動詞の構造を確認する
動詞の形を選ぶ前に、主語、時の基準、助動詞を確認します。
[1] _____ the draft report, the reviewers asked the authors to explain their sampling method.
研究報告を検討する · B2. 動詞の形を選ぶ前に、主語、時の基準、助動詞を確認します。
オリジナルの英文にある十二の空欄を埋めましょう。前後と文章全体を読みます。レベルは編集上の目安です。
[1] _____ the draft report, the reviewers asked the authors to explain their sampling method. The original argument had been based [2] _____ responses from a small online group. Before requesting a new survey, the authors [3] _____ that some age groups were missing.
This raised questions about the [4] _____ of the conclusions to people outside that group. [5] _____ the responses were genuine, the sample did not represent the whole community. The reviewers recommended [6] _____ how participants had been recruited.
They also asked for a clear distinction [7] _____ a reported preference and an observed action. A researcher, [8] _____ objections had initially been overlooked, proposed a follow-up interview study. Not until the revised analysis had been checked [9] _____ the authors submit the final version.
Had they kept the original wording, they [10] _____ a stronger claim than their evidence supported. The revised conclusion focused on describing the responses, [11] _____ than predicting everyone’s future behaviour. The most [12] _____ improvement was the separation of results from speculation.
動詞の形を選ぶ前に、主語、時の基準、助動詞を確認します。
[1] _____ the draft report, the reviewers asked the authors to explain their sampling method.
空欄の前後を読み、冠詞、代名詞、前置詞、固定表現をまとまりとして確認します。
The original argument had been based [2] _____ responses from a small online group.
原因、対比、条件、指示の関係を判断し、接続表現に必要な文法も確認します。
[5] _____ the responses were genuine, the sample did not represent the whole community.
[1] _____ the draft report, the reviewers asked the authors to explain their sampling method. The original argument had been based [2] _____ responses from a small online group. Before requesting a new survey, the authors [3] _____ that some age groups were missing.
This raised questions about the [4] _____ of the conclusions to people outside that group. [5] _____ the responses were genuine, the sample did not represent the whole community. The reviewers recommended [6] _____ how participants had been recruited.
They also asked for a clear distinction [7] _____ a reported preference and an observed action. A researcher, [8] _____ objections had initially been overlooked, proposed a follow-up interview study. Not until the revised analysis had been checked [9] _____ the authors submit the final version.
Had they kept the original wording, they [10] _____ a stronger claim than their evidence supported. The revised conclusion focused on describing the responses, [11] _____ than predicting everyone’s future behaviour. The most [12] _____ improvement was the separation of results from speculation.
Reviewing a research report — gap 1
空欄の前後を読み、冠詞、代名詞、前置詞、固定表現をまとまりとして確認します。
The original argument had been based [2] _____ responses from a small online group.原因、対比、条件、指示の関係を判断し、接続表現に必要な文法も確認します。
[5] _____ the responses were genuine, the sample did not represent the whole community.動詞の形を選ぶ前に、主語、時の基準、助動詞を確認します。
[1] _____ the draft report, the reviewers asked the authors to explain their sampling method.初回答を残し、変化の理由を理解して、別の場面で確かめます。
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。
動詞の形を選ぶ前に、主語、時の基準、助動詞を確認します。
[1] _____ the draft report, the reviewers asked the authors to explain their sampling method.空欄の前後を読み、冠詞、代名詞、前置詞、固定表現をまとまりとして確認します。
The original argument had been based [2] _____ responses from a small online group.原因、対比、条件、指示の関係を判断し、接続表現に必要な文法も確認します。
[5] _____ the responses were genuine, the sample did not represent the whole community.解答を開くと、その問題にヒント利用が記録されます。
Reviewing a research report — gap 1
判断の手掛かりは「[1] _____ the draft report, the reviewers asked the authors to explain their sampling method.」です。having + past participle を用います。表す内容:主節より前に明確に完了した動作。 この課題で完成する文は「Having examined the draft report, the reviewers asked the authors to explain their sampling method.」です。
Reviewing a research report — gap 2
判断の手掛かりは「The original argument had been based [2] _____ responses from a small online group.」です。根拠ならbased on、強調点ならplace emphasis onという組み合わせで、完成文のonはその根拠・焦点を導きます。 この課題で完成する文は「The original argument had been based on responses from a small online group.」です。
Reviewing a research report — gap 3
判断の手掛かりは「Before requesting a new survey, the authors [3] _____ that some age groups were missing.」です。had + past participle を用います。表す内容:過去の基準時より前に完了した出来事。 この課題で完成する文は「Before requesting a new survey, the authors had realised that some age groups were missing.」です。
Reviewing a research report — gap 4
判断の手掛かりは「This raised questions about the [4] _____ of the conclusions to people outside that group.」です。theとof the findings/conclusionsの間では性質を名づけるapplicabilityを使い、元の標本を越えて結果がどこまで当てはまるかを表します。 この課題で完成する文は「This raised questions about the applicability of the conclusions to people outside that group.」です。
Reviewing a research report — gap 5
判断の手掛かりは「[5] _____ the responses were genuine, the sample did not represent the whole community.」です。although/even though + finite clause を用います。表す内容:主語と時制のある動詞が続く譲歩。 この課題で完成する文は「Although the responses were genuine, the sample did not represent the whole community.」です。
Reviewing a research report — gap 6
判断の手掛かりは「The reviewers recommended [6] _____ how participants had been recruited.」です。propose/recommendに直接行為を続けるここでは-ing補語にします。計画されるのは行為そのもので、定形の時制や挿入されたto不定詞ではありません。 この課題で完成する文は「The reviewers recommended documenting how participants had been recruited.」です。
Reviewing a research report — gap 7
判断の手掛かりは「They also asked for a clear distinction [7] _____ a reported preference and an observed action.」です。make a distinction between A and Bは区別すべき二つの概念を示し、betweenがその比較の型を完成させます。 この課題で完成する文は「They also asked for a clear distinction between a reported preference and an observed action.」です。
Reviewing a research report — gap 8
判断の手掛かりは「A researcher, [8] _____ objections had initially been overlooked, proposed a follow-up interview study.」です。関係節はwork・family・objectionsなど先行詞に関係する名詞で始まるので、その名詞を残してwhoseで所有・所属を示します。 この課題で完成する文は「A researcher, whose objections had initially been overlooked, proposed a follow-up interview study.」です。
Reviewing a research report — gap 9
判断の手掛かりは「Not until the revised analysis had been checked [9] _____ the authors submit the final version.」です。only after/until + clause; inverted main clause を用います。表す内容:after・until の節内ではなく、主節を倒置する。 この課題で完成する文は「Not until the revised analysis had been checked did the authors submit the final version.」です。
Reviewing a research report — gap 10
判断の手掛かりは「Had they kept the original wording, they [10] _____ a stronger claim than their evidence supported.」です。would have + past participle を用います。表す内容:実現しなかった条件に対する過去の仮想結果。 この課題で完成する文は「Had they kept the original wording, they would have made a stronger claim than their evidence supported.」です。
Reviewing a research report — gap 11
判断の手掛かりは「The revised conclusion focused on describing the responses, [11] _____ than predicting everyone’s future behaviour.」です。rather thanは望まれる行為と退けられる選択肢を対比し、二つの行為は文法的に並行した役割になります。 この課題で完成する文は「The revised conclusion focused on describing the responses, rather than predicting everyone’s future behaviour.」です。
Reviewing a research report — gap 12
判断の手掛かりは「The most [12] _____ improvement was the separation of results from speculation.」です。空欄は後ろの発見・改善を説明するため、the mostの後に形容詞significantを置きます。 この課題で完成する文は「The most significant improvement was the separation of results from speculation.」です。