明示された詳細・根拠の限界
問われた人・時刻・場所・量を正しい出来事に結び付けます。 根拠のある主張と不明なことを分けます。記載がないだけでは存在しないと証明できません。
The doors open at eight. The class starts at nine.
B2
研究が訂正されるとき
このレッスンについて
研究が訂正されるとき · B2. 問われた人・時刻・場所・量を正しい出来事に結び付けます。 根拠のある主張と不明なことを分けます。記載がないだけでは存在しないと証明できません。
オリジナルの英文を読み、根拠を基に答えましょう。レベルは編集上の目安で、認定結果ではありません。
12 問
保存するとマイコレクションで見返せます。
The following research case is fictional and is provided for reading practice, not as scientific evidence.
A community garden project compared two ways of reminding volunteers about watering duties. One group received a fixed weekly message; the other received a message only when its scheduled watering day was approaching. The project team initially reported fewer missed sessions in the second group and suggested that more timely reminders might be useful. It did not claim to have discovered the best reminder for every kind of voluntary work.
Several weeks later, a volunteer checking the records noticed that a cancelled session had been counted as a missed duty. The cancellation followed a damaged water pipe, not a failure by the person scheduled to attend. On its own, that entry changed little. However, the discovery prompted a review of how cancellations had been recorded across both groups.
The team found that one coordinator had removed cancelled sessions before calculating a rate, while another had retained them. The groups were therefore being compared on inconsistent terms. Correcting this difference reduced the apparent advantage of the day-specific reminders. A small difference remained, but the team considered it too uncertain to support the confidence of its original summary.
The corrected report kept the raw attendance records, explained the changed calculation and displayed the original summary beside the replacement. It did not quietly overwrite the earlier document. This allowed readers to see what had changed and why. Personal details of individual volunteers remained withheld; transparency about a method did not require publishing their private contact information.
Some readers interpreted the correction as proof that all the project’s work was worthless. Others wanted to ignore it because the remaining difference pointed in the same direction. The report rejected both responses. The collection of attendance information still described useful aspects of the project, but the strength of the original comparison had been overstated. Keeping the preferred conclusion while refusing to reconsider its support would not repair that problem.
For the next season, the team proposed a shared definition of a cancelled session, agreed before data collection began. It also planned to record whether a reminder had actually been delivered. A message sent to an outdated address could not influence attendance in the same way as one received and read, although delivery records alone would not show how carefully anyone considered it.
The case illustrates a distinction between defending a particular finding and improving a process for reaching findings. A correction can weaken a result while making the reasoning behind the next investigation more dependable. Its value depends on whether the explanation is specific enough for others to inspect, not on whether the revised headline remains impressive.
まずはポイントを確認
理由・明示された詳細・根拠の限界
実際に示された理由を使います。文外のもっともらしい理由だけでは足りません。 問われた人・時刻・場所・量を正しい出来事に結び付けます。 根拠のある主張と不明なことを分けます。記載がないだけでは存在しないと証明できません。
We meet inside because it is raining.
根拠の限界・要点
根拠のある主張と不明なことを分けます。記載がないだけでは存在しないと証明できません。 文章全体で判断します。正しい細部がそのまま要点とは限りません。
The notice gives a price, but says nothing about delivery.
学習素材
The following research case is fictional and is provided for reading practice, not as scientific evidence.
A community garden project compared two ways of reminding volunteers about watering duties. One group received a fixed weekly message; the other received a message only when its scheduled watering day was approaching. The project team initially reported fewer missed sessions in the second group and suggested that more timely reminders might be useful. It did not claim to have discovered the best reminder for every kind of voluntary work.
Several weeks later, a volunteer checking the records noticed that a cancelled session had been counted as a missed duty. The cancellation followed a damaged water pipe, not a failure by the person scheduled to attend. On its own, that entry changed little. However, the discovery prompted a review of how cancellations had been recorded across both groups.
The team found that one coordinator had removed cancelled sessions before calculating a rate, while another had retained them. The groups were therefore being compared on inconsistent terms. Correcting this difference reduced the apparent advantage of the day-specific reminders. A small difference remained, but the team considered it too uncertain to support the confidence of its original summary.
The corrected report kept the raw attendance records, explained the changed calculation and displayed the original summary beside the replacement. It did not quietly overwrite the earlier document. This allowed readers to see what had changed and why. Personal details of individual volunteers remained withheld; transparency about a method did not require publishing their private contact information.
Some readers interpreted the correction as proof that all the project’s work was worthless. Others wanted to ignore it because the remaining difference pointed in the same direction. The report rejected both responses. The collection of attendance information still described useful aspects of the project, but the strength of the original comparison had been overstated. Keeping the preferred conclusion while refusing to reconsider its support would not repair that problem.
For the next season, the team proposed a shared definition of a cancelled session, agreed before data collection began. It also planned to record whether a reminder had actually been delivered. A message sent to an outdated address could not influence attendance in the same way as one received and read, although delivery records alone would not show how carefully anyone considered it.
The case illustrates a distinction between defending a particular finding and improving a process for reaching findings. A correction can weaken a result while making the reasoning behind the next investigation more dependable. Its value depends on whether the explanation is specific enough for others to inspect, not on whether the revised headline remains impressive.
01 / 12D01保存するとマイコレクションで見返せます。
When a study is corrected
What did the project compare?
学習ルート
01
ステップ 1 · ウォームアップ
0/3ウォームアップ
02
ステップ 2 · 理解を深める
0/2理由・明示された詳細・根拠の限界
実際に示された理由を使います。文外のもっともらしい理由だけでは足りません。 問われた人・時刻・場所・量を正しい出来事に結び付けます。 根拠のある主張と不明なことを分けます。記載がないだけでは存在しないと証明できません。
We meet inside because it is raining.03
ステップ 3 · 理解を深める
0/1根拠の限界・要点
根拠のある主張と不明なことを分けます。記載がないだけでは存在しないと証明できません。 文章全体で判断します。正しい細部がそのまま要点とは限りません。
The notice gives a price, but says nothing about delivery.04
ステップ 4 · 理解を深める
0/1明示された詳細・根拠の限界
問われた人・時刻・場所・量を正しい出来事に結び付けます。 根拠のある主張と不明なことを分けます。記載がないだけでは存在しないと証明できません。
The doors open at eight. The class starts at nine.05
ステップ 5 · 関連練習
0/3関連練習
06
ステップ 6 · 教材チャレンジ
0/2教材チャレンジ
この単元の復習ノート
0間違いを、次の一歩に。
初回答を残し、根拠を確かめて別の問題に挑戦します。同じ教材での正解は、新しい文章への応用を証明するものではありません。
まだ復習ノートはありません。まずは短いウォームアップを。
学習マップ
B2研究が訂正されるとき
この単元のポイント
明示された詳細・根拠の限界
問われた人・時刻・場所・量を正しい出来事に結び付けます。 根拠のある主張と不明なことを分けます。記載がないだけでは存在しないと証明できません。
The doors open at eight. The class starts at nine.理由・明示された詳細・根拠の限界
実際に示された理由を使います。文外のもっともらしい理由だけでは足りません。 問われた人・時刻・場所・量を正しい出来事に結び付けます。 根拠のある主張と不明なことを分けます。記載がないだけでは存在しないと証明できません。
We meet inside because it is raining.根拠の限界・要点
根拠のある主張と不明なことを分けます。記載がないだけでは存在しないと証明できません。 文章全体で判断します。正しい細部がそのまま要点とは限りません。
The notice gives a price, but says nothing about delivery.問題と解答
解答を開くと、その問題にヒント利用が記録されます。
When a study is corrected
What did the project compare?
- Messages sent to current addresses with those sent to outdated ones.
- Reminders used in gardening with those used by other voluntary organisations.
- Weekly reminders with reminders timed near a person’s watering day.
- Fixed weekly messages with messages triggered by a water-pipe failure.
解答と解説を開く
Weekly reminders with reminders timed near a person’s watering day.
根拠に合う答えは「Weekly reminders with reminders timed near a person’s watering day.」です。 根拠：「One group received a fixed weekly message; the other received a message only when its scheduled watering day was approaching.」。 別の選択肢「Reminders used in gardening with those used by other voluntary organisations.」と比べてみましょう。 この根拠から言える確実さや適用範囲を超えています。 別の選択肢「Fixed weekly messages with messages triggered by a water-pipe failure.」と比べてみましょう。 測定・報告された結果を、別の結果に置き換えています。
When a study is corrected
What first triggered a closer review?
- A revised summary showed a smaller difference before anyone checked the entries.
- The same reminder pattern had already been tested across several organisations.
- A cancelled session had been counted as a missed duty.
- A missed duty caused the scheduled volunteer’s message to be withdrawn.
解答と解説を開く
A cancelled session had been counted as a missed duty.
根拠に合う答えは「A cancelled session had been counted as a missed duty.」です。 根拠：「a cancelled session had been counted as a missed duty.」。 別の選択肢「A revised summary showed a smaller difference before anyone checked the entries.」と比べてみましょう。 初期の状況と、その後の検証・決定という二つの段階を混同しています。 別の選択肢「A missed duty caused the scheduled volunteer’s message to be withdrawn.」と比べてみましょう。 行動の理由を、起こりうる結果や別の反応と混同しています。
When a study is corrected
Why had that session been cancelled?
- The scheduled volunteer could not be contacted at the recorded address.
- The assigned volunteer ignored a reminder.
- A water pipe was damaged.
- The team decided to stop collecting attendance records for the season.
解答と解説を開く
A water pipe was damaged.
根拠に合う答えは「A water pipe was damaged.」です。 根拠：「The cancellation followed a damaged water pipe」。 別の選択肢「The scheduled volunteer could not be contacted at the recorded address.」と比べてみましょう。 本文にない具体的な情報を付け足しています。もっともらしさは本文の根拠ではありません。 別の選択肢「The team decided to stop collecting attendance records for the season.」と比べてみましょう。 限定付きの結果を、例外のない主張に広げています。
When a study is corrected
What made the original group comparison inconsistent?
- The cancelled-session entries had been deleted from the raw records.
- The coordinators used different reminder times rather than different cancellation rules.
- The coordinators treated cancellations differently in the calculations.
- Cancelled sessions were removed from the rates for both groups.
解答と解説を開く
The coordinators treated cancellations differently in the calculations.
根拠に合う答えは「The coordinators treated cancellations differently in the calculations.」です。 根拠：「one coordinator had removed cancelled sessions before calculating a rate, while another had retained them.」。 別の選択肢「The coordinators used different reminder times rather than different cancellation rules.」と比べてみましょう。 測定・報告された結果を、別の結果に置き換えています。 別の選択肢「Cancelled sessions were removed from the rates for both groups.」と比べてみましょう。 本文に示された関係を逆にしています。
When a study is corrected
What happened to the apparent advantage after correction?
- It became smaller and less convincing.
- The correction reversed the result and established weekly reminders as better.
- The reduced difference still justified the original level of confidence.
- The direction of the result meant the strength of the comparison was unchanged.
解答と解説を開く
It became smaller and less convincing.
根拠に合う答えは「It became smaller and less convincing.」です。 根拠：「Correcting this difference reduced the apparent advantage of the day-specific reminders. A small difference remained, but the team considered it too uncertain to support the confidence of its original summary.」。 別の選択肢「The reduced difference still justified the original level of confidence.」と比べてみましょう。 この根拠から言える確実さや適用範囲を超えています。 別の選択肢「The correction reversed the result and established weekly reminders as better.」と比べてみましょう。 本文に示された関係を逆にしています。
When a study is corrected
Why would delivery records still have a limit?
- They would not show how carefully a message was considered.
- They would provide enough information to replace the attendance comparison.
- They would establish that every delivered message had been considered carefully.
- They could not help distinguish a failed delivery from a successful one.
解答と解説を開く
They would not show how carefully a message was considered.
根拠に合う答えは「They would not show how carefully a message was considered.」です。 根拠：「delivery records alone would not show how carefully anyone considered it.」。 別の選択肢「They would establish that every delivered message had been considered carefully.」と比べてみましょう。 この根拠から言える確実さや適用範囲を超えています。 別の選択肢「They could not help distinguish a failed delivery from a successful one.」と比べてみましょう。 限定付きの結果を、例外のない主張に広げています。
When a study is corrected
What limit did the team place on transparency?
- It allowed the corrected summary to be seen but not the original version.
- It withheld the method while explaining individual volunteers’ contact circumstances.
- It did not reveal volunteers’ private contact information.
- It discarded the raw records so that individual entries could not be checked.
解答と解説を開く
It did not reveal volunteers’ private contact information.
根拠に合う答えは「It did not reveal volunteers’ private contact information.」です。 根拠：「transparency about a method did not require publishing their private contact information.」。 別の選択肢「It discarded the raw records so that individual entries could not be checked.」と比べてみましょう。 本文に示された関係を逆にしています。 別の選択肢「It allowed the corrected summary to be seen but not the original version.」と比べてみましょう。 本文に示された関係を逆にしています。
When a study is corrected
Which two responses did the report reject?
- Retaining attendance data and explaining the corrected calculation.
- Dismissing all the work and ignoring the correction to preserve a preferred result.
- Withholding personal contact information while displaying both summaries.
- Agreeing cancellation rules and recording actual message delivery.
解答と解説を開く
Dismissing all the work and ignoring the correction to preserve a preferred result.
根拠に合う答えは「Dismissing all the work and ignoring the correction to preserve a preferred result.」です。 根拠：「Some readers interpreted the correction as proof that all the project’s work was worthless. Others wanted to ignore it because the remaining difference pointed in the same direction. The report rejected both responses.」。 別の選択肢「Agreeing cancellation rules and recording actual message delivery.」と比べてみましょう。 この記述自体は本文と矛盾しません。ただし問われているのは、否定・回避される主張、または根拠からは言えない主張です。 別の選択肢「Retaining attendance data and explaining the corrected calculation.」と比べてみましょう。 この記述自体は本文と矛盾しません。ただし問われているのは、否定・回避される主張、または根拠からは言えない主張です。
When a study is corrected
What remained useful despite the weakened comparison?
- The applicability of the result to voluntary work beyond this project.
- The inference that successful delivery means a message was read closely.
- The attendance information about aspects of the project.
- The original level of confidence in the superiority of day-specific reminders.
解答と解説を開く
The attendance information about aspects of the project.
根拠に合う答えは「The attendance information about aspects of the project.」です。 根拠：「The collection of attendance information still described useful aspects of the project」。 別の選択肢「The original level of confidence in the superiority of day-specific reminders.」と比べてみましょう。 この根拠から言える確実さや適用範囲を超えています。 別の選択肢「The applicability of the result to voluntary work beyond this project.」と比べてみましょう。 この根拠から言える確実さや適用範囲を超えています。
When a study is corrected
What would be agreed before the next collection of data?
- A shared definition of a cancelled session.
- A rule counting sent messages as received without checking delivery.
- Which volunteers’ private contact details should accompany the published records.
- The conclusion the next report should retain if the difference becomes smaller.
解答と解説を開く
A shared definition of a cancelled session.
根拠に合う答えは「A shared definition of a cancelled session.」です。 根拠：「a shared definition of a cancelled session, agreed before data collection began.」。 別の選択肢「The conclusion the next report should retain if the difference becomes smaller.」と比べてみましょう。 本文に示された関係を逆にしています。 別の選択肢「Which volunteers’ private contact details should accompany the published records.」と比べてみましょう。 特徴や行動を、別の集団や話者に割り当てています。
When a study is corrected
How did the team handle the original summary?
- It removed it without explanation.
- It substituted a list of volunteers’ contact details for the original summary.
- It displayed it beside the corrected replacement.
- It retained the original as the only public account of the comparison.
解答と解説を開く
It displayed it beside the corrected replacement.
根拠に合う答えは「It displayed it beside the corrected replacement.」です。 根拠：「displayed the original summary beside the replacement.」。 別の選択肢「It substituted a list of volunteers’ contact details for the original summary.」と比べてみましょう。 本文に示された関係を逆にしています。 別の選択肢「It retained the original as the only public account of the comparison.」と比べてみましょう。 本文に示された関係を逆にしています。
When a study is corrected
What is the case’s main lesson about correction?
- A weaker result can accompany a more dependable investigative process.
- Improving the process confirms the substantive claim made in the original summary.
- A correction is valuable chiefly when the revised headline remains persuasive.
- A calculation error removes the value of the underlying attendance information.
解答と解説を開く
A weaker result can accompany a more dependable investigative process.
根拠に合う答えは「A weaker result can accompany a more dependable investigative process.」です。 根拠：「A correction can weaken a result while making the reasoning behind the next investigation more dependable.」。 別の選択肢「A calculation error removes the value of the underlying attendance information.」と比べてみましょう。 限界があることを、貢献全体を捨てる理由にしています。有用性と限界は区別されます。 別の選択肢「Improving the process confirms the substantive claim made in the original summary.」と比べてみましょう。 この根拠から言える確実さや適用範囲を超えています。