした製品). Therefore, people who had repairs outside this period are not the target.

The author doesn't say having a purpose prevents a rich life, but rather that *only* pursuing a purpose is wasteful. The contrast is between single-minded pursuit and openness to the journey.

While the passage suggests not being 'bound' by a purpose, it doesn't explicitly state that having multiple purposes leads to a fulfilling life. The core message is about the *approach* to life, not the number of goals.

The passage mentions feeling happy by experiencing nature, but this is an example of enjoying the journey, not a statement that happiness comes *despite* not achieving goals. The main point is about the *process* of living, not the outcome of goals.

The passage describes children learning to do things 'not like others' in response to teachers telling them not to imitate. So, it's the opposite of appearing to imitate the teacher.

While the passage mentions children acting 'contrary to their own feelings' (自分自身の気持ちとは裏腹に), this is the *motivation* or *method* of the imitation, not the definition of 'imitation with a mask.' The mask refers to how it *appears* to others.

The passage says 'its true nature is hard to see' (その実体が見えにくい) *because* it differs from obvious imitation and appears individualistic. The imitation itself isn't *for* hiding its true nature, but rather its nature *is* hidden by its appearance.

This option suggests a delusion about human capability. While possible, it's less common as a main point than the impact of inventions.

This describes a state of continuous desire despite material wealth, which is a common societal observation, but might not be the *main* point about the *era* itself.

This suggests inventions are continuously improved to satisfy spiritual hunger. This is a positive spin on inventions, which is less likely to be the main point in a critical N1 passage about the modern era's challenges.

The passage says thoughts are not like a 'logically structured paper' (筋道の立った記述) when they first appear. Writing is about *creating* that structure, not just listing ideas in the order they appear.

While intuition (直感) is the starting point for ideas, the act of writing is described as creating a 'smooth, persuasive flow' (スムーズな説得力のある流れ), which implies more than just intuitive connection; it requires structuring.

The passage explicitly states that we don't think in a logically structured way like a paper. Writing is the process of *making* it logical, not just arranging pre-existing logical thoughts.

The passage implies that what is written *becomes* what one thinks, even if it wasn't the original thought. It's not about failing to write what was thought, but about the written text shaping the thought.

The passage mentions that *over-concentrating* on smooth connections can lead to straying. It doesn't suggest that *not* concentrating leads to a feeling of writing well.

While writing can deepen thought, the 'strange' part is specifically about the finished product feeling like the original thought, even if it evolved unexpectedly during the writing process, not necessarily about the depth of thought.

The passage concludes: 「だから言葉の運動が勝手に作り上げてしまった論旨が、いつのまにか自分の「考え」になってしまうという現象が起こるわけだ。」 (Therefore, the phenomenon occurs where an argument spontaneously created by the movement of words becomes one's own 'thought'.) This contradicts the option, as the author states it *does* become one's own thought.

This contradicts the author's main point that thoughts become clear *through* the process of writing/using words, rather than existing fully formed beforehand.

While consciousness is involved, the author emphasizes that words *create* the thought, not just express a pre-existing one. The relationship is inverse to what this option suggests.

The passage discusses the diversity of *frogs*, not parasites, as the factor influencing infection rates.

The passage states that the infection rate is *higher* when only one frog species is present, not lower.

Similar to option 1, the passage focuses on frog diversity, not parasite diversity, as the primary factor for the frog's infection rate.

While related to disease, the passage defines 'cooperation beyond the species level' in terms of resource sharing and ensuring the survival of other species, not specifically preventing disease spread.

The passage explicitly states that species benefit by *not* eliminating each other through competition (「互いの種を競争で滅ぼしてしまわないほうが自分も得をします」). This option contradicts the text.

The passage suggests that helping other species survive is *advantageous for oneself* (「自分も得をします」), implying a mutual benefit, not necessarily prioritizing another species' survival over one's own.

The passage states that the short-term proliferation rate (短期的な寄生虫の増殖率) would be high, but in the long term, the parasite would perish if only one host species exists and is wiped out.

The passage states that having various frog species (多種類) allows for the parasite's long-term survival (長期的存続), not its extinction.

The passage implies that a single host species leads to a high *short-term* proliferation rate. Having multiple species is beneficial for the parasite's *long-term* survival, not necessarily a temporary boost in proliferation.

The passage doesn't say the technology doesn't exist; it says these aspects *cannot* be quantified or expressed numerically, implying a fundamental incompatibility, not a lack of current technology.

While it's true they are not included, the 'これ' specifically points to the *danger* of omission and deformation, and the illusion that the visualized version is the complete original. The core issue is the *change* that occurs.

This option suggests that experience and intuition are *required* for visualization, which is the opposite of the passage's argument that these elements are *lost* or *cannot be captured* by visualization.

While manual work is emphasized, the key is the *combination* of manual work with thought and experience, not just the quantity of manual processes.

The passage argues that visualizing a master's skill does *not* create anything new; it's the process of acquiring that skill through hands-on experience and thought that leads to creation.

The author is critical of '見える化' as it pertains to creativity, stating it leads to a cessation of creation. Therefore, engaging in it is not what's needed to create new technology.

The passage says its *spread* (伝搬のスピード) is faster than other fields, not its *progress* (進歩) in terms of scientific advancement.

The passage describes brain science as revealing the human mechanism and addressing questions about self, but it does not state that it contributes to *improving* people's brain functions.

While it deals with 'familiar questions' (身近な疑問), the passage explicitly states that phenomena spread *before* brain functions are understood, implying a lack of deep understanding among many people.

The passage states that 'such allure' *distorts* the true interest (本当の面白さをゆがめてしまいがちになります), implying it's not about presenting the inherent interest but rather an artificial one.

While explaining clearly is a goal, '色気' here refers to the *temptation* to make it *too* appealing or dramatized, beyond simple clarity, to attract interest.

The '色気' is about *how* research is presented to the media, not about the nature of the research itself or the scientists' motivation for conducting it.

The passage describes media influencing *how* research is presented, not directly intervening in the *content* of the research itself.

On the contrary, the passage mentions that press releases are now common, meaning there are *more* opportunities for information provision, but the issue is the *quality* and *distortion* of that information due to media demands.

The passage states that scientists tend to *distort* the true interest (本当の面白さをゆがめてしまいがちになります) when responding to media, implying that the *way* it's covered obscures the true interest, not that it's not covered at all.

The passage is critical of the current media interaction, implying it's detrimental to research, not something to be 'utilized' in its current form.

While information dissemination is part of accountability, the author warns against the *way* it's currently done (shallow dramatization) and emphasizes staying rooted in the research, not just using media as a platform.

This option is close, but option 4 is more precise. The author's point is not just about prioritizing research *over* media response, but specifically about *not yielding* to media demands that pull them away from the core scientific work and distort its essence.

Only Passage B mentions this: 「皆の前で特定の人ばかりを褒めれば、チーム内の関係が悪化してしまうこともある。」 (If only specific people are praised in front of everyone, team relations can worsen.) This is not a common point in both passages.

Only Passage B mentions distrust: 「的外れな褒め方をすれば「自分をよく見て いない」と不信感を抱かせてしまうし」 (If praise is off-target, it can cause distrust). This is not a common point in both passages, and A does not mention loss of motivation due to distrust.

Neither passage explicitly states that subordinates will *only* aim for results. The focus is on the motivation shifting from the work itself to receiving praise.

Passage A talks about balancing praise and scolding generally, not specifically praising *after* scolding. Passage B does mention appropriate timing, but the first part of the option is inaccurate for A.

Passage A explicitly states the need for a *balance* between praise and scolding, not that scolding should be avoided. Passage B doesn't focus on 'frank expression' but on specific methods of praise.

Passage A does not mention using 'easy-to-understand words.' Passage B does mention praising the process, but the first part of the option is inaccurate for A.

The passage states that our brains *haven't* adapted well to money (「私たちの脳はうまく対応できていないのではないだろか」), not that money has changed our brains' adaptability.

While money is an 'abstract value,' the passage doesn't state that it *forces* humans into abstract thinking as the primary reason for it being an 'incredible invention.' The focus is on its broad impact on human existence.

The passage says money has *changed* (変え) our views on life and human nature, not necessarily that it has *created diverse* (多様な) ones. The emphasis is on the fundamental shift.

The passage states the opposite: their desires *had limits* (限りがあった) because they didn't know possibilities beyond their immediate world.

The passage says their desires themselves were limited, not that they had many desires but lacked means to fulfill them.

While survival was fundamental, the passage attributes the limits of desire to their limited knowledge of the world, not a lack of 'leisure' to have desires.

The passage says money allows things to be obtained 'without individual human relationships' (個別の人間関係抜きに), implying a reduced *need* for them, but not necessarily a complete loss of *interest*.

The passage states the opposite: a 'money grubber' doesn't seek money for *specific items* (何か特定の物が欲しいから貨幣を得るのではない), but for money itself.

While the passage discusses the shift in desires, it doesn't explicitly state that people became confused about what they truly want. The focus is on money becoming the primary object of desire.

While related to work, the passage's broader point is about the loss of community, not just the meaning of work.

The author argues that the sense of community *disappears* (なくなる) due to money, but implies it is still *necessary* or at least a valuable aspect that is being lost, hence the call to 'think about it'.

The passage mentions money allowing things to be obtained 'without individual human relationships,' which is a negative aspect, but the ultimate conclusion and the strongest emphasis is on the loss of the broader 'sense of community' (共同という感覚).

Under '対象団体' (Eligible Organizations), it states: 「過去3年以内に本助成金の交付を受けていないこと」 (Must not have received this grant within the past 3 years). This means organizations that received it more than 3 years ago are eligible, not 'never received it'.

Under '助成額' (Grant Amount), it states: 「1団体につき1事業のみ応募可」 (Only one project can be applied for per organization). This contradicts the idea of applying for multiple projects.

Under 'スケジュール' (Schedule), '1次選考' (First Selection) is '書類審査' (document screening). The '団体によるプレゼンテーション' (presentation by organizations) is part of the '2次選考' (Second Selection), not the first.

Fax submission is explicitly stated as '不可' (not allowed).

Individual consultation sessions (個別相談会) are '希望者のみ・要予約' (for those who wish, reservation required), and Son-san stated they '参加必須のもの以外は出るつもりはない' (do not intend to attend anything other than mandatory items). Email submission is also '不可' (not allowed).

Similar to option 3, attending the individual consultation session is not mandatory. While submitting to the window is allowed, the inclusion of the non-mandatory consultation makes this option incorrect given Son-san's stated intention.