NEW TREASURE Stage5 Read「誰の意見？」が分からない｜筆者・引用・反論の独自4長文40問【全解答】

NEW TREASURE Stage5のReadで「筆者の主張は何か」「誰が賛成し、誰が反対したのか」を問われたとき、登場人物・研究者・記者の引用意見を、本文を書いた筆者自身の結論と混同しないことが重要です。例えばA student argued that … は生徒の主張であり、著者がその結論を証明したことを意味しません。慶英会の独自4長文40問・全解答で、発言者・観測事実・反論・著者の留保をその場で練習できます。

本記事の4英文・数値・人物はすべて慶英会が制作した架空の学習素材です。Ｚ会の教科書Stage5やWorkbook、学校の試験・大学入試過去問を転載したものではありません。出版社の正式な採点基準を示す教材でもないため、学校のLesson・課題・語数指定に合わせて利用してください。

このページの学習順：誰の主張か判定する手順 ／ 4長文40問 ／ 全解答・根拠 ／ 7日間の復習 ／ FAQ。

「誰の主張か」を見失わない5つの確認

• ①発言者：argued, claimed, suggested, reported, warned, acknowledgedの主語を探す
• ②事実との境界：どの数字が測定されたか、どこからが人物の解釈・期待か区別する
• ③筆者の立場：however / nevertheless / the writer concluded の後の文を確認する。前の人物と同じ見解とは限らない
• ④伝聞の確実性：X claimed that … を「Xが主張した」と訳し、本文が証明したと読み替えない
• ⑤英問英答：Who…なら発言者、What did the author conclude?なら著者の結論、What was measured?なら実際の観測事項を書く

間接話法の語法だけを扱う間接話法・引用動詞40問とは異なり、ここでは複数段落に登場する人々の意見を追い、著者自身の判断へ到達する読解を練習します。英文は最初に全訳せず、発言者の主語に印を付けてから読み進めてください。

慶英会独自4長文・40問｜筆者・引用・反論を区別する

夜間図書室を延長するべきか｜発言者と記者の結論（問1〜10）

A fictional high school considered keeping its study room open for one extra hour. At a student meeting, Maya, who often worked after club activities, argued that later hours could help students prepare for tests without travelling elsewhere. She did not claim that every student needed the extension. Her classmate Ren disagreed. He worried that the school might not have enough staff to supervise the room and suggested improving the existing timetable first.

The librarian, Ms. Arai, reported that the room had received 120 bookings over the previous two weeks. She warned that the figure was not a count of 120 individual users, because the same student could reserve a desk several times. The principal welcomed the proposal but asked for estimates of staffing costs and actual occupancy before making a decision. Neither the principal nor the librarian claimed that extending hours had already raised test scores.

The writer of the school newspaper article concluded that the proposal deserved a short trial, not immediate permanent adoption. In the writer’s view, a trial could reveal who used the room, how much supervision was required, and whether students found the extra time helpful. The article did not present Maya’s positive expectations or Ren’s worries as facts proved by the booking count.

問1：Who argued that later hours could help students after club activities?

問2：Did Maya say every student needed extended hours?

問3：What was Ren mainly concerned about?

問4：Who reported 120 bookings?

問5：Why did the librarian warn readers not to equate bookings with users?

問6：What information did the principal request?

問7：Did the principal claim that grades had improved?

問8：What did the newspaper writer recommend?

問9：Which claim is NOT supported by the passage: A. Ren feared staff shortages. B. The writer wanted a trial. C. The room was proven to raise grades.

問10：In two English sentences, distinguish Maya’s view from the writer’s conclusion.

地域の口述史｜記録者の見解と本文の判断（問11〜20）

A fictional local archive recorded interviews with residents who remembered changes in a river town. One resident, Mr. Ito, said that the river had seemed cleaner during his childhood. Another resident, Ms. Mori, remembered that some factories had discharged waste into the water at that time. The interviewer asked both speakers for dates and examples, but their memories alone did not establish the river’s historical water quality.

The archive’s director explained that personal memories could guide researchers toward useful documents. She insisted, however, that the archive should not turn individual recollections into a single authoritative account. A visiting historian added that old photographs might show changes along the riverbanks, while dated measurements, if available, would be more direct evidence for changes in water quality.

The author of the archive’s public guide acknowledged the value of both residents’ memories, but did not choose one speaker as unquestionably correct. The guide encouraged readers to compare oral accounts with photographs and public records, and to label unverified interpretations clearly. The author concluded that responsible historical research requires preserving different perspectives while checking which factual claims can be supported.

問11：Who remembered the river as cleaner in childhood?

問12：Who recalled factories discharging waste?

問13：What did the interviewer ask both speakers to provide?

問14：What distinction did the archive director make?

問15：Who suggested that dated measurements would be more direct evidence?

問16：Did the guide’s author declare Mr. Ito unquestionably correct?

問17：What sources did the author encourage readers to compare?

問18：Why is it wrong to summarize the guide as ‘The river was cleaner in the past’?

問19：What is the author’s central position?

問20：Write two English sentences separating a resident’s view and the author’s conclusion.

教室の照明研究｜生徒の主張と研究者の留保（問21〜30）

A fictional school science group compared error-detection tasks under two lighting settings. During its first trial, forty students completed short reading tasks on two different days. The group leader, Hana, reported that average scores appeared slightly higher under brighter lighting. She suggested that the result was promising, though she did not describe it as definitive proof.

Another student, Ko, argued that the better score was probably caused by brighter light. The science teacher questioned that explanation because the students had completed similar tasks twice and the two days had different noise levels. A visiting researcher agreed that the observed difference was worth studying, but noted that the school had not assessed whether the difference was statistically meaningful. The researcher recommended using comparable passages and alternating the order of lighting conditions.

In the second trial, the class followed that recommendation and obtained nearly equal average scores under the two conditions. Ko said he was disappointed, but Hana acknowledged that the first result might not be stable. The writer of the class report concluded that the trials did not prove lighting had no effect; rather, they showed why careful comparisons and replication matter before a causal claim is made.

問21：Who first reported slightly higher average scores in brighter light?

問22：Did Hana describe the result as definitive proof?

問23：Who argued that brighter light probably caused the higher score?

問24：Which two alternative explanations did the science teacher raise?

問25：What did the visiting researcher recommend?

問26：What was the second trial’s main observation?

問27：What did Hana acknowledge after the second trial?

問28：Did the report writer conclude that lighting can never matter?

問29：What is the report writer’s main message?

問30：Write two English sentences distinguishing Ko’s claim from the report writer’s position.

校内給水設備｜賛成意見・慎重論・筆者の最終案（問31〜40）

A fictional school installed two bottle-refill stations. The meters recorded 900 litres of water during a trial: 540 litres at one station and 360 at the other. A student environmental committee welcomed the result and said that the equipment could make drinking water easier to access. One committee member, Sora, went further. She argued that the trial must have prevented 1,800 half-litre plastic bottles from being bought.

The facilities manager, Mr. Kato, responded that a conversion of 900 litres to 1,800 half-litre portions was mathematically correct. He stressed, however, that the school had not measured previous bottle purchases, and some students had already used reusable bottles. A parent representative agreed that convenient water access could be beneficial but asked how often the stations would need maintenance. The trial had not yet provided a long-term estimate of those costs.

The writer of the school report endorsed keeping the stations available while gathering better information. The writer recommended comparing purchases over similar periods, recording maintenance, and surveying students about their earlier habits. Rather than dismissing the environmental committee’s enthusiasm, the report treated its claim about avoided plastic bottles as a hypothesis that required additional evidence.

問31：How much water did the two stations deliver in total?

問32：Who claimed that 1,800 bottles must have been avoided?

問33：Why is 1,800 a mathematically valid portion count?

問34：Who distinguished the conversion from actual purchase savings?

問35：What was missing from the evidence?

問36：What concern did the parent representative raise?

問37：Did the report writer recommend removing the stations immediately?

問38：What three follow-up actions did the writer recommend?

問39：What status did the writer give to Sora’s claim?

問40：Write two English sentences separating Sora’s claim from the writer’s conclusion.

全40問の模範解答・本文根拠

夜間図書室を延長するべきか｜発言者と記者の結論｜解答

問1：Maya.
解説・根拠：第1段落でMayaが提案。筆者や校長の見解ではない。

問2：No.
解説・根拠：She did not claim that every student needed the extension。

問3：Whether enough staff would be available to supervise the room.
解説・根拠：Renは職員の見守り体制を心配している。

問4：Ms. Arai, the librarian.
解説・根拠：120という観測値の発言者は図書館員。

問5：Students could reserve a desk more than once.
解説・根拠：回数と実人数の相違。

問6：Staffing-cost estimates and actual occupancy.
解説・根拠：校長は恒久化の判断材料を要求。

問7：No.
解説・根拠：校長も図書館員もそのようには主張していない。

問8：A short trial before permanent adoption.
解説・根拠：最終段落は筆者の立場。Mayaの即時の期待とは区別。

問9：C.
解説・根拠：成績向上は測定・証明されていない。AはRen、Bは筆者の見解として記載。

問10：Maya argued that longer hours could help students study after club activities. The writer supported a limited trial rather than immediate permanent extension.
解説・根拠：人物別の意見を主語で区別するモデル。

地域の口述史｜記録者の見解と本文の判断｜解答

問11：Mr. Ito.
解説・根拠：Mr. Itoの記憶。客観的な水質測定値ではない。

問12：Ms. Mori.
解説・根拠：Ms. Moriによる別の証言。

問13：Dates and examples.
解説・根拠：The interviewer asked both speakers for dates and examplesと明記。水質測定による検証を実施したかどうかは本文から確定できない。

問14：Memories could guide research, but should not become a single authoritative account without checks.
解説・根拠：記憶の資料価値を認めつつ、そのまま事実認定しない。

問15：A visiting historian.
解説・根拠：直接的な水質証拠については訪問した歴史家の発言。

問16：No.
解説・根拠：筆者はどちらか一方を絶対的に正しいとはしていない。

問17：Oral accounts, photographs, and public records.
解説・根拠：複数資料の相互照合。

問18：That was one resident’s memory, not a verified conclusion.
解説・根拠：引用意見を筆者が認定した事実に変えてしまうため。

問19：Preserve differing memories while checking factual claims against evidence.
解説・根拠：最後の文の筆者の総括。

問20：Mr. Ito remembered the river as cleaner when he was young. The guide’s author said that such memories should be preserved but compared with other evidence.
解説・根拠：報告者と著者の主語を明示。

教室の照明研究｜生徒の主張と研究者の留保｜解答

問21：Hana, the group leader.
解説・根拠：観測差を報告したのはHana。

問22：No.
解説・根拠：promisingとしながらdefinitive proofではないと明記。

問23：Ko.
解説・根拠：因果を強く主張したのはKo。

問24：Practice effects and different noise levels.
解説・根拠：教師は反復練習と騒音条件を指摘。

問25：Comparable passages and alternating the order of lighting conditions.
解説・根拠：比較可能な課題と実施順序の交替。

問26：Nearly equal average scores in the two settings.
解説・根拠：二回目はほぼ同じ平均値。

問27：The first result might not have been stable.
解説・根拠：Hanaは再現性に疑問を認めた。

問28：No.
解説・根拠：no effectの証明とはしていない。

問29：Careful comparisons and replication are necessary before causal claims.
解説・根拠：報告書筆者の最終的な結論。

問30：Ko believed brighter light probably caused the first score difference. The report writer emphasized that the trials did not establish a stable causal effect.
解説・根拠：誰の因果主張かと筆者の慎重な結論を分離。

校内給水設備｜賛成意見・慎重論・筆者の最終案｜解答

問31：900 litres.
解説・根拠：540＋360＝900。

問32：Sora, a committee member.
解説・根拠：Soraの強い結論として引用。

問33：Nine hundred litres equals 1,800 half-litre portions.
解説・根拠：900÷0.5＝1800。実際の購入削減数とは別。

問34：Mr. Kato, the facilities manager.
解説・根拠：施設管理者の慎重な指摘。

問35：Earlier bottle-purchase data.
解説・根拠：beforeの購入実績が未測定。

問36：Long-term maintenance needs and costs.
解説・根拠：保護者代表は保守の負担を確認したい。

問37：No.
解説・根拠：維持しつつ追加情報を集める方針。

問38：Compare purchases, record maintenance, and survey previous habits.
解説・根拠：最終段落の三つの次のステップ。

問39：An unverified hypothesis requiring more evidence.
解説・根拠：熱意を否定せずも、購入削減効果は未検証の仮説として扱う。

問40：Sora claimed that the stations had prevented 1,800 plastic-bottle purchases. The writer recommended keeping the stations while collecting better evidence before making that claim.
解説・根拠：引用主張を確定した事実として書かない。

40問の自己採点と7日間の復習

問1〜10は学校図書室、問11〜20は地域の歴史、問21〜30は教室研究、問31〜40は給水設備を扱います。各長文の答えに「誰が述べたか」「何が観測事実か」「筆者が確定しなかったこと」の三点を必ず添えてください。

1〜4日目に長文を各1題、5日目に発言者ごとの立場を表にせず文章で整理、6日目に英語2文で人物の意見と筆者の結論を要約、7日目に学校で学習したRead・Critical Thinkingの新しい英文へ転用します。学校の課題や指定本文を無条件に暗記するのではなく、読み手が同じことを説明できるかを確認してください。

主張の確実性を表す語法はsuggest・indicate・proveの違い32問、複数資料で筆者の立場を比較する場合はStage5の2資料比較32問、Stage5全体のReadはRead & Think独自48問から確認できます。

よくある質問

Q. A researcher argued … とあれば、その内容が筆者の結論ですか？
A. いいえ。研究者が主張したことを紹介しているだけの場合があります。筆者がその後に賛否・留保を述べる文章まで確認します。

Q. 誰も反論していない主張は正しいと判断できますか？
A. 反論が書かれていないことだけで主張の真偽は確定しません。測定・証拠の有無が重要です。

Q. この4長文はStage5の実際のRead本文ですか？
A. いいえ。登場人物・学校・数値・本文と設問は慶英会のオリジナルで、出版社の英文や学校の過去問ではありません。

Q. 英問英答は模範と同じ英語でなければ不正解ですか？
A. 発言者と内容を正しく示し、設問条件に合う自然な英文なら別解もあり得ます。実際の学校の採点指示を優先してください。

慶英会の無料体験・学習相談

慶英会では、慶應義塾大学卒・英検1級の塾長の指導方針に基づき、中高一貫校でNEW TREASURE Stage4・5を使う高校生の読解・英問英答・要約・英作文を個別に支援しています。「人物ごとの考えを区別できない」「要約に本文の主張を誤って書いてしまう」場合は、使用Stage・Lesson・最近の学校課題を分かる範囲でお知らせください。最大1か月無料体験・学習相談はこちら。

参考にした公式情報

• Ｚ会 NEW TREASURE Third Edition Stage5
• Ｚ会 Stage5 Workbook（Step1・2・3）
• Ｚ会 NEW TREASURE Third Edition Stage4

本記事の全4英文・40問・モデル解答・解説は慶英会によるオリジナル制作です。架空の学校・資料・意見であり、実在の研究の確定的成果や出版物の転載ではありません。

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。

公式LINEで無料体験・学習相談Webフォームで無料体験・学習相談料金・無料体験の条件を確認する

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