慶英会 塾長｜慶應義塾大学卒・英検1級
中高一貫校の学校英語・NEW TREASURE・英検対策を専門とするオンライン個別指導塾です。塾長紹介
NEW TREASURE Stage3の約600〜800語の説明文を読むときは、「調査の目的→方法→結果→条件の違い→結論」を追うと、長文の数字や主張を読み違えにくくなります。 慶英会が書き下ろした751語のオリジナル英文「When the Stars Seemed to Disappear」を、英問英答・計算・因果の判断・要約の24問で学習します。英文を先に読み、最後に全文和訳を確認してください。
本教材の学校・観察場所・観測値・発言・調査結果はすべて慶英会の架空の例です。実際の天文学研究や科学的な因果関係を立証する資料ではなく、学校のNEW TREASURE本文や過去問の転載でもありません。
結論｜観測値の差は事実でも、原因は別途検証が必要
| 項目 | 英語 | 意味 |
|---|---|---|
| 目的 | Research question | 何を調べたいか |
| 方法 | Observation conditions | 何を同じにしたか |
| 結果 | Counts / Average | 実際に記録した数字 |
| 限界 | Possible confounding factors | 同時に変化した別の条件 |
| 考察 | Conclusion / Further tests | 言えることと追加調査 |
慶英会オリジナル英文｜When the Stars Seemed to Disappear（751 words）
[P1] A fictional school’s environment club wanted to create an English poster about the night sky. Its question was simple: Could the lights around a town affect the number of stars students could notice? The students chose two imaginary observation places, Hill Garden and River Court. Hill Garden was farther from the town center, while River Court stood near several busy buildings. The club did not expect a two-week project to answer every question. Its first goal was to practise collecting observations carefully and reporting what the numbers actually showed.
[P2] To make the observations more comparable, both teams agreed to look at the same rectangular section of the sky for ten minutes. Their planned starting time was 8:30 p.m. on two different Fridays. One student would count the points of light visible through a simple viewing frame while another wrote down the number. Teachers supervised the activity from safe designated areas. No one was permitted to enter a rooftop or a closed place. Although the teams used similar instructions, they did not have identical equipment, and the students had not measured how bright the nearby lamps were.
[P3] On the first Friday, the Hill Garden team counted twenty-one points, and the River Court team counted twelve. The difference was nine. A student immediately suggested the headline ‘Town Lights Made Nine Stars Disappear.’ However, the weather notes showed that the hill had been clear while thin clouds had passed over the river. The team also had not identified whether the points counted at the two places were exactly the same objects. The difference in the numbers was real within the fictional exercise, but the proposed explanation went beyond the information collected.
[P4] The next Friday, the results were different. Hill Garden counted eighteen points, and River Court counted fourteen, a difference of four. The river had clearer skies that evening, but the Moon appeared brighter, according to the students’ notes. The two groups also changed one observer because a member was absent. The students added the counts across both Fridays: thirty-nine at Hill Garden and twenty-six at River Court. They then calculated the average per observation night: 19.5 at the hill and 13 at the river. These averages described their records, not every possible night.
[P5] When the club drew a bar chart, it nearly put ‘Light Pollution Effect’ above the columns. Ms. Fujita, the science teacher, asked what had actually been measured. The students answered that they had counted visible points of light. They had not measured light pollution, the exact brightness of the sky, or how much the clouds had reduced visibility. They also could not be sure that all observers counted in the same way. Ms. Fujita suggested using the neutral label ‘Points Counted in Our Two Observations.’ She said that a careful headline could make an interesting result more trustworthy, not less.
[P6] A few students wanted the poster to include opinions as well. Six club members were asked whether the river site felt too bright to them. Four said yes, one said no, and one was uncertain. These answers helped the group describe how people felt, but they were not measurements of the number of stars. Nor could six opinions represent everyone living near the river. The club therefore kept the opinion survey separate from the observation table. It also avoided presenting a person’s feeling as proof of a scientific cause.
[P7] For the next stage, the club proposed observing on four additional nights. The teams wanted to use matching viewing frames and compare observations made at the same time under similar weather conditions. They would record cloud cover, the Moon’s appearance, the observers’ names, and the nearby lights. All observations would remain supervised, and the teacher would choose suitable locations. The group still understood that even these improvements might not prove a single cause. Instead, the new plan would reduce some uncertainties and help the students decide what question to investigate next.
[P8] In the final English poster, the club wrote that more points had been counted at Hill Garden on both nights. It showed the two sets of numbers and explained why a difference did not automatically establish its cause. The students included a question for visitors: ‘What other conditions should we check before making a stronger claim?’ They were proud of the poster because the information was honest and clear. Their project had not solved the mystery of the night sky. Nevertheless, it had taught them to separate a useful observation, a possible explanation, and a conclusion that still needed evidence.
英問英答・根拠・数値計算24問
Q1. What was the club’s main research question? ［目的］
正答・模範英文：Whether lights around a town could affect the number of visible stars.
根拠と解説：P1: the question is framed as a possibility, not a proven result.
Q2. Where were the two imaginary observation sites? ［場所］
正答・模範英文：Hill Garden and River Court.
根拠と解説：P1: one farther from the center, one near buildings.
Q3. How long did the teams observe on each night? ［時間］
正答・模範英文：Ten minutes.
根拠と解説：P2: ten minutes.
Q4. What was the planned starting time? ［時間］
正答・模範英文：8:30 p.m.
根拠と解説：P2: planned start on two Fridays.
Q5. Were students allowed to enter a rooftop for the observations? ［条件］
正答・模範英文：No.
根拠と解説：P2: teachers supervised designated areas; roofs were excluded.
Q6. How many points were counted at Hill Garden on the first Friday? ［数値］
正答・模範英文：Twenty-one.
根拠と解説：P3: first-Friday count.
Q7. How many were counted at River Court on the first Friday? ［数値］
正答・模範英文：Twelve.
根拠と解説：P3: first-Friday count.
Q8. What was the difference between the two sites in Week One? ［計算］
正答・模範英文：Nine points.
根拠と解説：21 minus 12 equals 9.
Q9. Name one condition that differed in Week One. ［根拠］
正答・模範英文：Thin clouds passed over River Court while Hill Garden was clear.
根拠と解説：P3: weather could affect the comparison.
Q10. How many points were counted at Hill Garden on the second Friday? ［数値］
正答・模範英文：Eighteen.
根拠と解説：P4: second-Friday count.
Q11. How many points were counted at River Court on the second Friday? ［数値］
正答・模範英文：Fourteen.
根拠と解説：P4: second-Friday count.
Q12. What was the difference in Week Two? ［計算］
正答・模範英文：Four points.
根拠と解説：18 minus 14 equals 4.
慶英会 塾長｜慶應義塾大学卒・英検1級
塾長の経歴・指導方針
中高一貫校の英語・定期テスト・英検の学習状況を整理し、必要な復習の優先順位を考えたい方は、無料体験・学習相談のご案内をご確認ください。最大1か月完全無料体験の対象・回数・担当講師は、お申し込み時にご案内します。
友だち追加後、学年・教材・困っていることと「学習相談希望（ブログ・記事中盤）」をお送りください。LINEを開くだけでは受付は完了しません。LINEを利用できない方はメールでの学習相談も可能です。料金・無料体験の期間と条件はコース・料金・無料体験のご案内でご確認ください。
Q13. What was the two-night total at Hill Garden? ［計算］
正答・模範英文：Thirty-nine.
根拠と解説：21 + 18 = 39.
Q14. What was the two-night total at River Court? ［計算］
正答・模範英文：Twenty-six.
根拠と解説：12 + 14 = 26.
Q15. What was Hill Garden’s average number of points per night? ［平均］
正答・模範英文：19.5.
根拠と解説：39 divided by 2 = 19.5.
Q16. What was River Court’s average per night? ［平均］
正答・模範英文：13.
根拠と解説：26 divided by 2 = 13.
Q17. What was the difference between the two-night averages? ［計算］
正答・模範英文：6.5 points.
根拠と解説：19.5 minus 13 = 6.5.
Q18. Did the students directly measure light pollution? ［測定］
正答・模範英文：No.
根拠と解説：P5: they measured visible points, not light pollution.
Q19. Why was the headline ‘Town Lights Made Nine Stars Disappear’ unsupported? ［推論］
正答・模範英文：Other conditions, including clouds, were different, so the cause was not established.
根拠と解説：P3–P5: a numerical difference is not causal proof.
Q20. How many club members answered the opinion question? ［数値］
正答・模範英文：Six.
根拠と解説：P6: four yes, one no, one uncertain.
Q21. What percentage of those six said the river felt too bright? ［割合］
正答・模範英文：About 66.7%.
根拠と解説：Four of six respondents; 4/6 × 100 ≈ 66.7%.
Q22. Why did the club keep the opinion survey separate? ［根拠］
正答・模範英文：Feelings about brightness were not measurements of visible stars.
根拠と解説：P6: subjective answers cannot substitute for counts.
Q23. How many additional nights did the club plan to observe? ［予定］
正答・模範英文：Four.
根拠と解説：P7: four additional nights, not yet completed.
Q24. Write a 35–50-word summary without claiming that town lights caused the difference. ［要約］
正答・模範英文：A fictional school club counted more points of light at Hill Garden than at River Court on two nights. However, weather, equipment, and observers were not fully controlled. The club reported the counts cautiously and planned further observations before drawing stronger conclusions.
根拠と解説：Model includes findings, uncertainty, and next step; no claim of demonstrated causality.
説明文全文の和訳
[P1] 架空の学校の環境部は夜空を題材とした英語ポスターを作ろうとした。街の周囲の明かりが見える星の数に影響するのかが問いだった。町の中心から離れた丘の庭と、建物が多い場所に近い川沿いの広場という架空の2地点を選んだ。2週間だけで全ての問いに答えられるとは考えず、まず観察を丁寧に集めて数字が何を示しているか正確に報告することを目標にした。
[P2] 比較しやすくするため、両班は同じ長方形の夜空の範囲を10分間観察することにした。2回の異なる金曜日、開始予定は20時30分。1人が簡単な枠を通して見える光点を数え、もう1人が記録した。教員は安全な指定場所で監督し、屋根や閉鎖場所への立入りは禁止。指示は似ていたが器具は完全に同じでなく、周囲の照明の明るさも測っていなかった。
[P3] 最初の金曜日は丘の庭で21個、川沿いの広場で12個の光点を数え、差は9個。ある生徒は『街の明かりで星が9個消えた』という見出しを提案した。しかし気象記録では丘側は晴れ、川側には薄い雲がかかっていた。両地点でまったく同じ天体を数えたかも確認していない。数字の差は学習用データ上の事実だが、原因についての見出しは根拠を超えている。
[P4] 次の金曜日は丘で18個、川で14個となり差は4個だった。その夜は川側の空がより澄んでいたが、生徒の記録では月がより明るく見えた。また1人の欠席により観察者も1人入れ替わった。2週分を合計すると丘は39個、川は26個。1晩当たりの平均は丘が19.5個、川が13個となる。これはその2夜の記録であり、全ての夜の値を示すものではない。
[P5] 棒グラフを作る際、生徒は『光害の影響』と見出しを付けそうになった。理科の藤田先生が実際に測ったものは何かと問うと、生徒は見える光点の個数だと答えた。光害の強さ、空の正確な明るさ、雲による視認性の低下は測っていなかった。観察者の数え方も完全に同じとは限らない。先生は『私たちの2回の観察で数えた光点』という中立的な見出しを提案し、慎重な題名は結果の信頼を高めると述べた。
[P6] 一部の生徒は意見もポスターに含めたいと考え、部員6人に川側の場所は明るすぎると感じたか尋ねた。4人がはい、1人がいいえ、1人が不明と回答した。これは気持ちを説明する資料にはなるが星の数の測定値ではなく、6人で地域の全住民を代表することもできない。そこで意見調査と観察表を分け、感想を科学的な原因の証明として扱わなかった。
[P7] 次の段階として部はさらに4夜の観察を提案した。同じような枠を使い、近い気象条件・同時刻の結果を比較したいと考えた。雲の量、月の見え方、観察者名、周囲の灯りを記録し、すべて教員の監督下で適切な場所を選ぶ。改善しても単一の原因が必ず証明されるわけではないが、不確かさを減らして次に調べる問いを選ぶ助けにはなる。
[P8] 完成した英語ポスターでは、両夜とも丘でより多くの光点が数えられたことを示した。数字2組と、差があるだけで原因を断定できない理由を説明し、『より強い主張をする前にほかのどの条件を確認すべきか』と来場者に問いかけた。正直で明快な情報に生徒たちは誇りを感じた。夜空の謎を解決したわけではないが、観察・考えられる説明・さらに証拠が必要な結論を分ける力を身につけた。
計算と英文の留保表現を復習
Week Oneでは21−12＝9、Week Twoでは18−14＝4です。2夜の平均はHill Gardenが19.5、River Courtが13で差は6.5。ただし観測された場所の照度や雲の影響は十分測っていないため、差の原因を街の灯り一つに決められません。mayやmightは可能性を示し、proveとは確信の強さが異なります。
採点と7日後の復習
24問各1点。20〜24点なら35〜50語の要約を別表現で書き直します。15〜19点は平均の計算と未測定の条件を整理。14点以下は段落ごとの主語・数字・対比を確認します。7日後には和訳を見ずに同じ設問を解き直し、回答の根拠を示せるかを確認してください。これは慶英会の学習用目安です。
よくある質問
丘で星が多く見えたので街の灯りが原因と断定できますか？
いいえ。実験条件が十分にそろっておらず、雲や観測者など他の要因が考えられます。
平均19.5は実際に一晩で数えられた数ですか？
いいえ。21と18の平均であり、どちらの夜の個数そのものでもありません。
これは実際の科学研究から引用したデータですか？
いいえ。慶英会が英文読解とデータ解釈のために創作した数字です。
公式情報・関連無料教材
Ｚ会公式｜NEW TREASURE Third Edition Stage3／Stage3の600〜800語長文2題・30問／Stage3 Project英語実験レポート40問／Stage3相関と因果・資料読解40問。
NEW TREASURE Stage3の長文やデータを使う英作文で失点する場合：慶英会の最大1か月無料体験・学習相談で、学校の進度と答案に沿って読解を学習できます。
同じ長さの別ジャンル：物語編760語・24問では登場人物の推測を、論説編686語・24問では主張と反対意見を読み分けます。
最大1か月完全無料体験・学習相談受付中
最大1か月の完全無料体験をご案内
学校教材・学力・目標に合わせた個別指導
入塾前に授業の進め方や講師との相性をお確かめください。
学校英語・定期テスト・英検の学習相談にも対応します。
保護者様の教育相談も無料で承ります。
1.学年 2. 学習目標 3.体験ご希望をお送りください。
体験の期間・回数・担当講師・日程は、ご希望と受付状況を確認してご案内します。
慶英会 塾長｜慶應義塾大学卒・英検1級。中高一貫校の学校英語・NEW TREASURE・英検対策を専門としています。塾長の経歴・指導方針を確認する