根拠の限界・明示された詳細
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。 問われた人・時刻・場所・量を正しい出来事に結び付けます。
The notice gives a price, but says nothing about delivery.
B2
おすすめリストの先へ
このレッスンについて
おすすめリストの先へ · B2. 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。 問われた人・時刻・場所・量を正しい出来事に結び付けます。
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。
Imagine a reading service that recommends books after each title you finish. This editorial uses that fictional service to explore a question: when does useful guidance become an unnecessarily narrow path?
In my imagined first month, the service appears remarkably attentive. After I read a short account of a sea journey, it offers another. I enjoy that book too, so the next list contains yet more journeys. Nothing has gone wrong in the ordinary sense. The suggestions are relevant, and I continue reading. Yet relevance to my recent choices is not the same as an account of everything I might value.
Perhaps I selected the first book because I needed a brief read before travelling. Perhaps a friend lent it to me. Neither circumstance necessarily implies a lasting preference for maritime stories. A system working only from finished titles cannot know those reasons unless it has some other way of asking. The point is not that the recommendations must be poor, but that apparently precise behaviour can rest on incomplete explanations.
The familiar response is to demand more data. Asking readers why they chose a book might indeed help, but an answer is not always simple. People may discover their reasons while reading, and they may prefer not to record every private interest in a service. More information can improve one decision while raising other questions about what should be collected and retained.
Another possibility is to give the reader clearer control over the kind of recommendation being requested. A “similar to my last book” list serves a different purpose from a “surprise me” list. Neither needs to pretend it represents the reader’s complete identity. Such labels could make the limits of the suggestion easier to understand, even when the underlying information remains incomplete.
I would also want room for a human recommendation that cannot be reduced to a neat match. A librarian might suggest a very different novel because of a conversation about a character, not a category. That does not make librarians infallible or automated lists useless. It shows why several routes to discovery can be worth preserving.
The service in this example has no obligation to introduce me to every book in existence. Nor should I expect a list to remove the work of choosing. My concern is with presenting one convenient route as though it were the only meaningful one. Good guidance can help people decide while still leaving the shape of the journey open.
まずはポイントを確認
理由・明示された詳細・目的と目指す結果
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。 人やメッセージが、誰のために何を達成しようとしているか考えます。
We meet inside because it is raining.
明示された詳細・根拠の限界・要点
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。 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 doors open at eight. The class starts at nine.
学習素材
Imagine a reading service that recommends books after each title you finish. This editorial uses that fictional service to explore a question: when does useful guidance become an unnecessarily narrow path?
In my imagined first month, the service appears remarkably attentive. After I read a short account of a sea journey, it offers another. I enjoy that book too, so the next list contains yet more journeys. Nothing has gone wrong in the ordinary sense. The suggestions are relevant, and I continue reading. Yet relevance to my recent choices is not the same as an account of everything I might value.
Perhaps I selected the first book because I needed a brief read before travelling. Perhaps a friend lent it to me. Neither circumstance necessarily implies a lasting preference for maritime stories. A system working only from finished titles cannot know those reasons unless it has some other way of asking. The point is not that the recommendations must be poor, but that apparently precise behaviour can rest on incomplete explanations.
The familiar response is to demand more data. Asking readers why they chose a book might indeed help, but an answer is not always simple. People may discover their reasons while reading, and they may prefer not to record every private interest in a service. More information can improve one decision while raising other questions about what should be collected and retained.
Another possibility is to give the reader clearer control over the kind of recommendation being requested. A “similar to my last book” list serves a different purpose from a “surprise me” list. Neither needs to pretend it represents the reader’s complete identity. Such labels could make the limits of the suggestion easier to understand, even when the underlying information remains incomplete.
I would also want room for a human recommendation that cannot be reduced to a neat match. A librarian might suggest a very different novel because of a conversation about a character, not a category. That does not make librarians infallible or automated lists useless. It shows why several routes to discovery can be worth preserving.
The service in this example has no obligation to introduce me to every book in existence. Nor should I expect a list to remove the work of choosing. My concern is with presenting one convenient route as though it were the only meaningful one. Good guidance can help people decide while still leaving the shape of the journey open.
01 / 12D01保存するとマイコレクションで見返せます。
Beyond the recommendation list
What kind of case does the editorial discuss?
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・目的と目指す結果
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。 人やメッセージが、誰のために何を達成しようとしているか考えます。
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・明示された詳細
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。 問われた人・時刻・場所・量を正しい出来事に結び付けます。
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・要点
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。 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 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おすすめリストの先へ
この単元のポイント
根拠の限界・明示された詳細
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。 問われた人・時刻・場所・量を正しい出来事に結び付けます。
The notice gives a price, but says nothing about delivery.理由・明示された詳細・目的と目指す結果
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。 人やメッセージが、誰のために何を達成しようとしているか考えます。
We meet inside because it is raining.明示された詳細・根拠の限界・要点
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。 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 doors open at eight. The class starts at nine.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。
Beyond the recommendation list
What kind of case does the editorial discuss?
- A report establishing the performance of an actual named recommendation service.
- A comparison intended to measure the accuracy of librarians and software.
- A controlled study establishing readers’ permanent genre preferences.
- An invented reading service used to examine a broader issue.
解答と解説を開く
An invented reading service used to examine a broader issue.
根拠に合う答えは「An invented reading service used to examine a broader issue.」です。 根拠：「This editorial uses that fictional service to explore a question」。 別の選択肢「A report establishing the performance of an actual named recommendation service.」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「A comparison intended to measure the accuracy of librarians and software.」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。
Beyond the recommendation list
Why do the repeated sea-journey suggestions appear successful at first?
- The lists have broadened the reader’s interests beyond recent choices.
- The recommendations account for the personal circumstances behind the first choice.
- They are relevant and the reader enjoys more of the books.
- The service has asked why the reader wants maritime stories in the long term.
解答と解説を開く
They are relevant and the reader enjoys more of the books.
根拠に合う答えは「They are relevant and the reader enjoys more of the books.」です。 根拠：「The suggestions are relevant, and I continue reading.」。 別の選択肢「The lists have broadened the reader’s interests beyond recent choices.」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。 別の選択肢「The service has asked why the reader wants maritime stories in the long term.」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。
Beyond the recommendation list
What distinction does the writer draw about relevance?
- Finishing repeated sea journeys is sufficient evidence of a permanent genre preference.
- A narrow explanation means the relevant recommendations cannot be enjoyable.
- Recent behaviour does not reveal everything a reader might value.
- A repeated interest cannot tell the service anything useful about the reader.
解答と解説を開く
Recent behaviour does not reveal everything a reader might value.
根拠に合う答えは「Recent behaviour does not reveal everything a reader might value.」です。 根拠：「relevance to my recent choices is not the same as an account of everything I might value.」。 別の選択肢「Finishing repeated sea journeys is sufficient evidence of a permanent genre preference.」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「A repeated interest cannot tell the service anything useful about the reader.」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。
Beyond the recommendation list
Why mention a friend lending the first book?
- To offer another possible explanation for choosing it.
- To establish that borrowing a book predicts a different reading speed.
- To establish a preference for personal recommendations over maritime fiction.
- To explain how the service obtains books for its recommended lists.
解答と解説を開く
To offer another possible explanation for choosing it.
根拠に合う答えは「To offer another possible explanation for choosing it.」です。 根拠：「Perhaps a friend lent it to me. Neither circumstance necessarily implies a lasting preference for maritime stories.」。 別の選択肢「To establish that borrowing a book predicts a different reading speed.」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「To establish a preference for personal recommendations over maritime fiction.」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。
Beyond the recommendation list
Which missing information does the writer identify as a limitation when interpreting reader preferences?
- The identity of the genre used in recent recommendations.
- The extent to which recommended titles share a topic.
- The titles that the reader actually finished.
- The reasons behind the choices.
解答と解説を開く
The reasons behind the choices.
根拠に合う答えは「The reasons behind the choices.」です。 根拠：「A system working only from finished titles cannot know those reasons」。 別の選択肢「The titles that the reader actually finished.」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「The extent to which recommended titles share a topic.」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。
Beyond the recommendation list
What qualification accompanies the suggestion to ask for more data?
- Private motives are too uncertain to help any recommendation decision.
- People may not know or wish to record all their reasons.
- Readers can be expected to give one stable explanation for each choice.
- Asking for explanations resolves questions about what data should be retained.
解答と解説を開く
People may not know or wish to record all their reasons.
根拠に合う答えは「People may not know or wish to record all their reasons.」です。 根拠：「People may discover their reasons while reading, and they may prefer not to record every private interest in a service.」。 別の選択肢「Private motives are too uncertain to help any recommendation decision.」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。 別の選択肢「Readers can be expected to give one stable explanation for each choice.」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。
Beyond the recommendation list
How do the two suggested list labels differ?
- One requires collecting every private interest, while the other avoids personal data entirely.
- Both aim to express a reader’s full range of interests.
- One asks for similarity; the other asks for novelty.
- One offers accurate guidance, while novelty makes the other unsuitable as guidance.
解答と解説を開く
One asks for similarity; the other asks for novelty.
根拠に合う答えは「One asks for similarity; the other asks for novelty.」です。 根拠：「A “similar to my last book” list serves a different purpose from a “surprise me” list.」。 別の選択肢「One requires collecting every private interest, while the other avoids personal data entirely.」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「Both aim to express a reader’s full range of interests.」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。
Beyond the recommendation list
What benefit could clearer labels provide?
- Completing the service’s knowledge of why each book was chosen.
- Making the limits of a suggestion easier to recognise.
- Ensuring that the list matches the reader’s lasting identity.
- Reducing the need for readers to decide which kind of guidance they want.
解答と解説を開く
Making the limits of a suggestion easier to recognise.
根拠に合う答えは「Making the limits of a suggestion easier to recognise.」です。 根拠：「Such labels could make the limits of the suggestion easier to understand」。 別の選択肢「Reducing the need for readers to decide which kind of guidance they want.」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「Completing the service’s knowledge of why each book was chosen.」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。
Beyond the recommendation list
Why does the writer introduce a librarian’s recommendation?
- To show that book categories should have no role in finding a novel.
- To establish that conversational recommendations are necessarily more accurate.
- To recommend replacing useful automated lists with personal advice.
- To illustrate another route to discovery based on a conversation.
解答と解説を開く
To illustrate another route to discovery based on a conversation.
根拠に合う答えは「To illustrate another route to discovery based on a conversation.」です。 根拠：「because of a conversation about a character, not a category.」。 別の選択肢「To establish that conversational recommendations are necessarily more accurate.」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。 別の選択肢「To recommend replacing useful automated lists with personal advice.」と比べてみましょう。 話者・筆者が退けている二者択一に、議論を単純化しています。
Beyond the recommendation list
Which judgement about human and automated guidance does the writer explicitly reject?
- That discovery can benefit from retaining both similar and unexpected routes.
- That the example proves humans infallible and automated lists useless.
- That the repeated suggestions may remain relevant and enjoyable.
- That personal conversation may give information a category match lacks.
解答と解説を開く
That the example proves humans infallible and automated lists useless.
根拠に合う答えは「That the example proves humans infallible and automated lists useless.」です。 根拠：「That does not make librarians infallible or automated lists useless.」。 別の選択肢「That discovery can benefit from retaining both similar and unexpected routes.」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「That personal conversation may give information a category match lacks.」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。
Beyond the recommendation list
What responsibility does the writer leave with readers?
- Recording personal motives whenever the service asks about a book.
- Checking that a recommendation list includes every genre worth reading.
- Testing all the suggested titles before deciding which route is useful.
- Doing some of the work of choosing.
解答と解説を開く
Doing some of the work of choosing.
根拠に合う答えは「Doing some of the work of choosing.」です。 根拠：「Nor should I expect a list to remove the work of choosing.」。 別の選択肢「Recording personal motives whenever the service asks about a book.」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。 別の選択肢「Checking that a recommendation list includes every genre worth reading.」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。
Beyond the recommendation list
What is the editorial’s central concern?
- Treating one convenient route as the only meaningful route.
- Using recommendations even when they are relevant to recent behaviour.
- Enjoying a series of books that share one subject.
- Reducing effort whenever a service makes a reading decision more convenient.
解答と解説を開く
Treating one convenient route as the only meaningful route.
根拠に合う答えは「Treating one convenient route as the only meaningful route.」です。 根拠：「presenting one convenient route as though it were the only meaningful one.」。 別の選択肢「Reducing effort whenever a service makes a reading decision more convenient.」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。 別の選択肢「Using recommendations even when they are relevant to recent behaviour.」と比べてみましょう。 補助的な例や具体的な細部を、問われている主目的と取り違えています。