Joy English · レベル C2 · 論証的なエッセイjoy-english.com
効率と公共生活についての論述エッセイ
名前:日付:
論述エッセイで、譲歩し、留保をつけ、控えめな判断で結論を出す、バランスの取れた慎重な論を組み立てます。
Efficiency and the quiet erosion of public life
It is a commonplace of contemporary life that time saved is time gained. Yet the relentless pursuit of efficiency, so often presented as an unqualified good, may be quietly eroding the unplanned encounters on which a healthy public life depends.
The case for efficiency is, admittedly, not easily dismissed. Automated ticket machines, self-service checkouts and online appointment systems spare us queues and paperwork, and the hours they release can be spent on pursuits we value more highly. Nor should we romanticise inefficiency: a slow bureaucracy has seldom enriched anyone's existence, least of all those with the least time to spare.
Nevertheless, what is gained in speed is frequently lost in incidental contact. The conversation with a pharmacist, the passing remark of a neighbour in a queue, the shared grumble about a delayed train: none of these appears on any balance sheet, yet together they weave the loose fabric of trust that binds strangers. Remove the occasions for such exchanges and one is left with a society that functions smoothly but knows itself less well.
It would be mistaken, however, to conclude that technology is the culprit. The fault lies less in the machines than in the assumption that every transaction is merely a means to an end, to be completed at the lowest possible cost in minutes. Where institutions deliberately preserve a human option, as some libraries and post offices have done, people appear to value the choice even when they seldom exercise it. That reluctance to see the option disappear suggests that we sense, if only dimly, what is at stake.
On balance, then, efficiency deserves to be treated as a servant rather than a master. Planners and employers would do well to ask not only how quickly a process can be completed but also what, if anything, will be lost along the way. A public life stripped of friction may prove, paradoxically, a good deal poorer for it.
立場、ヘッジ表現、文体
改まった論述エッセイで最も適切な選択肢を選びましょう。
- Which sentence hedges most appropriately?
- ___ its undeniable convenience, the system carries costs that are easily overlooked.
- Which linker signals that the writer is about to qualify their own argument?
- Which is the most suitable way to open a final paragraph?
- Which sentence is the most appropriately impersonal and cautious?
- Efficiency, ___ valuable it may be, should not be pursued at any cost.
- Which sentence rejects an opposing view without overstating?
エッセイの表現を完成させる
各文を完成させるために、1語か、かっこ内の語の形を入力しましょう。
- The case for efficiency is, ___, not easily dismissed. (a concession adverb)
- None of these appears on any balance sheet, ___ together they weave the loose fabric of trust.
- Planners would do well ___ ask what will be lost along the way.
- The fault lies less in the machines ___ in the assumption behind them.
- It would be mistaken, ___, to conclude that technology is the culprit. (a contrast word)
- Remove those occasions and one is left ___ a society that functions smoothly.
- A public life stripped ___ friction may prove a good deal poorer.
ライティング課題
都市は利便性と速さを中心に全面的に設計し直すべきだと主張する人もいます。それにどの程度賛成するかについて、論述エッセイを書きましょう。反対意見に少なくとも1点は譲歩し、ヘッジ表現を使い、控えめな判断で締めくくってください。
280〜340語
文章を確認する
- テーマを述べるのではなく、問い直す価値のある考えで書き始めました。
- 留保をつける前に、妥当な点を1つ譲歩しました。
- 絶対的な主張ではなく、ヘッジ表現（may、appears to、it could be argued）を使いました。
- 各段落には中心となる考えが1つあり、次の段落と論理的につながっています。
- 文体は改まっていて非人称的で、短縮形は使っていません。
- 結論は控えめな判断を示しており、導入をただ繰り返してはいません。
解答
立場、ヘッジ表現、文体
- b) Efficiency may well be eroding public life to some extent.May well と to some extent は、主張を控えめに保ちます。ほかは絶対的で、主張を誇張しています。
- a) NotwithstandingNotwithstanding は「〜にもかかわらず」という意味で、名詞句が続きます。Albeit には形容詞または句が必要で、whereas には節が必要で、lest は恐れている結果を導きます。
- b) That said,That said は留保を導きます。Likewise は似た点を加え、consequently は結果を示し、incidentally は余談です。
- b) On balance, then,On balance, then, は議論を比較検討する改まった言い方です。ほかはくだけた、おしゃべり調の表現です。
- c) It could be argued that the benefits are overstated.It could be argued that は非人称的で慎重です。ほかは個人的、または口語的です。
- a) howeverHowever + 形容詞 + 主語 + may be は「どれほど価値があっても」という意味です。Although と despite はこの構造を取れず、whatever はここでは形容詞の前に置けません。
- c) Such a view is hard to sustain.Hard to sustain は断固としていながら控えめです。ほかは侮辱的、または見下した表現です。
エッセイの表現を完成させる
- admittedly / undeniably / undoubtedly / certainly / grantedAdmittedly（および同様の副詞）は、書き手が留保をつける前に、ある点を譲歩します。
- yet / but / and yet / though / althoughYet（または but、though）は、文の2つの部分の対比を示します。
- toWould do well の後ろには to 不定詞が続きます。
- thanLess ... than は、強調点を移すための比較構文です。
- however / nevertheless / nonetheless / thoughhowever のような対比の副詞が、留保を導きます。
- withTo be left with は、ほかのものを失った後にあるものが残る、という意味です。
- ofStrip something of something が決まった形です。
解答例
Few would deny that a city in which every journey is swift and every service immediate has its attractions. Yet a city designed solely for convenience may turn out to be one that nobody much wants to linger in.
The argument in favour of speed is a serious one. Congestion costs time and health, and those who depend on public transport are the first to suffer when it fails. Wide, fast routes and well-timed connections can therefore be defended as a form of fairness as much as of comfort, and it would be perverse to romanticise the delays that the poorest commuters endure.
Even so, convenience is a narrow measure of what a city is for. Streets built to move people as quickly as possible tend to treat them as freight, to be delivered rather than to be met. The pavement café, the market stall and the bench beside a fountain all slow the pedestrian down, and it is precisely this slowness that gives a neighbourhood its character. Where such features have been removed in the name of flow, residents often report that the place has become easier to cross but harder to belong to.
There is, moreover, a practical objection. A city that is optimised for one purpose is seldom robust. Roads widened for peak traffic invite more vehicles; the extra capacity is absorbed within a few years, and the congestion returns, now accompanied by noise and pollution. Planners who pursue speed alone may thus end up with neither speed nor pleasure.
The sensible course lies between the extremes. Rapid, reliable transport for those who need it should coexist with streets that reward the unhurried, and decisions about each should be tested against a broader question: not merely how quickly can people move, but what kind of life does the movement serve? A city that can answer that question has little to fear from the stopwatch.