N1 統合理解: Comparative Reading at Argument Depth
The A/B comparative block (3 items on ~600 characters total) matures at N1: the two texts now argue at editorial depth, their disagreements are PARTIAL (agreeing on the problem, splitting on the remedy), and a third question may ask how each author would view a scenario. The stance-map from N2 remains the technique — with two more cells. This chapter upgrades the grid.
1. The Six-Cell Map
At N1, map each text three ways:
| Text A | Text B | |
|---|---|---|
| Problem seen | what A says is wrong | what B says is wrong |
| Cause named | A's diagnosis | B's diagnosis |
| Remedy proposed | A's prescription | B's prescription |
Why three rows? Because N1's agreement question usually lives on the PROBLEM row (both lament the same thing), and the difference question on the CAUSE or REMEDY row (they split on why/what-to-do). A two-cell "for/against" map — enough at N2 — mislabels N1 pairs where both authors are "against" the same thing for different reasons.
2. Worked Pair (Condensed)
A: 子どもの読書量の減少が止まらない。原因は明らかで、スマートフォンが可処分時間を奪っているのだ。ならば、学校での「朝の読書」のように、強制的にでも本と向き合う時間を制度として確保するほかない。習慣は環境が作るものである。
B: 読書離れを嘆く声は多い。だが、原因を子どもの環境だけに求めるのは酷というものだ。そもそも大人が本を読む姿を見せていないのだから、子どもが読むはずもない。制度で縛るより先に、まず家庭で親が本を開くこと。読書は強制ではなく、伝染するものだ。
Six cells: Problem — A: reading decline / B: reading decline (SAME). Cause — A: smartphones steal time / B: adults don't model reading (DIFFERENT). Remedy — A: institutional reading time (強制 OK) / B: parents model at home (against 強制) (OPPOSED).
Q: AとBで共通して述べられていることは何か。 → 子どもの読書量が減っている（the problem row）. Q: AとBの意見はどう違うか。 → A: 制度・環境で読書時間を確保すべき / B: 強制より大人が手本を見せるべき（the remedy row, with the 強制 polarity flip）. Options pairing A's problem with B's remedy (chimera options) die on the grid instantly.
3. The Third-Question Variants
- Stance-application: 「学校での一斉読書について、AとBはどう考えるか」→ A: 賛成 (his own remedy!), B: 疑問視 (強制ではなく…). Apply each author's remedy-row to the scenario.
- Tone comparison: which author is more critical of X? Compare their verdict verbs: 〜ほかない (A, resigned-decisive) vs 〜というものだ (B, rebuking).
- Shared-premise probing: both assume reading matters — the unstated premise both build on can itself be the answer.
4. Reading Order & Discipline
- Full A → map → full B → map → questions. Never interleave (unchanged law).
- Rebuttals are not endorsements: B quoting "環境だけに求める" view does so to REJECT it — attribution arrows on your map (B: ✗環境説) prevent the classic reversal.
- Half-right options are wrong; verify BOTH halves of every AはX、BはY option against the grid.
- Budget ~8 minutes for both texts + 3 questions.
Summary & Key Takeaways
- N1 統合理解 = partial disagreements: map SIX cells (problem/cause/remedy × A/B) — agreement lives on the problem row, difference on cause/remedy.
- Chimera options (A's problem + B's remedy) die on the grid; rebutted views need attribution arrows.
- Third questions apply the remedy rows to new scenarios or compare tones — the grid answers those too.
- Full text, then map, then questions; interleaving remains the cardinal sin.