JLPT N2 Reading Comprehension Test

The passage warns against blindly trusting information provided by devices, stating that it's a '勘違い' (misconception) to think it's always objective and reliable. It emphasizes critical selection, not just utilization.

While collecting information is part of it, the core message is about *selecting* and *evaluating* information, not just gathering a large quantity. The passage focuses on the 'ability and knowledge to select' (選別する能力と知識).

The passage states '他者の提供する情報を評価し、比較検討し、その中から自分にとって...有益な情報を選別する' (evaluate and compare information provided by *others*, and select useful information from *that*). Option 4 suggests comparing *self-selected* information with *others' information*, which is a slight misinterpretation of the flow. The emphasis is on critically evaluating *incoming* information.

The email asks if she has to pay, not if the fee will be cheaper because it's a re-repair. The primary concern is whether it's free or paid.

The email clearly states '再修理をお願いしたいのですが' (I would like to request a re-repair), indicating she wants it repaired. The question is about the cost, not the possibility of repair itself.

The email explicitly states '現在は保証期間が過ぎています' (The warranty period has now passed), so this option contradicts the passage.

The passage explicitly states that value assessment *is* related to region and era, as it changes depending on them. This option contradicts the text.

The passage mentions both regional and temporal differences but does not compare their magnitudes. It simply states that both exist.

The passage gives an example: '現在、同じ集団の人々が素晴らしいと信じて行っていることも、わずか百年前ならば、その社会ではとても認められないことだったという例も沢山あるはずです。' (There are many examples where what people in the same group believe to be wonderful today would have been completely unacceptable in that society just a hundred years ago.) This shows that even within the same group, there can be differences across eras, contradicting option 4.

In-store sales are *continuing*, not *starting* from December 1. The passage says '続けてまいリます' (will continue).

In-store sales are *not* stopping. This option contradicts the passage.

Both internet and in-store sales are not stopping. Also, it implies only in-store sales will resume, but the passage says internet sales will resume when ready.

The passage says '物語が変われば、過去も未来も、風景が違って見える' (If the story changes, the scenery of both the past and future looks different), implying that changing the *story* (interpretation) changes perception of past and future, not just understanding the meaning of past events to change the future.

The passage explicitly states, '人間は現実ではなく、物語を生きている' (Humans live stories, not reality) and '現実に起きた事は変えられないが、物語はいくらでも変えられる' (What happened in reality cannot be changed, but the story can be changed endlessly). This contradicts the idea that reality determines the story; rather, the story can be changed regardless of reality.

While the passage gives an example of reinterpreting a 'worst event' positively, it doesn't state that *all* events *should* be interpreted positively. The focus is on the *ability to change the meaning* through one's perspective and subsequent actions, not a blanket recommendation for positive thinking.

While understanding the cause is one of the three purposes of scolding, the passage emphasizes the coach's *prediction* of the child's reaction as a necessary condition for effective scolding, not just explaining the reason.

Knowing the next action is a *purpose* for the child, but the question asks what is *necessary for the coach*. For the coach, it's about predicting the child's response.

The passage mentions that scolding shouldn't make a child lose confidence, but it doesn't say 'don't scold strongly.' It emphasizes scolding 'at points' (ポイントで叱る) and not '頭ごなしに' (without considering the child's personality), and predicting the outcome, rather than simply avoiding strong scolding.

The passage doesn't specify using *only* positive words. It contrasts 'scolding' with 'anger' and emphasizes focusing on actions, not just the tone.

While the overall goal is the child's growth, the passage doesn't detail 'growth-appropriate' scolding methods. It focuses on the distinction between scolding and anger, and the specificity of scolding.

The passage states that 'anger' (怒る) sometimes involves anger and hatred, and that 'scolding' (叱る) is different from this emotional act. It implies avoiding anger, not just hiding it.

The passage says '指導者は日頃から注意深く、また意思を持って、みずからと向き合う必要があるのです。' (Coaches need to carefully and intentionally face themselves daily.) This is about the coach's self-reflection and intention, not necessarily 'facing the child' in a general sense to increase effectiveness.

The passage warns against repeated scolding: '叱ることが何度も続くと、叱られることに対する慣れが生じ、「いっものことか」と子どもが感じとリ、指導者の本当にいいたいことが伝わらないということがあります。' (If scolding continues repeatedly, children become accustomed to it and feel 'it's the usual thing,' and the coach's true message won't be conveyed.) This option contradicts the passage.

The passage states that children becoming *accustomed* to being scolded (叱られることに対する慣れ) is detrimental to its effectiveness, not that the coach should get used to scolding.

The author *did* talk about the colleague's personality ('性格に欠点を持つ人間だったが、そのために面白いキャラクターであった'). The surprise was about the *criticism* of discussing flaws, not a misunderstanding of the topic.

The criticism was specifically about discussing *flaws*, not about discussing colleagues in general.

The author explicitly stated the colleague had '性格に欠点' (character flaws) and discussed them. The surprise was that someone was offended by this discussion, not that good points were mistaken for flaws.

This contradicts the author's view that flaws *are* individuality and should be valued.

The passage does not discuss whether flaws should be fixed. It focuses on the nature of individuality, including flaws, and their potential contribution to success.

The passage states that the colleague's flaws were '成功の一因になった' (a cause of his success), but it doesn't claim that flaws are *more* useful than good points for success. It simply highlights their potential positive role.

This contradicts the author's view that there is no inherent good or bad in individuality, and that even 'flaws' can be part of one's unique character.

The author argues *against* this idea, stating that pursuing commonly accepted 'good' traits leads to conformity, not true individuality.

The author explicitly links the colleague's 'flaws' to his success ('成功の一因になった'), suggesting that individuality *can* be connected to success. This option contradicts that point.

The passage explicitly states that this external information is *not* one's own knowledge ('自分自身の知識が増えたわけではない').

It refers to the *information* itself that is accessed via search, not the means of searching.

The passage distinguishes between information that is *written* (文字として書かれているもの) and information that is *memorized* (記憶していないもの). The underlined part refers to the former, which is external and not necessarily memorized.

The passage doesn't specify that they only listen to what they want to memorize; it implies they listen intently to *all* spoken information because it's a one-time opportunity.

This contradicts the passage, which states they believe they won't have another chance to hear the same story ('もう一度見ればよいと考えてしまいがちである' is for literate people, not non-literate).

On the contrary, because they cannot hear it repeatedly, they develop a strong memory ('記憶する力となっているのであろう'), meaning they are *less* likely to forget, not more.

The passage suggests that relying on external written knowledge might *reduce* the need for strong memory, as people become 'もう一度見ればよいと考えてしまいがちである' (tend to think they can just look again). It doesn't state that memory power increases with knowledge.

The passage states that learning written language expands the *range* of accessible knowledge, but it doesn't say that knowledge *cannot* increase without it. Non-literate people still acquire knowledge through memory.

The passage implies that non-literate people develop stronger memory skills because they rely solely on memory, contrasting with literate people who can re-access information. This suggests memory power *does* change depending on the use of written language.

While B mentions arguing back, A doesn't say they don't listen obediently; it says they ask questions due to fear of failure. So, 'すなおに開かない' (don't listen obediently) isn't a common point.

A mentions anxiety and asking questions. B mentions different values and arguing back, but not necessarily anxiety or frequent questioning as a primary characteristic.

A states that young people *can be misunderstood* as passive or unwilling to work ('消極的だ、口ばかりで働くのを嫌がる、と誤解することになる'), but it doesn't state that they *are* passive or unwilling. B does state they can work actively if convinced, but the premise for A is a misunderstanding.

A mentions young people's anxiety, but B does not focus on resolving anxiety. This is not a common point.

B mentions affirming individuality, but A focuses more on understanding their fear and questioning. While related to individuality, it's not the most direct common theme.

B mentions '若者には若者のいいところがある' (Young people have their good points), but it doesn't explicitly state that older generations should *learn* from them. The focus is on understanding and bridging differences.

The passage states humans *overcame* natural limits by *producing* food, not just consuming existing natural food to its limit.

The passage mentions overcoming '自然界の限界' (limits of the natural world), which refers to resource limits, not natural disasters.

The passage does not mention humans fighting with other animals for food as a means of population increase.

The passage mentions learning within a large group ('子どもたちもその大集団の中で育ち...多種多様なことを急速に学びとって成長していった'), but not '大集団同士が学び合って' (large groups learning from each other) to maintain relationships.

The passage explicitly states '体に武器というものを持たない動物であった人間は' (humans were animals without weapons on their bodies), implying they didn't have natural weapons. It doesn't say they *made* weapons to form large groups, but rather formed large groups *because* they lacked natural weapons for individual defense.

The passage states they formed large groups to protect themselves from enemies ('敵から身を守り'), not necessarily to avoid battles *between* large groups.

While related, the passage specifically points to understanding '環世界' (Umwelt) for each living thing, which is a deeper ecological understanding, not just 'human role'.

The author explicitly states that changing humanity's way of dominating nature is '無理だろう' (impossible).

The author states that changing the human way of life is impossible. While understanding limits is implied, the solution offered is deeper understanding, not changing the fundamental human approach to living.

This price would likely be for a smaller capacity suitcase or a shorter rental period, not meeting the 10-day, 60L requirement for a lightweight model.

This might be for a 'lightweight' (軽量タイプ) suitcase, but not the 'super lightweight' (超軽量タイプ) that Wang desires, which would typically be more expensive.

This price would likely be for a larger capacity suitcase (e.g., 80L or more) or a longer rental period (e.g., 15 days), exceeding Wang's stated needs.

While applying today might be possible, the question asks what *must* be done to get it delivered *exactly* 3 days before departure. Online applications often have longer lead times than phone calls for specific delivery dates.

Similar to option 1, online applications might not guarantee delivery within 3 days even if submitted by tomorrow 1 PM, or phone might be the only option for such a short notice.

Applying 'あさって' (the day after tomorrow), which is 3 days before departure, would be too late for delivery *on* that day. Applications usually need to be made *before* the desired delivery date.