Listening: Paper 3, and the whole of the AO1 weighting

The recording contains this. 司会：今日は、若い人の働き方について伺います。田中さんは、転職は珍しくなくなったとお考えですか。 田中：ええ、確かに以前より増えました。ただ、どの業界でも同じというわけではありません。 司会：と言いますと。 田中：技術系では移りやすいのですが、地方の中小企業では、まだ同じ会社に長く勤める人が多いようです。 The question, in English, is: According to Tanaka, in which situation is changing employer still less common? Answer in English.

1. 01Pass one, no writing: establish the shape

   Two speakers. One is 司会, a presenter or moderator, whose 伺います and お考えですか are humble and honorific forms — 伺う is the humble form of 聞く and お考えですか the honorific of 考えますか. The other is 田中さん, an interviewee speaking politely but not honorifically. So this is an interview, the register is formal, and the presenter's honorifics tell you who is deferring to whom. That takes thirty seconds and it means you already know whose statements the question will be about.

2. 02Pass one, continued: find the argumentative shape before the detail

   Tanaka says ええ, then 確かに, then ただ. That sequence is a concession structure: yes, certainly, however. Hearing 確かに…ただ tells you a qualification is coming and that the qualification is where the interesting information will be, before you have understood a word of the qualification itself. Japanese speakers signal their argumentative structure with these connectives constantly, and training your ear on them alone is one of the highest-return listening exercises available.

3. 03Pass two: with the question in front of you, stop at the qualification

   The question asks where changing employer is still LESS common, so you need the negative side of Tanaka's contrast. The relevant utterance is 技術系では移りやすいのですが、地方の中小企業では、まだ同じ会社に長く勤める人が多いようです. Two では phrases in contrast: 技術系では and 地方の中小企業では. The first is where moving is easy; the second is where people still stay. Stop and note both, because the question could have asked for either and mis-hearing which is which is the classic error.

4. 04Pass two, continued: hear the modality at the end

   多いようです. よう on a plain form is the Appendix 2 form for an inference from evidence — it seems that, it appears that. Tanaka is not asserting a fact; he is reporting an impression. That does not change the answer to this question, but it would change the answer to a question about how confident he is, and it should change your English wording: write it seems that people still tend to, not people definitely do. Sentence-final modality is where a Japanese speaker's stance lives and it arrives last, which is why pass two must let each utterance finish.

5. 05Pass three: verify negation and speaker

   Two checks. Negation: the only negative in the passage is どの業界でも同じというわけではありません — it is not the case that it is the same in every industry — which is a partial negation, not a denial that job-changing has increased. Misreading it as a denial would produce a completely wrong answer to a different question. Speaker: the claim you are using is Tanaka's, not the presenter's, and the question said according to Tanaka, so that checks out. Thirty seconds, and it protects the whole answer.

6. 06Write the English answer, and only the answer

   At small and medium-sized firms in regional areas, where he says people still seem to stay with the same company for a long time. That is one sentence in English as required; it names the situation the question asked about; it preserves the ようです hedge with he says … seem to; and it does not repeat the technology-sector half, which the question did not ask for. Then move on — Section A is 30 marks across four questions in 45 minutes, and every minute saved here is a replay available for a harder question.

Result: Model answer, in English as required: At small and medium-sized firms in regional areas, where he says people still seem to stay with the same company for a long time. The method: pass one establishes speakers, register and argumentative shape with no writing; pass two captures the answer point and hears the sentence-final modality; pass three verifies negation and speaker identity; then the answer is written in English, in one sentence, answering the question that was asked.

Six utterances that begin identically. For each, say what the speaker has committed to, and what a candidate who stopped listening at the third syllable would have concluded.

1. 01参加します and 参加しません

   Both begin 参加し. The first commits the speaker to attending, the second to not attending, and the whole difference is ます against ません — two syllables at the very end. A listener who has already written attending has to unwrite it, and under time pressure many do not. This is why the first discipline of Japanese listening is not vocabulary but patience: hold the clause open until it closes.

2. 02参加したいと思います against 参加することになりました

   The first is a wish — たい plus と思う, which Appendix 2 lists as the volitional-adjacent softening pattern — so the speaker wants to attend and may not. The second, ことになりました, says it has been arranged that they will attend, with the arranger unnamed, so attendance is settled and was not necessarily their own decision. English would use I would like to and I am going to; Japanese marks the difference in agency explicitly, and a question about who decided turns entirely on it.

3. 03参加するかもしれません against 参加するはずです

   かもしれない is possibility: it may happen, with no particular grounds. はずだ is expectation from grounds: it should be the case, because something else is true. Both are on the Appendix 2 list alongside でしょう and だろう, and they are graded — はず is stronger than かも. A Section A question asking how likely a speaker thinks something is is answered by these forms and by nothing else in the sentence.

4. 04参加しないわけではありません — the one that reverses twice

   This is a double negative meaning it is not that I am not attending, which in effect concedes that the speaker will or may attend while resisting the implication behind the question. A candidate who hears 参加しない and stops has heard the exact opposite of the utterance. ～ないわけではない and ～ないとは限らない are common in careful adult speech precisely because they hedge, and they are worth drilling as recognition items even though you would rarely produce them.

5. 05参加するそうです against 参加するようです

   Appendix 2 lists both. Plain form plus そう is hearsay — I hear that they will attend — and the speaker is passing on information from elsewhere. Plain form plus よう is inference — it appears that they will attend — and the speaker is drawing a conclusion from evidence. A question about the source of a speaker's information is answered by which of these they used, and there is no other clue in the sentence.

6. 06The training exercise that fixes all six

   Take one verb and record yourself, or find a recording, saying it with ten different endings. Listen with your eyes closed and write only the ending. Repeat until you can identify all ten without the stem. It sounds mechanical and it is, but the endings are a closed set, they carry a disproportionate share of the meaning, and they are the thing that arrives when your attention is lowest. Twenty minutes of this is worth several hours of listening to passages you already understand.

Result: 参加します attends; 参加しません does not; 参加したいと思います wants to; 参加することになりました has been arranged to; 参加するかもしれません may; 参加するはずです is expected to on grounds; 参加しないわけではありません concedes that they might after all; 参加するそうです is hearsay; 参加するようです is inference. Nine different commitments, one identical opening, and the whole difference carried after the stem.

A recording features a local official and a shop owner discussing whether a town should build a larger visitor centre. The question, in English, is: Summarise the main points made by each speaker and identify what they disagree about. Answer in English, in about 80 words.

1. 01Set up the note shape before pressing play

   Two columns, one per speaker, and a line at the bottom labelled 対立点. That single piece of preparation does most of the work, because it forces every note into a column and forces you to look for the disagreement rather than to notice it accidentally. If the question had asked only for main points you would use one column; the fact that it asks what they disagree about means the shape of your notes should already be a comparison.

2. 02Pass one: fill neither column, and listen for the connectives

   What you are listening for is 一方, しかし, ただ, とはいえ, それはそうですが — the markers that signal a speaker turning against what was just said. Their positions tell you where the disagreement lives before you have parsed its content, and in a two-speaker exchange the disagreement is almost always immediately after one of them. Also note whether either speaker concedes anything, because a conceded point is by definition not part of the disagreement and putting it there is a standard error.

3. 03Pass two: capture in the columns, marking attribution

   Official column: 来訪者増 → 地域経済, 補助金あり, 雇用. Shop owner column: 建設費, 維持費 who pays?, 客は通り過ぎる?. Note the two question marks: those are pass-three items. Note also that if the official said 商工会も賛成している, that point goes in the official's column with an attribution mark, because it is somebody else's view being reported, and a summary that presents it as the official's own has misreported the source.

4. 04Pass three: verify the disagreement, not the details

   Replay only the two or three utterances where the columns touch. Here the question is whether the shop owner disputes that visitors help the economy, or accepts that and disputes who pays for the building. Those are different disagreements and only one of them is in the recording. This is the pass that most often changes an answer from nearly right to right, and it is why the method reserves time for it rather than spending every replay on hard vocabulary.

5. 05Write the structure first

   The official argues that a larger centre would bring more visitors and support the local economy and jobs, and notes that funding is available. The shop owner accepts that visitors help but questions the running costs and who would meet them, and doubts that visitors would spend in the town rather than passing through. Their disagreement is not about whether visitors are good for the town but about the cost of the building and whether the spending would reach local businesses. That is the disagreement stated as a disagreement.

6. 06Then trim to the word count and check attribution

   About 80 words means roughly five sentences, so the version above is already close and needs only tightening. Final checks: is every point attributed to the speaker who made it; is anything the official reported from a third party marked as reported; and does the last sentence actually state a disagreement rather than list two positions. That last check is the one that separates a summary from a transcript, and it takes ten seconds.

Result: Model answer: The official argues that a larger visitor centre would attract more visitors and support the local economy and jobs, and points out that funding is available. The shop owner accepts that visitors benefit the town but questions the running costs and who would pay them, and doubts that visitors would spend locally rather than passing through. They disagree not about whether visitors help the town, but about the cost of the building and whether the benefit would reach local businesses.

The recording is a researcher discussing school workload. She says that hours are long, that the cause is less teaching than administrative and club duties, that reforms have reduced some tasks, and that she is not convinced the reduction has reached classroom teachers. Write 5(a).

1. 01Count the distinct points before choosing a structure

   There are four: long hours; the cause is non-teaching duties; reforms have reduced some tasks; scepticism that the reduction has reached teachers. A points-based scheme will have a mark for each distinct point, so the structure must accommodate four, not three. That count comes from the notes and takes five seconds, and it prevents the commonest 5(a) loss — a well-written summary that quietly drops the fourth point because the third sentence felt like an ending.

2. 02Sentence one: the headline claim, attributed

   研究者は、教員の勤務時間が長いと述べている. 研究者 identifies the speaker by role, which is what a summary should do when no name is given. 勤務時間 is working hours in the employment register. ～と述べている is the neutral verb of saying and is the right one to open with. Notice how little decoration there is: a points-based summary is not the place for range display, and the AO3 marks in this section attach to 5(c).

3. 03Sentence two: the cause, with a different reporting verb

   その原因として、授業よりも事務作業や部活動の負担を挙げている. ～を原因として挙げる is to cite as a cause and is a different reporting verb from 述べる, which quietly demonstrates range without costing space. よりも does the comparison the speaker made — less teaching than administration — and 負担 is the burden. This single sentence recovers a point that a careless summary would merge into the first.

4. 04Sentence three: the concession, attributed as hers

   改革によって減った業務もあると認めている. 認める is to acknowledge, which is precisely right for a point a speaker concedes against their own argument, and using it rather than 述べる tells the examiner you understood the argumentative role of the sentence and not merely its content. によって marks the reforms as the means. ～もある is the some, not all quantifier that the speaker's claim requires.

5. 05Sentence four: the scepticism, hedged as she hedged it

   ただし、その効果が現場の教員にまで届いているかどうかについては、疑問を示している. ただし marks the qualification. かどうかについては packages the embedded question as the matter under discussion. 疑問を示す is to express doubt, which reports her stance without overstating it as a denial — she is not convinced, which is different from asserting that it has not reached them. Preserving the strength of a speaker's claim is a summary skill and it is markable.

6. 06Check: four points, four different reporting verbs, all attributed

   述べている, 挙げている, 認めている, 示している. Four points, four verbs, no repetition, every one attributing rather than asserting, and the whole under a hundred characters. Then the last check: is anything in the summary MY opinion? Nothing here is. 5(a) is a summary and the evaluation belongs at 5(c); a candidate who evaluates at 5(a) has spent characters where no evaluation marks exist and will often be short of them where they do.

Result: 研究者は、教員の勤務時間が長いと述べている。その原因として、授業よりも事務作業や部活動の負担を挙げている。改革によって減った業務もあると認めている。ただし、その効果が現場の教員にまで届いているかどうかについては、疑問を示している。 Four distinct points, four different reporting verbs, every claim attributed, no evaluation — which is exactly what a points-based summary is marked for.

Four short exchanges. For each, identify the relationship from the language alone, and say what a question about the speakers would turn on.

1. 01先日はありがとうございました。資料を拝見しましたが、少し伺いたいことがございます。

   拝見する is the humble form of 見る and 伺う the humble form of 聞く, so the speaker is lowering themselves throughout; ございます is the elevated form of あります. This is a person addressing somebody they treat as senior or as a client — most likely a business or formal-enquiry context. Note that no honorific is applied to the listener's actions here; the deference is carried entirely by humbling the speaker's own, which is the 謙譲語 half of the system.

2. 02田中さんはどうお考えですか。先ほどおっしゃった点について、もう少し伺えますか。

   お考えですか and おっしゃった are honorific — they elevate 田中さん's thinking and speaking — while 伺えます humbles the speaker's own asking. Both halves of the system are running at once and in opposite directions, which is the signature of an interviewer or moderator. A question asking which speaker is the interviewer is answered by this pattern in one line, without any content.

3. 03えー、それってさ、結局は同じことじゃない？

   って for と, さ as a filler particle, じゃない as a plain negative used as a tag question, and えー as a hesitation — all plain register with heavy contraction. This is friends or close colleagues, and the speaker is challenging what was just said. Note that the challenge is carried by じゃない with rising intonation rather than by any word meaning I disagree, which is why a candidate listening only for content can miss a disagreement entirely.

4. 04こちらの資料をご覧ください。ご不明な点がございましたら、お申し付けください。

   ご覧ください is the honorific imperative of 見る; ご不明な点 elevates the listener's possible confusion; ございましたら is the elevated conditional; お申し付けください is the honorific request form. This is the service register — a shop, a counter, a presentation to clients — and it is formulaic, which is good news: there are perhaps twenty such formulas and knowing them makes an entire class of recording immediately legible.

5. 05Turn register into an answer

   A Section A question might ask what the relationship between the two speakers is, who is being interviewed, or which speaker works for the organisation being discussed. Every one of those is answered from register before content. So on pass one, when you are deliberately not writing, the thing to establish is the direction of deference. Write nothing but hold it, because it will make every subsequent question easier and it will not change.

6. 06And know what NOT to do with 敬語

   Recognise it; do not produce it. Appendix 2 contains no 敬語 section, so honorific and humble language is not on the production list, and an essay that attempts 拝見いたしました risks an error for no available mark. The asymmetry is deliberate and worth stating: for listening, 敬語 is high-value information; for writing, it is unnecessary risk. That is the same recognition-versus-production logic that governs the kanji list.

Result: Exchange one: a speaker humbling their own actions with 拝見する, 伺う and ございます — a formal enquiry to a senior or a client. Exchange two: honorifics on the listener plus humble forms on the speaker — an interviewer. Exchange three: って, さ and じゃない with heavy contraction — friends, and the speaker is challenging. Exchange four: ご覧ください and お申し付けください — the formulaic service register. In every case the relationship is legible from the forms alone, before any content has been understood.