JLPT Test N1

The passage explicitly states that even knowledgeable people have limits to their fields and extent of knowledge, and that '情報通' is not about having above-average information in a wide range of fields, but knowing where to find it.

While understanding what information is needed is part of the process, the core definition of '情報通' in the passage is about knowing *who* has that information, not just understanding the need itself.

The passage describes '情報通' as someone who knows *who* has the information, implying they can find them. However, the focus is on knowing the source of information, not necessarily on the act of problem-solving itself, which is a broader outcome.

The passage describes a change in sensation, not a complete loss of temperature perception.

This is incorrect. After cold water, lukewarm feels warm. After hot water, lukewarm feels cold. So, the opposite of this option is true for the 'warm' feeling.

This is not universally true. The hand from cold water feels the lukewarm water as warmer, not colder. The sensation depends on the initial state, not a general lowering of perceived temperature.

The author expresses a belief that coexistence is possible ('信じたい'), not that it's difficult to achieve.

The author explicitly states they don't want to simply accept the loss of entertainment value for safety and convenience ('割り切ってしまう前に').

The author doesn't say automation shouldn't proceed at all, but rather hopes for a way to preserve enjoyment alongside it, implying a nuanced view rather than a complete prohibition.

The passage implies that the translator *does* recreate the world, but with their own interpretation, not that it might not be recreated at all.

The passage focuses on how a translator's individuality affects *their* translation of a *single* work, not how it makes different authors' works seem similar.

The passage states that the translator *reproduces* the original world ('その世界を再現してみせる'), not that they *create* various new worldviews. The diversity is in the *impression* or *interpretation* of the original world, not the creation of entirely new ones.

The passage states that for about a month after birth, the mother raises the cubs alone, hidden away, not communally from birth.

While older, experienced females are part of the communal rearing, the passage states '群れの雌全員が協力して行う' (all females of the pride cooperate), not just the older ones.

The passage states that the mother raises them alone *until* they can walk, at which point they are brought to the pride for communal care. This option implies the mother raises them *within* the pride until they walk, which is incorrect.

While the experience of older lions is mentioned for childcare, their role in hunting is not emphasized as a primary benefit of their experience in this context. The passage states young lions' agility is advantageous for hunting.

The passage explicitly states '明確な分業とまではいえなくても' (even if it's not a clear division of labor), so the roles are not necessarily '明確' (clear).

The passage highlights that young lions are '経験に乏しく' (lacking in experience) in childcare and often make mistakes, suggesting they are not yet capable of 'どんな役割も' (any role).

The passage describes the *effect* on the interviewee, not a feeling of obligation to take pauses.

While organizing thoughts might lead to clearer communication, the passage specifically mentions '考えをまとめたり、振り返りをしたり' (organizing thoughts and reflecting) as the direct benefit, which leads to deepening the content, not just preparing to convey it clearly.

The passage describes the interviewee's internal process of reflection and deepening, not a self-blaming urge to push the conversation forward.

The passage focuses on how a multifaceted view of *oneself* leads to personal benefits (feeling at ease, performing better), not explicitly on becoming more tolerant of *others'* flaws.

The passage suggests re-evaluating perceived flaws as strengths, rather than necessarily improving them. The point is about changing perspective, not always about direct improvement.

The passage argues that perceived flaws *can be* strengths, implying that one should look at flaws differently, not ignore them to only find strengths.

The passage discusses the *challenge* of change due to fan attachment, not the moment when attachment is lost. The author hopes fans will *tolerate* it, implying attachment might not be completely lost.

While new fans might be a reason for renewal, the passage emphasizes reasons like '競合他社が売り上げを伸ばしたり、技術開発に伴い商品そのものが改善されたり' (competitors increasing sales, product improvements due to technological development) as the drivers for unavoidable renewal, not solely new fan acquisition.

The passage explicitly states that marketing surveys *do* reveal fan sentiment ('「変えない方がいい」という結果が出てしまう'), so the situation is not one where fan approval/disapproval is unknown.

The passage indicates that the '今までの方が良かった' opinion is '過半を占めます' (the majority), not just '一部' (a part). The point is about how to interpret this majority opinion over time.

The passage focuses on the challenge of negative initial reactions to redesigns, not on actively incorporating positive feedback from surveys.

While understanding changes is important, the passage specifically emphasizes considering the *future* change in consumer acceptance over time, rather than just analyzing past trends.

The passage discusses the impact of a teacher's 'tension' and 'freshness,' not explicitly prioritizing personality over knowledge/skill, though these qualities might be related.

The passage states that being young and immature *can* be a plus, but it doesn't say they are *more liked* than experienced veterans. It highlights a specific benefit of immaturity, not a general preference.

The passage acknowledges that '経験知は有効に働く' (experiential knowledge works effectively) and 'ベテランの安定感は、たしかに大切だ' (the stability of veterans is certainly important), implying that quality *does* improve with experience, but that 'freshness' is also crucial.

While students might participate, the passage doesn't state their motivation is to alleviate the teacher's tension.

The passage contrasts this with the 'service provider/service receiver' dynamic, suggesting that the tension breaks down rigid roles, rather than reinforcing 'student-like' behavior.

The sharing of tension leads to a sense of co-creation, not necessarily a feeling of being able to 'open their hearts' in a general sense.

While acquiring new knowledge/skills can contribute to freshness, the passage's broader point is about a mindset of continuous change and avoiding 'teacher-like stiffness,' not just skill acquisition.

The passage mentions being aware of immaturity and acting passionately, but this is a condition for immaturity to turn positive, not the overarching 'important thing' for all educators. The final paragraph focuses on maintaining freshness with experience.

While not hiding immaturity can foster a sense of unity, the passage's ultimate message is about maintaining freshness and a dynamic relationship with students, even as one gains experience, which goes beyond just the initial 'immaturity' phase.

Passage A mentions this as a *common belief* about the cause, but then clarifies that the *actual* reason is often different. Passage B doesn't focus on lack of knowledge/experience as the primary reason.

Neither passage explicitly states lack of confidence as the common reason. Their focus is on the subordinate's *perception of their role*.

Neither passage suggests that the superior's detailed instructions are the cause of subordinates waiting for instructions. Instead, they discuss how subordinates *perceive* their role in relation to instructions.

Only B explicitly suggests asking subordinates to think of their own solutions/proposals. A focuses on providing context and the overall picture.

While A mentions conveying the purpose, B's approach is more about encouraging independent thought on solutions rather than thinking together.

A does mention teaching the relation to other tasks. However, B does not suggest giving tasks with already known methods; instead, it focuses on fostering independent problem-solving for tasks where methods are *not* fully manualized.

While brain science explains the brain, the passage highlights the *reason for its popularity* as providing life guidance, not just simplified explanations of mechanisms.

The passage states brain science *relates* to human emotions, thoughts, and actions, but the public's *expectation* is more broadly about achieving a 'better life' or 'happy life,' which encompasses more than just 'handling' these aspects.

The passage later argues that science deals with facts, not values, and cannot determine what a 'happy life' *is* (a value judgment). So, people might *hope* for this, but the author implies science cannot provide it objectively.

The passage argues that even *with* universal laws, they are powerless for individual life events, so finding them isn't a sufficient condition for application.

The passage suggests that reaching universal laws is 'きわめて遠い' (extremely far), but doesn't explicitly state it's impossible even if brain functions are fully understood. The main point is the *powerlessness* of such laws for individual lives.

The passage states that universal laws are powerless against individual life events, implying that understanding individual events is not a prerequisite for reaching universal laws, nor does it make them applicable to individuals.

The author warns against *confusing* facts with values, not that facts *influence* values. The point is to keep them separate.

While this might be a reasonable conclusion, the author's main point is about the *limitation* of science (it cannot deal with values), not a prescriptive statement about how to choose the future. The passage states science can be a *tool* for a chosen future, but not the chooser of values.

The passage states science *can* be a '道具' (tool) to realize a chosen future, so it's not entirely useless for realizing a desired future, but it cannot *choose* the values for that future.

Accommodation is capped at 2 nights, not 3 nights.

Transportation is capped at 10,000 yen, not 12,000 yen. Accommodation is capped at 6,000 yen per night, not 7,000 yen.

Both transportation and accommodation amounts exceed the stated limits, and accommodation is capped at 2 nights, not 3.

While March 24th is the final deadline for the fiscal year, the 'within 2 months' rule applies first, making the deadline March 10th for a January 10th activity.

Document D (receipts) is not strictly mandatory for transportation if not obtainable, and accommodation receipts are not applicable for a day trip. So, D is not '必ず提出しなければならない'.

Both the documents (D is not strictly mandatory) and the deadline (March 10th is earlier) are incorrect.