背景知識
自己評価欄（理解度チェック）がここ数日未記入のため、特定の「要復習」テーマを機械的に選ぶことができませんでした。そこで今日は、今週（Day 111〜116）を通じて繰り返し登場した3つのPhase 3の重点テーマを1つの複合レビューにまとめて総復習します。
| Day | テーマ | Phase 3で求められるポイント |
|---|---|---|
| 113（水） | 関係代名詞 defining / non-defining | カンマの有無・that/which の使い分け・省略可否を誤らない |
| 114（木） | Writing Task 1 — 分詞構文・完了受動態 | 単純受動態の羅列から脱却し、"having been done" "before being done" を使いこなす |
| 115（金） | Speaking — Hedging Language | "I think" だけでなく "arguably" "on balance" "to a certain extent" で意見に幅を持たせる |
| 116（土） | Listening — Hedging Language・意見の変化 | 婉曲的な同意・反対の表現を検知し、話者の意見がどう変化したかを追う |
Hedging language は Speaking（自分で使う）と Listening（相手の発言から検知する）の両方で今週2回登場しており、Phase 3全体を通じて最重要のOutput/Input両輪スキルになっています。同様に、分詞構文・完了受動態（Writing）と関係代名詞の精度（Grammar）は、どちらも「文を正確かつ複雑に組み立てる」という同じ根っこのスキルです。今日はこの3つを1つのセッションで横断的に鍛えます。
今日の構成
| Part | 技能 | 内容 | 配点イメージ |
|---|---|---|---|
| A | Listening | 新規トランスクリプトでの Hedging Language・意見変化の検出ドリル | 5問 |
| B | Grammar | Day 113（関係代名詞 defining/non-defining）のエラー訂正・応用 | 3問 |
| C | Reading | Day 112（Yes/No/Not Given）の判定ロジック復習 | 3問 |
| D | Writing Task 1 | Day 114（分詞構文・完了受動態）のリライト | 1問 |
| E | Speaking | Day 115（Hedging Language）を使ったPart 3的深掘り回答 | 1問 |
Listening: Hedging Language・意見変化の検出ドリル（5問）
Hedging LanguageDr. Whitfield: Right, Sara, Tom — you wanted to talk through your methodology before the deadline. Where are you at?
Sara: So we were planning to run a survey — get maybe 150 responses and analyse the numbers statistically.
Tom: Yeah, that was the plan, although now I'm having second thoughts. A survey would give us breadth, but arguably we'd lose a lot of the nuance around why people actually feel the way they do.
Dr. Whitfield: That's a fair point, although a purely qualitative approach — say, ten in-depth interviews — would take considerably longer to analyse, and you don't have that much time before submission.
Sara: I see what you mean. I'd say, to a certain extent, we could do both — a shorter survey to get the broad picture, plus maybe five interviews to add some depth.
Tom: On balance, I think that's probably our best option. It's not a huge sample for the qualitative side, but it should be enough to illustrate a few key themes.
Dr. Whitfield: Agreed. One thing though — you'll need to justify in your methodology chapter why five interviews specifically. Just say something like "a broadly representative but manageable subset," rather than claiming it's fully generalisable.
Sara: That makes sense. So just to confirm — final plan: survey first, then five follow-up interviews with participants who opt in?
Dr. Whitfield: Exactly. And build in a bit of buffer time — interview transcription always takes longer than people expect.
Grammar: 関係代名詞エラー訂正（3問）
Day 113 復習Reading: Yes/No/Not Given判定（3問）
Day 112 復習Several cities have begun experimenting with dynamically priced on-street parking, in which the fee for a given space rises and falls according to real-time demand, updated as often as every hour. Proponents argue that this approach, unlike a flat all-day rate, ensures that a small number of spaces are almost always available, reducing the time drivers spend circling in search of a space — a phenomenon that itself contributes substantially to local congestion and emissions. Critics, however, note that dynamic pricing can be difficult for occasional visitors to understand, since the rate they see on arrival may differ considerably from the rate that applied even thirty minutes earlier. Some cities have responded by capping the maximum hourly rate, arguing that predictability matters as much as efficiency. Whether dynamic pricing meaningfully reduces overall traffic volumes, as opposed to simply reallocating who parks where, remains a question that few cities have rigorously studied.
Writing Task 1: 分詞構文・完了受動態リライト（1問）
Day 114 復習Speaking: Hedging Language運用（口頭 or 記述で回答）
Day 115 復習解法ガイド
Part A（Hedging Language・意見変化）
- "arguably" "to a certain extent" "on balance" "that's a fair point, although" などのhedging表現が出たら、その話者が断定を避けながら意見を述べていることを意識する
- 意見が対立している場合、最終的にどこで合意（着地）したかを最後まで聞き取る
- 今回は「survey→迷い→survey+interview」という展開なので、中間の迷いを最終結論と取り違えない
Part B（関係代名詞）
Q6: non-defining（先行詞 the congestion charge scheme はすでに特定済み）なので "that" ではなく "which" を使い、前後にカンマを置く。Q7: 所有格の関係代名詞は "whose"。"who's" は "who is / who has" の短縮形であり別物。Q8: 関係代名詞節の中に主語を重複させる「resumptive pronoun（重複代名詞）」の誤り。関係代名詞がすでに目的語の役割を果たしているので、"it" は不要。
Part C（Yes/No/Not Given）
Q9: パッセージ末尾 "remains a question that few cities have rigorously studied" と、設問文 "has already demonstrated" が矛盾 → NO。Q10: "capping the maximum hourly rate" とほぼ同義 → YES。Q11: 訪問者の割合について本文に記述なし → NOT GIVEN。
Part D（分詞構文・完了受動態）
1文目を "Having been extracted from quartz sand, the silicon..." という分詞構文に変換し、2文目以降を "before being sliced into thin wafers" という後置分詞でつなげる。
Part E（Hedging Language）
"It could be argued that..., although..." のように、まず婉曲的に立場を示し、その後に "to a certain extent" などで留保を加える構成が自然。
有用な表現・語彙
| 語彙・表現 | 品詞 | 意味・用法 |
|---|---|---|
| arguably | [副] | おそらく、議論の余地はあるが。断定を避けつつ意見を述べる副詞 |
| to a certain extent | [句] | ある程度は。部分的な同意を示すhedging表現 |
| on balance | [句] | 総合的に見ると。複数の観点を検討した上での結論を導く際に使う |
| that's a fair point, although... | [句] | それはもっともな指摘ですが〜。相手の意見を一旦受け止めてから反論する定型表現 |
| a broadly representative but manageable subset | [句] | おおむね代表性はあるが扱いやすい規模の部分集合。研究の限界を正直に、かつ学術的に述べる表現 |
| resumptive pronoun | [文法用語] | 関係代名詞節の中で主語・目的語を不要に繰り返してしまう文法エラー（重複代名詞） |
| dynamically priced | [形] | 動的に価格設定された。需要に応じてリアルタイムで価格が変動する仕組み |
| cap (the rate) | [動] | （料金などの）上限を設ける |
ヒント
- Part Aは「誰が・どんな留保をつけながら・最終的に何に合意したか」を意識して読む。
- Part B・Cは今週すでに学んだルールの応用なので、まず自力でルールを思い出してから答え合わせをする。
- Part Eは "It could be argued that..." から始める型を使い、留保表現を最低2つ入れる。
- Part A: survey単独→Tomの疑問（nuanceが失われる）→survey＋5インタビューの折衷案で決着。
- Part D: 1文目を分詞構文（Having been extracted...）、2文目以降を後置分詞（before being sliced...）でつなぐ。
- Part E: "It could be argued that [立場], although, to a certain extent, [留保・反対意見にも理がある点]" の型が使いやすい。
- Part D モデル骨格 → "Having been extracted from quartz sand, the silicon is purified before being sliced into thin wafers."
- Part E モデル骨格 → "It could be argued that platforms should bear some responsibility, since they profit from engagement regardless of accuracy. On balance, though, I'd say full legal responsibility might be unrealistic, given the sheer volume of content involved."
モデル解答
| Q | Part | 正解 | 根拠 / 補足 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | A | アンケート調査（約150件の回答を統計的に分析） | "we were planning to run a survey — get maybe 150 responses" |
| 2 | A | 人々がなぜそう感じるかの nuance が失われるため | "arguably we'd lose a lot of the nuance around why people actually feel the way they do" |
| 3 | A | 短めのアンケート調査 ＋ 追加インタビュー5件 | "a shorter survey... plus maybe five interviews" |
| 4 | A | "a broadly representative but manageable subset" と表現し、完全な一般化は主張しない | Dr. Whitfieldの発言 |
| 5 | A | arguably / that's a fair point, although / I'd say, to a certain extent / on balance | 最低3つ書ければ正解 |
| 6 | B | "The congestion charge scheme, which was introduced in 2003, has reduced traffic significantly." | non-defining節では that は使用不可 |
| 7 | B | "Residents whose houses are located near the new bypass have complained about noise." | who's（=who is）ではなく所有格 whose |
| 8 | B | "The policy which the council implemented last year has been widely criticised." | 重複代名詞 it は不要 |
| 9 | C | NO | "remains a question that few cities have rigorously studied" と矛盾 |
| 10 | C | YES | "capping the maximum hourly rate" |
| 11 | C | NOT GIVEN | 訪問者の割合についての記述なし |
| 12 | D | Having been extracted from quartz sand, the silicon is purified before being sliced into thin wafers. | 分詞構文＋後置分詞 |
| 13 | E | 下記モデル解答参照 | hedging表現を最低2つ使用 |
"It could be argued that social media companies should bear at least some legal responsibility, since their algorithms actively promote content that generates engagement, regardless of whether it's accurate. On balance, though, I'd say holding them fully and legally responsible for every piece of misinformation might be unrealistic, simply because of the sheer volume of content posted every second — to a certain extent, users also need to take responsibility for what they choose to share."
モデル解答の解説
Listening（Hedging Language・意見変化）
Grammar（関係代名詞）
Writing Task 1（分詞構文・完了受動態）
Speaking（Hedging Language）
よくある日本人のミス
| ミス | 原因 | 正しい書き方 |
|---|---|---|
| Part A Q3で「survey」とだけ答える | 議論の途中経過（Tomの疑問）だけを聞いて結論を急いでしまう | 最終的な折衷案（survey＋5インタビュー）まで聞き取る |
| Part B Q6で "that" のままにしてしまう | non-defining節（カンマで挟まれた補足情報）でも "that" が使えると誤解している | non-defining節ではthat は使用不可、"which" のみ使う |
| Part B Q8の重複代名詞 "it" に気づかない | 日本語の「〜という政策は、それは批判された」という発想がそのまま英語に出てしまう | 関係代名詞がすでに目的語を兼ねているため、後続の代名詞は不要かつ誤り |
| Part E で "I think" だけで意見を述べて終える | hedging表現を使わなくても意見自体は伝わるため、必要性を感じにくい | "arguably" "to a certain extent" などを最低2つ組み込み、意見に幅を持たせる |
| Part D で "The silicon has been extracted from..." と時制を独立させてしまう | 分詞構文にせず、通常の完了受動態の文のまま並べてしまう | 主語を省略した"Having been extracted..."の形に圧縮する |
次のステップ
次回予告（月曜）: Writing Task 2 — Cohesion（結束性）のスコアアップ技法
自己評価
理解度:
自分の回答:
気づき・メモ: