JLPT N2 Reading Comprehension Test

The passage implies parents *should* be mindful of their attitudes, not ignore them, as their attitudes affect children's preferences.

The passage suggests children *can* overcome dislikes by observing adults, contradicting this option.

The passage states that enjoying meals together is the *key* to eliminating picky eating, implying that eliminating picky eating *is* important, and enjoying meals is the *method* to achieve it, not a separate, more important goal.

The email is about a *paid* parking lot and unauthorized use, not about making it free or accessible to everyone.

While lack of space is mentioned as a problem, it's a *consequence* of poor management, not the primary request. The proposed solution focuses on managing existing space, not expanding it.

The email asks for the *manager* to take action (見回って、片付けたり、注意したり), not necessarily to increase the *number* of managers. The focus is on the *action* of management, not the quantity of personnel.

The passage states the price is the *same* despite less volume, making them '割高' (relatively expensive), not cheaper.

'減量' (genryou) in the passage refers to the *volume* of the drink being reduced, not women losing weight. This option misinterprets the word.

The passage mentions browsing magazines but does not link their influence to the popularity of drinks.

The request is not to change the *total* order quantity to 10, but to receive *at least* 10 units by a specific deadline.

The email asks for 'at least 10 units' (少なくとも10台), not *all* units, by the 19th.

While cancellation is mentioned as a possibility *if the deadline for partial delivery isn't met*, the primary purpose of the email is to request the partial delivery, not to inquire about cancellation itself.

'希望職種に就ける可能性' (possibility of getting a desired job) was mentioned but was *surpassed* by the top factor, meaning it was not the most important.

'将来性' (future prospects) was mentioned but was also *surpassed* by the top factor, meaning it was not the most important.

'勤務地や転勤の有無' (work location and presence/absence of transfers) was mentioned but had a lower percentage (22.1%) than the top factor, making it less important.

The passage does not mention editors understanding readers' demands as a reason for their importance to the author.

While editors might give advice, the passage emphasizes their *reaction* affecting the author's motivation, not specific advice.

The passage states the author's *own* thinking is stimulated when talking to a specific person (like the student talking to the professor), not that interesting ideas come *from* the editor's reactions.

While the student might have felt pressure, the core reason given is the shift from specific dialogue to general, impersonal writing, not just the desire to write a good report.

The passage says their mind became rigid due to the 'general theory' stance, not specifically worrying about the teacher's reaction.

The passage does not mention whether the student used class answers or not; the focus is on the *mode* of writing (dialogue vs. general statement).

While 'dialogue' is mentioned, it's not necessarily about a *conversational style* but rather the *intent* of communication and engagement with the reader.

The passage does not suggest writing *only* what one wants, but rather what one wants to *talk about to others*, implying a communicative purpose beyond mere personal desire.

While writing something meaningful for the reader is a desirable outcome, the author's emphasis is on the *writer's intent* to engage in dialogue or convey something, which is a more direct interpretation of the concluding sentence.

The fact that the emphasis on individuality is gaining attention is the context, not the *cause* of the problem of children only wanting to do what they like.

The passage doesn't say the interpretation is *unfixed*; rather, it argues that a *specific, problematic* interpretation has become widespread, which the author believes is incorrect.

While teachers lament losing opportunities to teach rules, the passage frames this as a *result* of the misinterpretation of individuality, not the root cause itself.

This is the *misinterpretation* of individuality that the author criticizes in the first paragraph, not their own definition.

The author's definition of individuality focuses on inherent differences and unique interests/values, not on evaluating superiority over others.

The author states that people are different, but does not suggest that larger differences are inherently better. The focus is on acknowledging and respecting those differences.

While interests change, the emphasis is on *broadening* them through experience, not just carefully emphasizing existing ones.

The passage implies that children's experiences are *limited* and need to be *provided* by adults, not just left to their own discovery due to their narrow range of experiences.

This contradicts the idea of providing *diverse* experiences; it suggests focusing on what they *already* find interesting, which the author implies is too limited for young children.

The passage states that greeting dogs *can* distinguish between puppies and adult dogs, implying this is not the characteristic of a non-greeting dog.

The passage does not mention the greeting habits of parent dogs as a factor for a dog not greeting.

Dogs that have lived with other dogs (group behavior) are described as those who *do* greet, contradicting this option.

The passage explicitly states that greeting dogs usually *don't* threaten puppies, even if they don't greet.

The passage describes greeting dogs threatening non-greeting dogs, not the other way around.

The passage describes greeting dogs threatening non-greeting dogs, not the other way around, and specifically states puppies are often not threatened.

The passage does not prioritize owner education over group experience for smoothness; it mentions both as contributing factors to the behavior.

This option states it can *only* be learned through these experiences, which contradicts the 'innate' aspect mentioned in the passage.

This option also states it can *only* be learned through group living, which contradicts the 'innate' aspect and the idea that it can be done without 'dog company' experience.

Both passages express reservations or opposition to early specialization, not agreement.

While Passage B mentions it might not be the child's wish, Passage A focuses on physical burden and injury risk. Both are against it, but their primary reasons for opposition differ.

Passage A is against it due to health/injury concerns. However, Passage B is *not* for it; it also expresses opposition to early specialization, albeit for different reasons (risk of disliking sports).

While Passage A mentions '子供の体への負担' (burden on the child's body) for growing children, the common emphasis is on developing broad athletic skills, not specifically matching sports to growth stages.

Passage B mentions the child's preference as a factor in disliking sports, but Passage A does not emphasize this point as a common importance.

Passage B mentions avoiding dislike for sports, but Passage A does not explicitly state this as a key importance.

While pickles are an example used, the statement is a general conclusion about life 100 years ago, not solely about pickle making.

This option reverses the meaning; it talks about *now* reaching destinations quickly, not the past where things took a long time.

The passage states people *dared* to do time-consuming things, implying it was a necessity or choice, but the conclusion is that time passed *before* boredom, not that boredom was a natural outcome.

While a long life is mentioned, the burden comes from *unused* or *unaccounted for* time, not just the need to plan for the distant future.

This refers to the *past* where things took time, not the present burden of *excess* time due to modern convenience and longer lifespans.

The passage implies a *lack* of things to do or knowing what to do with the extra time, not an increase in the number of tasks.

This describes the *problem* identified by the author (excess time becoming a burden), but it is not the author's main *argument* or proposed solution.

The author describes the situation of longer lives and saved time but does not necessarily call it 'wonderful'; rather, they present it as a challenge that needs a solution.

While the author discusses rushing things, the conclusion of the passage is not about the meaninglessness of life due to scientific progress, but about the *solution* (reading) to manage the excess time.

The application method is specified as '往復はがきに' (on a round-trip postcard). Phone is only for inquiries about results or cancellations, not for initial application.

The poster states '応募多数の場合は抽選となります' (If there are too many applicants, a lottery will be held), meaning it is not on a first-come, first-served basis.

The instruction says '締め切り日から7日たっても結果連絡の返信が届かない場合は、博物館までお電話でご連絡ください。' (If you don't receive a reply even after 7 days from the deadline, please contact the museum by phone.) This means inquiries should be made *after* 7 days, not within 7 days.

This is the application deadline for the May 1st session, not relevant to the notification for the April 17th session's waiting list.

This date is not mentioned in relation to the cancellation waiting list notification timeline.

This is the application deadline for the April 17th session, not the notification date for the waiting list.