It is ～ (for S) to do ...と It is ～ that S do ...が書き換えが不可な場合の理由

It is easy/difficult (for S) to do ... 　
to do（動作）には難易があるので文意成立
* It is easy/difficult that S do ...
that S do ...（事象）には難易はないので文意不成立
例 It is easy for her to make this cake. 彼女がこのケーキを作るのは容易だ。
「（彼女が）ケーキを作る」という動作は「簡単・難しい」と叙述できる。（動作には難易がある）
*It is easy that she makes this cake. *彼女がこのケーキを作るということは容易だ。
「彼女がこのケーキを作るという事」という事象は「簡単・難しい」と叙述できない。（事象に難易はない）

It is 事の真偽　that S do ...
that S do ...（事象）には真偽が判断できるので文意成立
*It is 事の真偽  (for S) to do ...
to do （動作）の真偽は判断できないので文意不成立
例 It is true that she makes this cake. 彼女がこのケーキを作るというのは本当だ。
「彼女がこのケーキを作ったという事」という事象に真偽はある。（事象の真偽は判断できる）
*It is true for her to make this cake. *彼女がこのケーキを作るのは本当だ。
「（彼女が）このケーキを作る」という動作に真偽はない。（動作について真偽の判断をすることはできない）

"the only one of ～ 関係詞節" と ”only one of ～関係詞節"

She is the only one of the people who loves birds. 「彼女はその人達の中で唯一鳥が好きな人だ」
構造 She is the only one (of the people) who loves birds.
the 「その」（特定のものにつく）
only 「唯一の」
one 「人」（only「唯一の」の後なので数字の1(いち）の意味にはならない）
of the people 「その人達の中で」前置詞句　彼女の所属する全体集団を表している
who以下は先行詞oneと一致するのでloveに三単現のsがつく
=She is the only person of the people who loves birds.

She is only one of the people who love birds. 「彼女は鳥が好きな人達の一人にすぎない」
構造 She is only one of the people (who love birds).
only 「単なる～に過ぎない」
one 「不特定の一人」,←これによりこのoneにはthe（特定のものに付ける冠詞）はつかない
of the people who love birds 「鳥が好きな人達の中の」 oneの全体集団
who以下は先行詞peopleと一致するのでloveに三単現のsはつかない
=She is only a bird lover.

It is ～ of S to do ... と It is ～ for S to do ...

It is ～ of S to do ... 「...するとはSは～だ」= S is ～ to do ...
〈～はSについて述べている〉
Itは漠然とした状況を述べる形式主語のIt
ofは「～について」
to do は不定詞副詞用法の【判断の根拠】

It is ～ for S to do ... 「Sが...することは～だ」= It is ～ that S do ...
〈～はto do...について述べている〉
It は (for S ) to do ...を真主語とする形式主語のIt （It is ～ (for S) to do ...構文）
for S は 不定詞 to do の意味上の主語（動作主）

早稲田国際教養学部 Now that the dust that was Hiroshima and Nagasaki are settling - rewrite -

解答のポイント

主題： 広島・長崎への原爆投下直後、イギリスのTime紙の投稿欄は、原爆使用に対する否定的見解であふれた。

資料からは、戦争目的が正しければ、あるいは早期終結のためになら何をしても許されるのか、大量破壊兵器所有・使用への疑問、人種的偏見との関連性などの問題を、原爆投下直後に一般のイギリス人（日本にとっては敵国側で彼ら自身、日本と同盟国のナチスドイツの爆撃で多くの犠牲者を出していた）が指摘し、強い反対の意思を表明する人が多くいたことが分かる。

問１  番号10「どの選択肢も当てはまらない」の正解は、選択肢B 「戦争早期終結のための原爆使用に肯定的な投稿がいくつかある。」

  この問題は、消去法でも解けるが、この資料の特徴（原爆使用に対し肯定的意見がひとつもないこと）に気付いていると早く解ける。目を通す内に、敵側の日本への攻撃であったにもかかわらず、原爆投下を称賛する意見が出てこないことに気付いて感銘を受ける。(その他の選択肢―別紙参照)

問２ 別紙参照

問3 この出題の総括ともいえる投稿の和訳問題です。その点を意識して解答してください。

解答欄

                                                                                                        

                                                                                                        

                                                                                                         

                                                                                                        

                                                                                                         

                                                                                                        

                                                                                                        

                                                                                                         

                                                                                                        

《参考》ハワード・ジンの「爆撃」からの抜粋について

第２次世界大戦中、志願兵として米軍に入りヨーロッパで爆撃兵として過ごした作者ハワード・ジンは戦後、自分の参加した戦争に疑問を持ち歴史学者になって一般人の視点からアメリカ史を見直す歴史書 A People’s History of the United States （民衆のアメリカ史）を書き、反戦運動家として活躍しました。以下はハワード・ジンが亡くなる直前に出版された The Bomb（爆撃）からの抜粋です。

Excerpts from “The Bomb” by Howard Zinn

Hiroshima

  Breaking the Silence

The bomb dropped on Hiroshima on August 6, 1945, turned into powder and ash, in a few moments, the flesh and bones of 140,000 men, women, and children. Three days later, a second atomic bomb dropped on Nagasaki killed perhaps 70,000 instantly. In the next five years, another 130,000 inhabitants of those two cities died of radiation poisoning.

  ….

…. When private bands of fanatics commit atrocities we call them “terrorists,” which they are, and have no trouble dismissing their reasons. But when governments do the same, and on a much larger scale, the word “terrorism” is not used, and we consider it a sign of our democracy that the acts become subject to debate, If the word “terrorism” has a useful meaning (and I believe it does, because it marks off an act as intolerable, since it involves the indiscriminate use of violence against human beings for some political purpose), then it applies exactly to the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

   The sociologist Kai Erikson, reviewing the report by the Japanese team of scientists, wrote:

The attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not “combat” in any of the ways that word is normally used. Nor were they primarily attempts to destroy military targets, for the two cities had been chosen not despite but because they had a high density of civilian housing. Whether the intended audience was Russian or Japanese or a combination or both, then the attacks were to be a show, a display, a demonstration. The question is: What kind of mood does a fundamentally decent people have to be in, what kind of moral arrangements must it make, before it is willing to annihilate as many as a quarter of a million human being for the sake of making a point.

….

　…the climate of World War II.

  It was a climate of unquestioned moral righteousness. The enemy was Fascism. The brutalities of Fascism were undisguised by pretense: the concentration camps, the murder of opponents, the tortures by secret police, the burning of books, the total control of information, the roving gangs of thugs in the streets, the designation of “inferior” races deserving extermination, the infallible leader, the mass hysteria, the glorification of war, the invasion of other countries, the bombing of other civilians. No literary work of imagination could create a more monstrous evil. There was, indeed, no reason to question that the enemy in World War II was monstrous and had to be stopped before it enveloped more victims.

  But it is precisely that situation－where the enemy is undebatably evil－that produces a righteousness dangerous not only to the enemy but to ourselves, to countless innocent bystanders, and to future generations.

  We could judge the enemy with some clarity. But not ourselves. If we did, we might have noted some facts clouding the simple judgment that since they were unquestionably evil, we were unquestionably good.

…

  As for our country, we recall expelling Spain from Cuba, ostensibly to liberate the Cubans, actually to open Cuba to our banks, railroads, fruit corporations, and army. We conscripted our young men and sent them into the slaughterhouse of Europe in 1917 to “make the world safe for democracy.” …

  In World War II, the assumption of a common motive for government and citizen was easier to accept because of the obvious barbarity of Fascism. But can we accept the idea that England, France, the United States, with their long history of imperial domination in Asia, in Africa, the Middle East, Latin America, were fighting against international aggression? …

  The question of “motive” for the United States in making war against Japan is put this way by Bruce Russett in his book, No Clear and Present Danger:

Throughout the 1930s the United States government had done little to resist the Japanese advance on the Asian continent. 〔But：〕The Southwest Pacific area was of undeniable economic importance to the United States－at the time most of America’s tin and rubber came from there, as did substantial quantities of other raw materials.

  A year before Pearl Harbor, a State Department memorandum on Japanese expansion did not talk of the independence of China or the principle of self-determination. Again on the American motive, it said:

…our general diplomatic and strategic position would be considerably weakened－by our loss of Chinese, Indian and south Seas markets (and by our loss of much of the Japanese market for our goods, as Japan would become more and more self-sufficient) as well as by insurmountable restrictions upon our access to the rubber, tin, jute, and other vital materials of the Asian and Oceanic regions.

….

  … And the persistent notion that the Japanese were less than human probably played some role in the willingness to wipe out two cities populated by people of color.

….

  The New York times military analyst Hanson Baldwin wrote, shortly after the war:

The enemy, in a military sense, was in a hopeless strategic position by the time the Potsdam demand for unconditional surrender was made on July 26s. Such then was the situation when we wiped out Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Need we have done it? No one, of course, can be positive, but the answer is almost certainly negative.

  The United States Strategic Bombing Survey, whose team interviewed the important Japanese decision-makers right after the war, came to this official conclusion.

Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey’s opinion that certainly prior to 31 December, 1945, and in all probability prior to1 November, 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.

….

  General Dwight Eisenhower was a dissenter from the prevailing opinion at the high levels of government. He was briefed by Stimson on the fact that the bomb was about to be used, and later described that meeting:

During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of feelings of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives ….

  Another dissenter, though it is not clear that he expressed this before bombing, was Admiral William D. Leahy, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who said: “The use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender.”

….

  The strategic argument, which I and other historians have tried to answer with the evidence that there was not military necessity to use the bomb, is not enough. We need to confront the moral issue directly: faced with the horrors visited on hundreds of thousands of human beings by the massive bombings of modern warfare, can any military-strategic-political “necessity” justify that?

  And if the answer is no, as I believe, what can we learn to free us from the thinking that leads us to stand by (yes, as the German people stood by, as the Japanese stood by) while atrocities are committed in our name?

  We can keep in mind the words of Richard Rhodes, who has studied the history of the atomic bomb probably more closely than anyone:

The national security state that the United States has evolved toward since 1945 is significantly a denial of the American democratic vision: suspicious of diversity, secret, martial, exclusive, monolithic, paranoid….Other nations have moderated their belligerence and tempered their ambitions without losing their souls. Sweden was once the scourge of Europe. It gave way…. Now it abides honorably and peacefully among the nations.

  We can be wary of “technological fanaticism,” which blinded many of the scientists of the Manhattan Project even more than the flash they saw in the desert, and which still intoxicates our whole culture.

  We can reject the belief that the lives of others are worth less than the lives of Americans, that a Japanese child, or an Iraqi child, or an Afghani child is worth less than an American child. We can refuse to accept the idea, which is the universal justification for war, that the means of massive violence are acceptable for “good ends,” because we should know by now, even though we are slow learners, that the ugliness of the means is always certain, the goodness of the end always uncertain.

TOEFL iBT Independent Writing Do you think cigarette smoking should be stopped by making it illegal or should it remain legal? - rewrite -

Writing Topic

Some people think that smoking cigarettes should become illegal, since it provides little benefit and a great deal of health risk, others feel that individuals should be free to smoke cigarettes if they choose to do so. Do you think cigarette smoking should be stopped by making it illegal or should it remain legal?

☆Let’s Think

1.      If cigarette smoking becomes illegal, which of the following is banned?

a.    Cigarette smoking in public places

b.    Cigarette smoking at home

2.      Discuss the first idea in the writing topic. Does smoking provide little benefit? What kind of health risks does smoking provide?

3.      Discuss the second idea in the writing topic. Can freedom of choice be applied to the choice of smoking?

4.      In this topic, the point of the hints is the choice between prioritizing individuals’ health and respecting freedom and personal responsibility. Should cigarette smoking be illegal to protect one’s health or legal to respect one’s freedom and personal responsibility?

☆ Hints for points

Cigarette smoking should be illegal.

1. It is toxic and causes cancer and other serious diseases.

2. It is addictive.

3. Second-hand smoke/smoking is a serious threat to public health.

- Counterarguments: 1) There are measures to take to prevent second-hand smoke such as separate-smoking and ban on smoking in public areas. (Smoking will remain legal while smoking in certain areas will be illegal.) ⇔ These measures are not practical because there are many smokers who do not comply with the rules and you cannot catch or shut up smoke completely. 2) Banning smoking will undermine the economy. ⇔ Some estimate shows that the smoking related loss, mainly medical costs, surpasses the loss caused by tobacco ban. Even though the estimate is not flawless given other factors such as unhealthy lifestyle and environmental pollution, it is intuitively convincing, since fixing something costs more than destroying it in general. 3) Smoking helps smokers release stress.  The so-called relaxing effect of smoking is a myth. It is scientifically proved that smoking not only has no such effect but actually increases stress by raising blood pressure.

- Conclusion: To protect public health, individual freedom can be limited.

Cigarette smoking should not be illegal.

1. You have the right to do whatever you want to do even if it endangers your health.

2. Other dangerous things such as alcoholic drinks or mountain climbing are not illegal.

3. Smoking is a necessary evil like drinking and gambling because it is an established part of economy. If cigarettes are banned, the economy will be affected. For example, incomes of the tobacco industry, coffee shops, or music clubs and tobacco tax revenue will decrease. Cigarette industry would go underground if banned. Making cigarette available to the public will reduce the number of addicts and dealers.

- Counterarguments: Secondhand smoke harms other people. ⇔ Only public smoking should be banned.  - Conclusion: As long as measures are taken to prevent second-hand smoking, the choice between health and fun should be left to each individual.

☆Sample essay structures

Sample essay structure 1

【Main Idea】Cigarettes should be made illegal to protect younger generations and to solve the problem of passive smoking.

【Reason 1】 Smoking harms one’s health badly.

【Reason 2】 The number of those who start smoking can be greatly reduced.

【Counter-counterargument】It is true that individuals have the right to choose to do what they want to do but smoking harms other individuals and should be restricted to protect the public good.

【Conclusion】I am convinced that cigarette smoking should be banned because it will improve public health, especially that of the young generation.

Sample essay structure 2

【Main Idea】It is more dangerous to ban smoking than to make public totally smoke-free.

【Reason 1】 Smoking ban would harm democracy.

【Reason 2】 Making smoking illegal would just stir the society.

【Counter-counterargument】It is true that smoking provides little benefit and many health risks. However, the government should not force people a lifestyle, even though it can recommend it. Also, there are measures to protect other individuals from secondhand smoke.

【Conclusion】Even though objectively it does no good, smoking should stay legal.

Your Sample Essay Structure

【Main Idea = Outline】 I agree/disagree with --- because …

【Reason 1】

【Reason 2】

【Counterargument-treatment】It is understandable that some people think that smoking cigarettes should become illegal, since it provides little benefit and a great deal of health risk / I partly agree with the feeling that that individuals should be free to smoke cigarettes if they choose to do so. However, ,,,

【Conclusion = Wrap-up】

☆ Essay for Ideas and Expressions

A heavy smoker’s family loses him twice. Long before he dies of a disease which seems to be related to this unhealthy habit, when they realize that they are helpless in making him quit smoking, they start a silent but desperate mourning of his premature death. It is sad to see one’s beloved die day by day. Still, this is actually a minor aspect of the tragedy of tobacco. Even though it might be difficult to put in practice because of smokers’ feelings and economic circumstances, cigarettes should be made illegal to protect younger generations and to solve the problem of second-hand smoke.

By making smoking illegal, the number of those who start smoking can be greatly reduced. Smokers find it difficult, and many of them believe it unnecessary, to quit smoking even though it has been scientifically proved that smoking causes lung cancer and other diseases. This is because smoking is addictive. When some toxic substance is addictive, making it illegal is one of the effective ways to reduce its harm. This is especially effective in preventing those who are not addicted, mostly the young, from initiating the use, since people usually stay away from things that are illegal.

Smoking seems to be a necessary evil and a matter of self-responsibility just like drinking and gambling, but the problem of second-hand smoke separates it from other indulgences. Cigarette smoke directly harms those who are around the smoker. Children of smokers are more susceptible to respiratory diseases than those of non-smokers. Many people are sensitive to cigarette smoke and feel ill when they inhale it. Although separate-smoking and public smoking ban are promoted, many smokers do not conform to the rules and it is impossible to block the contaminated air completely. Also, it is difficult to provide the evidence of unwanted exposure to smoke once the smoker puts it off and walks away. When some toxic fumes are around in everyday scenes, it is natural for the government to regulate them.

Banning smoking is difficult but possible. It seems that cigarettes stay legal because their social influence is not as big as that of drugs and they support the economy. Cigarettes do not make the user dangerous in the way drugs do and smokers can keep functioning in society for decades. Also, the cigarette industry is an established part of economy and produce tax income, so that it is very difficult to terminate the practice. However, efforts toward changes necessary for public health have been made in the past. Cigarettes were a replacement, advocated by the government, for chewing tobacco, which was found to be contributing to the transmission of tuberculosis through saliva spat on the ground by the users. When the public health is at risk, the government should and can take measures.

Smoking seriously harms non-smokers as well as smokers, and this ends the discussion on freedom of choice. To protect the health of citizens, especially younger generations, society is ultimately to be totally cigarette smoke-free although care should be taken for smokers and those involved in the industry.

早稲田国際教養学部AO入試試験対策講座 佐々木担当クラス 評価基準

早稲田国際教養学部AO入試critical writingの採点基準は公表されていません。一般に模擬テストは７割が合格ラインと言われているので当講座の論述問題の評価も7/10を答案として問題ないレベルに設定しています。

当入試過去問の論述問題は大きく分けて要約問題と意見を述べる問題に分かれます。要約問題はGrammar, Vocabulary, Question-relevancy, Structureの４項目、自分の意見を述べる問題はこの４項目にOriginalityを加えた５項目で評価しています。（二つが統合された問題の場合は両方の評価基準を合わせて評価しています）

以下の評価基準の詳細は佐々木個人が評価する際の基準です。実際の合否と結び付けて考えず答案の改善に活用していただければと思います。

Grammar （文法・表現力）

7-10 ノーミス、 表現のうまさにより加点

6 冠詞、３単元のｓ、複数のｓ、句読点の付け忘れ等残念なミスがある

5 態、品詞、並列、数の一致、動詞と目的語の組み合わせ、関係詞等細かいミスがある

3-4 構文ミス がある

0-2 判読不能な文がある

Vocabulary（語彙）

8-10 文語・長めの単語の使用（使用頻度により加点）

7 平易な英語でノーミス

6 残念なスペルミス１～２個

5 以下スペルミスの数により減点

Question-relevancy（ 問いに対して適切な回答になっているかどうか）

要約問題の場合

8-10 要点を押さえており、簡潔な表現に言い換えてあり、まとめ方が秀逸

7 要点を押さえており、簡潔な表現に言い換えてある

2-6 大体合っているが要点が抜けているか誤読、不要な部分、順番が違う箇所等がある

1 該当箇所を間違えているか該当箇所の丸写しになっている

0 無回答

自分の意見を述べる問題の場合

8-10 答えとして適切で、critical writingになっており、具体例が複数ある

7 答えとして適切で、critical writingになっており、具体例がひとつある

2-6 答えとして適切だが、以下のいずれかまたは複数の点で問題がある

critical writingになっていない

問題意識が足りない

具体例がない

必要な反論処理がない

主張しきれていないか表現が稚拙

誤読、逸脱、説明不足などがある、

0 判読不能

1 無回答

Structure （構成）

Question-relevancyが構成面で反映されている場合Question-relevancyと同じ評価

【主張→根拠】の流れになっていない、不要な部分がある、解答欄からはみ出している等構成上のミスがある場合Question-relevancyから減点

Originality

8-10 内容や例が本文に沿っているが本文にないもので常識を踏まえていて感銘を与え、情緒や教養がにじみ出ている

7 常識のある内容で、本文の主題と問に沿っていて本文にない例が挙げられている

2-6 以下のいずれかまたは複数の点で問題がある

              内容が不明確

視野が狭い（他人の立場になって考えていない等）

知識が足りない

具体例がないか本文にある例が使われている

例が主題と問に沿っていない

主題と問に沿っているが適切でない例が挙げられている

1 判読不能

0 無回答