明示された詳細
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 doors open at eight. The class starts at nine.
B2
働き方の試行を読み解く
このレッスンについて
働き方の試行を読み解く · 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。
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。
This is a fictional workplace report created for reading practice.
Linden Services tested a revised working arrangement in its accounts and customer-support departments. For eight weeks, participating employees could work away from the office on two fixed days. The purpose was to explore whether a predictable schedule could combine uninterrupted work with reliable access to colleagues. It was not designed to compare every possible form of remote working.
Managers initially suggested allowing individuals to choose different days each week. Staff representatives objected that this would make it difficult to know when help was available in person. The final arrangement therefore used a shared timetable. Each team retained at least one experienced employee in the office every day, although the person covering that role rotated.
The report presents several kinds of evidence. Completed accounts work rose slightly during the trial, while customer response times remained broadly unchanged. However, these figures came from normal internal records, and no comparable department continued under the previous arrangement as a control group. A change in the amount or difficulty of incoming work could therefore have contributed to the results. The authors explicitly avoid claiming that the new schedule caused the increase in completed accounts work.
An anonymous questionnaire produced mostly favourable comments about concentration. Yet only employees who had participated completed it. Some staff had chosen not to join because their homes offered little private space. Their absence matters: a positive response from volunteers does not establish that the arrangement would suit the whole workforce. The report recommends asking non-participants about their needs before extending the scheme.
There were practical costs as well. New employees sometimes waited longer for informal advice, even though formal response targets were met. One supervisor suggested scheduled online question sessions. Another worried that making every question into an appointment would remove the spontaneous learning that happens when colleagues share a room. The authors propose testing a mentoring arrangement rather than assuming either suggestion is sufficient on its own.
The conclusion supports a longer, more carefully monitored pilot. It calls for records of work complexity, attention to new employees and a review of whether staff can access suitable equipment. Participation would remain optional during this next stage. The authors regard the initial results as a reason to investigate further, not as a final verdict on where everyone should work. A decision that affects different roles and home circumstances requires more than a single favourable average.
まずはポイントを確認
理由・明示された詳細
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。
We meet inside because it is raining.
根拠の限界・手がかりからの推論
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。 実際の手がかりを組み合わせ、裏付けのない事実を足しません。
The notice gives a price, but says nothing about delivery.
学習素材
This is a fictional workplace report created for reading practice.
Linden Services tested a revised working arrangement in its accounts and customer-support departments. For eight weeks, participating employees could work away from the office on two fixed days. The purpose was to explore whether a predictable schedule could combine uninterrupted work with reliable access to colleagues. It was not designed to compare every possible form of remote working.
Managers initially suggested allowing individuals to choose different days each week. Staff representatives objected that this would make it difficult to know when help was available in person. The final arrangement therefore used a shared timetable. Each team retained at least one experienced employee in the office every day, although the person covering that role rotated.
The report presents several kinds of evidence. Completed accounts work rose slightly during the trial, while customer response times remained broadly unchanged. However, these figures came from normal internal records, and no comparable department continued under the previous arrangement as a control group. A change in the amount or difficulty of incoming work could therefore have contributed to the results. The authors explicitly avoid claiming that the new schedule caused the increase in completed accounts work.
An anonymous questionnaire produced mostly favourable comments about concentration. Yet only employees who had participated completed it. Some staff had chosen not to join because their homes offered little private space. Their absence matters: a positive response from volunteers does not establish that the arrangement would suit the whole workforce. The report recommends asking non-participants about their needs before extending the scheme.
There were practical costs as well. New employees sometimes waited longer for informal advice, even though formal response targets were met. One supervisor suggested scheduled online question sessions. Another worried that making every question into an appointment would remove the spontaneous learning that happens when colleagues share a room. The authors propose testing a mentoring arrangement rather than assuming either suggestion is sufficient on its own.
The conclusion supports a longer, more carefully monitored pilot. It calls for records of work complexity, attention to new employees and a review of whether staff can access suitable equipment. Participation would remain optional during this next stage. The authors regard the initial results as a reason to investigate further, not as a final verdict on where everyone should work. A decision that affects different roles and home circumstances requires more than a single favourable average.
01 / 12D01保存するとマイコレクションで見返せます。
Interpreting a work trial
What specific arrangement did the trial test?
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明示された詳細
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 doors open at eight. The class starts at nine.03
ステップ 3 · 理解を深める
0/1根拠の限界・手がかりからの推論
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。 実際の手がかりを組み合わせ、裏付けのない事実を足しません。
The notice gives a price, but says nothing about delivery.04
ステップ 4 · 理解を深める
0/1理由・明示された詳細
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。
We meet inside because it is raining.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働き方の試行を読み解く
この単元のポイント
明示された詳細
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 doors open at eight. The class starts at nine.理由・明示された詳細
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。
We meet inside because it is raining.根拠の限界・手がかりからの推論
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。 実際の手がかりを組み合わせ、裏付けのない事実を足しません。
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。
Interpreting a work trial
What specific arrangement did the trial test?
- A temporary closure of the offices on the remote-working days.
- A comparison intended to identify the best model for all remote work.
- Completely unrestricted weekly choices for every employee.
- Two fixed remote-working days within a predictable schedule.
解答と解説を開く
Two fixed remote-working days within a predictable schedule.
根拠に合う答えは「Two fixed remote-working days within a predictable schedule.」です。 根拠：「participating employees could work away from the office on two fixed days.」。 別の選択肢「Completely unrestricted weekly choices for every employee.」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 temporary closure of the offices on the remote-working days.」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。
Interpreting a work trial
Why was the managers’ first suggestion changed?
- Employees preferred a trial without any fixed days.
- Staff representatives wanted to remove experienced employees’ office duties.
- Staff representatives thought changing days would make in-person help less predictable.
- Customer response data had already shown the shared timetable was ineffective.
解答と解説を開く
Staff representatives thought changing days would make in-person help less predictable.
根拠に合う答えは「Staff representatives thought changing days would make in-person help less predictable.」です。 根拠：「Staff representatives objected that this would make it difficult to know when help was available in person.」。 別の選択肢「Staff representatives wanted to remove experienced employees’ office duties.」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。 別の選択肢「Customer response data had already shown the shared timetable was ineffective.」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。
Interpreting a work trial
How was experienced office cover maintained?
- At least one experienced person remained each day, with the role rotating.
- The same supervisor stayed every day for eight weeks.
- New employees took turns providing the experienced office support.
- The experienced employees remained in the office throughout the trial.
解答と解説を開く
At least one experienced person remained each day, with the role rotating.
根拠に合う答えは「At least one experienced person remained each day, with the role rotating.」です。 根拠：「Each team retained at least one experienced employee in the office every day, although the person covering that role rotated.」。 別の選択肢「The experienced employees remained in the office throughout the trial.」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「New employees took turns providing the experienced office support.」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。
Interpreting a work trial
Which reported measure rose slightly?
- The number of teams continuing under the original schedule.
- Completed accounts work.
- Customer response times.
- The share of the workforce reporting improved concentration.
解答と解説を開く
Completed accounts work.
根拠に合う答えは「Completed accounts work.」です。 根拠：「Completed accounts work rose slightly during the trial」。 別の選択肢「The share of the workforce reporting improved concentration.」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「Customer response times.」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。
Interpreting a work trial
Whose views were missing from the questionnaire results?
- Employees who had not joined the trial.
- Supervisors responsible for organising the shared timetable.
- Participants who reported slower access to informal advice.
- People working in customer support rather than accounts.
解答と解説を開く
Employees who had not joined the trial.
根拠に合う答えは「Employees who had not joined the trial.」です。 根拠：「only employees who had participated completed it.」。 別の選択肢「People working in customer support rather than accounts.」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「Supervisors responsible for organising the shared timetable.」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。
Interpreting a work trial
Why can the report not confidently attribute that rise to the schedule?
- The report had established that workload difficulty remained constant.
- There was no comparable control department and work demands might have changed.
- The questionnaire’s inclusion of non-participants distorted the work figures.
- The work data were collected only through participants’ opinions.
解答と解説を開く
There was no comparable control department and work demands might have changed.
根拠に合う答えは「There was no comparable control department and work demands might have changed.」です。 根拠：「no comparable department continued under the previous arrangement as a control group. A change in the amount or difficulty of incoming work could therefore have contributed to the results.」。 別の選択肢「The work data were collected only through participants’ opinions.」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 report had established that workload difficulty remained constant.」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。
Interpreting a work trial
Why does the report mention employees without private space at home?
- Their experience provides the strongest direct evidence of improved concentration.
- Their circumstances limit how far the volunteers’ positive feedback can be generalised.
- Their absence shows the scheme was unsuitable for any role.
- It establishes that home-working conditions caused the accounts increase.
解答と解説を開く
Their circumstances limit how far the volunteers’ positive feedback can be generalised.
根拠に合う答えは「Their circumstances limit how far the volunteers’ positive feedback can be generalised.」です。 根拠：「Some staff had chosen not to join because their homes offered little private space. Their absence matters: a positive response from volunteers does not establish that the arrangement would suit the whole workforce.」。 別の選択肢「Their experience provides the strongest direct evidence of improved concentration.」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。 別の選択肢「Their absence shows the scheme was unsuitable for any role.」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。
Interpreting a work trial
What difficulty did new employees sometimes experience?
- Formal customer-response targets were removed for employees at home.
- They had to provide the rotating experienced cover themselves.
- A longer wait for informal advice.
- Their formal requests routinely failed to meet the agreed response targets.
解答と解説を開く
A longer wait for informal advice.
根拠に合う答えは「A longer wait for informal advice.」です。 根拠：「New employees sometimes waited longer for informal advice」。 別の選択肢「Formal customer-response targets were removed for employees at home.」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「Their formal requests routinely failed to meet the agreed response targets.」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。
Interpreting a work trial
What concern was raised about scheduled question sessions?
- Scheduling questions would make meeting formal response targets impossible.
- The sessions would prevent experienced employees from rotating office duties.
- The sessions had been tested and found to solve the mentoring difficulty.
- They might not replace spontaneous learning between colleagues.
解答と解説を開く
They might not replace spontaneous learning between colleagues.
根拠に合う答えは「They might not replace spontaneous learning between colleagues.」です。 根拠：「making every question into an appointment would remove the spontaneous learning that happens when colleagues share a room.」。 別の選択肢「Scheduling questions would make meeting formal response targets impossible.」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 sessions had been tested and found to solve the mentoring difficulty.」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。
Interpreting a work trial
What do the authors suggest testing in response?
- Waiting for response targets to fail before changing the support arrangements.
- Replacing face-to-face advice entirely with scheduled online questions.
- A compulsory timetable limited to employees who joined recently.
- A mentoring arrangement.
解答と解説を開く
A mentoring arrangement.
根拠に合う答えは「A mentoring arrangement.」です。 根拠：「The authors propose testing a mentoring arrangement」。 別の選択肢「A compulsory timetable limited to employees who joined recently.」と比べてみましょう。 提案や主張に付いている条件を取り除くか、別の条件に変えています。 別の選択肢「Replacing face-to-face advice entirely with scheduled online questions.」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。
Interpreting a work trial
What will happen to participation in the proposed next stage?
- It will become compulsory for every role.
- Employees without private home space will be required to join.
- Participation will be restricted to those who declined the first trial.
- It will remain optional.
解答と解説を開く
It will remain optional.
根拠に合う答えは「It will remain optional.」です。 根拠：「Participation would remain optional during this next stage.」。 別の選択肢「Employees without private home space will be required to join.」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「Participation will be restricted to those who declined the first trial.」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。
Interpreting a work trial
Which interpretation matches the conclusion?
- The initial findings justify further investigation rather than a universal final decision.
- The lack of a control group makes the initial findings unhelpful for planning.
- The favourable average is sufficient grounds for permanent workforce-wide adoption.
- The results show that office location has no meaningful effect on any role.
解答と解説を開く
The initial findings justify further investigation rather than a universal final decision.
根拠に合う答えは「The initial findings justify further investigation rather than a universal final decision.」です。 根拠：「a reason to investigate further, not as a final verdict on where everyone should work.」。 別の選択肢「The lack of a control group makes the initial findings unhelpful for planning.」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「The favourable average is sufficient grounds for permanent workforce-wide adoption.」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。