NEW TREASURE Stage2 Read｜独自長文2題・根拠段落を選ぶ24問【その場で採点・全文和訳】

Paragraph 1 At West Hill School, a student called Nao noticed that many bicycles stayed near the north gate for several days. Some belonged to students who usually walked to school. Others had small problems, such as loose lights or dirty chains. Nao asked forty students about their bicycles. Twelve said that a minor problem had stopped them from riding recently. Nao did not know whether the same problem affected other students, so she described her survey as a first step, not a complete answer.

Paragraph 2 Nao proposed a Bicycle Corner where students could learn simple ways to care for their bicycles. At first, two classmates wanted volunteers to repair anything that students brought. A teacher disagreed because some repairs, especially work on brakes, needed trained adults. The group changed its plan. Students would check whether a light was working, wipe dirty parts, and learn when to ask a professional for help. They would not open brakes or make repairs that could affect safety. The teacher approved the new plan for a two-week trial.

Paragraph 3 The first event took place on October 4. Six student volunteers and two teachers were present. Twenty-one students visited the corner, but only fifteen brought bicycles. Nine bicycles were cleaned, and six lights were checked. Some bicycles received both kinds of attention, so the two numbers could not simply be added to find how many bicycles were helped. Three visitors were asked to contact a repair shop because their bicycles had problems beyond the project. No one was told that the Bicycle Corner had repaired those three bicycles.

Paragraph 4 At the end of the first week, Nao asked twenty-five visitors to complete a short survey. Fourteen reported that they felt more confident about noticing small problems, eight were unsure, and three said that nothing had changed for them. Nao was happy to see the fourteen positive answers, but the teacher asked an important question: Were those visitors already interested in bicycles? Because the project had no comparison group, the survey could not prove that the Bicycle Corner alone had increased confidence. It showed how these visitors described their experiences.

Paragraph 5 A rainy morning changed the second week’s schedule. The outdoor activity planned for Tuesday was canceled, but the group did not cancel the entire project. Instead, a teacher gave an indoor lesson on Wednesday about checking lights and explaining problems clearly to adults. Students who had signed up for Tuesday received a new message with the Wednesday time. The message said that no bicycles should be brought into the classroom. Two students read only the original notice and arrived outside on Tuesday, which showed why checking the latest information mattered.

Paragraph 6 After the trial, the student council agreed to continue the Bicycle Corner once a month, but only with a teacher present. They also decided to record the number of visitors and the kinds of questions asked. Nao suggested comparing the results over several months instead of declaring the project a success after one event. The council wanted to learn whether students were using the information later, not just whether they enjoyed a single lesson. The project was small, but it taught students how to improve an idea using evidence.

Paragraph 1 At Lakeview School, the lunch committee wanted to reduce food left on plates. In September, members watched four lunch periods and counted eighty trays. Twenty-six trays still had a noticeable amount of food when students returned them. The committee wrote that twenty-six trays had leftovers, not that twenty-six students disliked the food. A few students said that the standard portion was too large for them. Others liked having a full meal and did not want smaller portions for everyone. The committee needed a plan that respected these different needs.

Paragraph 2 Three ideas were discussed. One idea was to make every meal smaller. Another was to offer two portion sizes, while a third was to allow students to take extra food later. The kitchen staff explained that the third idea would be difficult when many students arrived at once. The committee chose a short trial of two sizes, regular and small, for one main dish. Students could choose their size before collecting lunch. The kitchen would prepare the same dish in both sizes; this was not a trial of different recipes.

Paragraph 3 On October 12, ninety students joined the trial. Fifty-eight chose a regular portion, and thirty-two chose a small portion. The kitchen served ninety meals in total. By the end of lunch, twelve trays had noticeable leftovers. The committee recorded the number of trays, but it did not weigh the remaining food. Also, a regular portion and a small portion contained different amounts from the start. For these reasons, the number twelve did not tell the committee exactly how much food had been saved.

Paragraph 4 The students were excited because the number of trays with leftovers seemed lower than before. However, the teacher pointed out two differences. The September observation included eighty trays over four days, while the October trial included ninety trays on one day. The menus were also different. To make a stronger comparison, the committee would need to look at similar meals and measure the food left in a consistent way. The trial suggested a useful direction, but it was not proof that offering two sizes always reduces waste.

Paragraph 5 After the trial, sixty students answered a short question about convenience. Forty-two said they preferred choosing a portion size, eleven preferred the former system, and seven were undecided. The committee displayed all three numbers on a poster. It did not write that all students supported the change. One member suggested keeping two sizes every day, but the staff asked for more time to plan the number of meals. They agreed to repeat the trial on another date before making a permanent decision.

Paragraph 6 In November, the committee prepared a new record sheet. For each trial day, it would write down the menu, how many students chose each size, and the weight of food left over. It would also ask whether students felt satisfied after lunch. The goal was not to make every student eat exactly the same amount. Instead, the committee hoped to offer appropriate choices while learning which changes were practical for the kitchen. The students learned that a good decision needs clear definitions, fair comparisons, and careful descriptions of what a survey can show.