復興への政策 and 省エネ生活 — reconstruction, resilience and the energy argument (テーマ４・２)

From one bare fact — sea walls were rebuilt higher in many affected communities — build a paragraph of essay-register Japanese in about 170 characters that states, complicates, attributes both sides and concludes.

1. 01State the measure and its stated purpose

   震災の後、多くの被災地では、津波に備えて防潮堤がより高く造り直された. ～に備えて is in preparation for, and it states the purpose without endorsing it. 造り直す is to rebuild, formed from the ます-stem plus 直す — a productive pattern (見直す, 問い直す, 立て直す) that Appendix 2's ます-stem constructions prepare you for. The passive 造り直された leaves the agent unstated, which is right because national policy, prefectures and municipalities were all involved.

2. 02Introduce the disagreement as a fact about the community, not a judgement

   しかし、この計画には地元からも賛否があった. 賛否[さんぴ] means for and against, and 賛否があった is a compact and neutral way to say the matter was disputed. からも carries the point: opposition came from the affected communities themselves, not only from outside commentators, which is the fact that makes this worth writing about. Notice you have not yet said what either side argued — that comes next, and separating the existence of the dispute from its content keeps the paragraph orderly.

3. 03State the case for, at its strongest

   安全を最優先すべきだという意見がある一方で. すべきだ is the strong obligation form and it belongs to whoever is arguing, not to you — putting it inside という意見 makes that clear. 最優先[さいゆうせん] is highest priority. Giving the position its own strongest word rather than a weakened paraphrase is what fairness looks like in argumentative writing, and examiners reading for evaluation notice the difference between a case stated and a case set up to be knocked down.

4. 04State the case against, equally strongly

   海が見えなくなること、費用が大きいこと、そして高い堤防があることで危険を忘れやすくなることを心配する声も出された. Three objections, each nominalised with こと and coordinated, which is an efficient structure worth copying. ～ことで marks the third one's mechanism. 声が出される is a set phrase for concerns being voiced. The third objection is the interesting one and is a real argument in Japanese disaster-prevention discussion, so it is worth including rather than only the obvious two.

5. 05Conclude on the criterion, not on the wall

   どちらの立場にも根拠があり、判断は、何をどれだけ守ろうとするのかによって変わるだろう. ～にも根拠がある concedes to both sides; 何をどれだけ守ろうとするのか is an embedded question using the volitional plus とする from Appendix 2 — what one is trying to protect, and how much of it. によって変わる says the answer depends on that. You have taken a position — that the question is one of competing goods — without pretending to adjudicate an engineering and planning dispute you are not equipped to settle.

6. 06Run the Theme 4 checks

   No number: none used, and 高く and 大きい carry the magnitudes. No fabricated testimony: 声も出された reports that concerns were voiced, without inventing a speaker. Both positions attributed: という意見がある and 心配する声も出された. Contested matter named as contested: 賛否があった in the second sentence. Register: 造り直された, あった, 出された, 変わるだろう — plain throughout, five different predicates.

Result: 震災の後、多くの被災地では、津波に備えて防潮堤がより高く造り直された。しかし、この計画には地元からも賛否があった。安全を最優先すべきだという意見がある一方で、海が見えなくなること、費用が大きいこと、そして高い堤防があることで危険を忘れやすくなることを心配する声も出された。どちらの立場にも根拠があり、判断は、何をどれだけ守ろうとするのかによって変わるだろう。

Policy writing needs to say that something must, should, needs to, is required to or cannot but be done — and Japanese distinguishes these more sharply than English. Write six sentences about disaster policy, one for each rung, and say who is committed by each.

1. 01なければならない: an obligation that comes from a rule or a circumstance

   避難計画は毎年見直さなければならない. Appendix 2 lists ない-form plus なければならない and its variant なければいけない. The obligation is presented as external — a regulation, a practical necessity — rather than as the writer's opinion. なくてはならない is a common alternative and ないといけない is its colloquial cousin; in written work stay with なければならない. The negative counterpart is ～てはならない, must not, which is equally formal.

2. 02べきだ: an obligation the writer is asserting

   安全を最優先すべきだ. べきだ attaches to the plain non-past — with する giving both すべき and するべき, the first more formal — and it carries the writer's own judgement about what ought to be done. That is why the previous section put it inside という意見がある: an unattributed べきだ makes the claim yours. Use it deliberately when you are taking a position, and never as a neutral description of policy.

3. 03必要がある: a need, stated impersonally

   長期的な支援を続ける必要がある. 必要がある is the least loaded rung: there is a need to. It attributes the necessity to the situation rather than to a rule or to the writer, which makes it the workhorse of analytical prose. Its negative, 必要はない, is correspondingly useful — 制度をすべて作り直す必要はない says the wholesale change is unnecessary without saying it would be wrong.

4. 04ことが求められる: an expectation placed on a named party

   自治体には、住民に情報を伝えることが求められている. This is the institutional register from the earlier translation practice: somebody is being asked or required, with に marking who. It is more precise than なければならない when you want to name the party bearing the expectation and to leave open who is doing the expecting. ことになっている, from Appendix 2, is the neighbouring form and says instead that it has been arranged that — a settled rule rather than an expectation.

5. 05ざるを得ない: compelled by circumstances, with no good alternative

   予算が限られているため、優先順位をつけざるを得ない. This is the rung that says the actor had no acceptable choice, and it carries a note of regret or constraint that none of the others does. It attaches to the ない-stem — つける gives つけざる, する gives せざる — and it is a strong range signal in an essay. Do not use it where a simple necessity is meant; it asserts that alternatives were foreclosed, which is a claim.

6. 06The decision procedure, and one check

   Is the obligation external and rule-like? なければならない. Is it your own judgement? べきだ. Is it a need arising from the situation? 必要がある. Is it an expectation on a named party? ことが求められる. Was the actor left with no acceptable alternative? ざるを得ない. Then run the check: for every べきだ in your essay, ask whether you meant to assert it yourself. If you did not, wrap it — という意見がある, と主張する人もいる — because an unattributed べきだ in a topic like this one turns an analysis into an editorial.

Result: 避難計画は毎年見直さなければならない。／安全を最優先すべきだ。／長期的な支援を続ける必要がある。／自治体には、住民に情報を伝えることが求められている。／予算が限られているため、優先順位をつけざるを得ない。／制度をすべて作り直す必要はない。 The ladder: なければならない for a rule-like obligation, べきだ for the writer's own judgement, 必要がある for an impersonal need, ことが求められる for an expectation on a named party, ざるを得ない for compulsion with no acceptable alternative — and 必要はない as the useful negative that denies necessity without denying value.

Translate this passage into English. 被災地では、震災から十年以上たった今も、心のケアを続けている団体がある。担当者によれば、支援を必要とする人の数は減ったものの、相談の内容はより複雑になっているという。一方、支援を続けるための資金や人手は年々確保しにくくなっていると指摘されている。

1. 01Read to the ends first, and note the two attributions

   ある, という, 指摘されている. Two of the three sentences end in an attribution marker — という for reported speech and 指摘されている for a reported observation — which tells you before you translate anything that this is a text reporting other people's statements rather than asserting its own findings. That is worth noticing because your English must preserve the attributions. Readings: 団体[だんたい], 担当者[たんとうしゃ], 複雑[ふくざつ], 資金[しきん], 人手[ひとで], 確保[かくほ].

2. 02Sentence 1: たった今も, and a relative clause before the verb of existence

   震災から十年以上たった今も、心のケアを続けている団体がある. 十年以上たった今も is even now, more than ten years after — 経つ, here written たつ, is the verb for time elapsing, and 今も carries the even now. 心のケアを続けている団体 is a relative clause modifying 団体: organisations that are continuing to provide psychological support. がある is the plain existential. English: In the affected region, there are organisations still providing psychological support even now, more than ten years after the disaster.

3. 03Sentence 2, first half: によれば and ものの

   担当者によれば、支援を必要とする人の数は減ったものの. ～によれば is according to and must be rendered as such; dropping it turns a reported claim into a fact. 支援を必要とする人 is a relative clause: people who need support. ものの is a concessive meaning although, more written than けれども and slightly more formal than が. English so far: according to the staff, although the number of people needing support has fallen.

4. 04Sentence 2, second half: より for comparison, and the closing という

   相談の内容はより複雑になっているという. より before an adjective is the comparative more, with the comparison left implicit — more complex than before. ～になっている is the change-of-state plus ている, so has become and remains so. The sentence-final という closes the reported speech opened by によれば, and English handles it by keeping the according to at the front rather than by adding a second marker. English: the content of consultations has become more complex.

5. 05Sentence 3: ～にくくなる, 年々, and an agentless attribution

   支援を続けるための資金や人手は年々確保しにくくなっていると指摘されている. ～ための is for the purpose of, modifying 資金や人手. 年々[ねんねん] is year by year. 確保しにくくなっている combines the ます-stem plus にくい from Appendix 2 — hard to do — with なる and ている: has become progressively harder to secure. ～と指摘されている is it has been pointed out that, with no one named, which English renders as it has been pointed out or observers have noted.

6. 06Read the English back and check the attributions survived

   In the affected region, there are organisations still providing psychological support even now, more than ten years after the disaster. According to their staff, although the number of people needing support has fallen, the content of consultations has become more complex. At the same time, it has been pointed out that the funding and staff needed to continue this support have become harder to secure year by year. Check: によれば survived as according to, という did not become a second marker, and 指摘されている survived as it has been pointed out. Losing any of the three would turn a careful report into a set of assertions — the exact error this whole theme warns against.

Result: In the affected region, there are organisations still providing psychological support even now, more than ten years after the disaster. According to their staff, although the number of people needing support has fallen, the content of consultations has become more complex. At the same time, it has been pointed out that the funding and staff needed to continue this support have become harder to secure year by year.

Translate into Japanese. After the accident, households in eastern Japan were asked to reduce their use of electricity, and planned power cuts were carried out for a time. Since then, many people have continued to use less, although it is not clear how far the habit has lasted. Older methods, such as hanging reed screens, are also attracting attention again.

1. 01Sentence 1, first half: were asked to is 求められた, and 東日本 is the region word

   事故の後、東日本の家庭では電力の使用を減らすことが求められた. 求められる is the institutional passive from the obligation ladder — were asked or required — and it correctly leaves open who did the asking, since utilities and government both did. 電力[でんりょく] is electric power as a supply, more precise here than 電気; 使用を減らす is to reduce usage; ことが nominalises the whole clause as the subject of 求められた. 家庭では uses では because households are the framed party.

2. 02Sentence 1, second half: were carried out is 実施される, and for a time is 一時期

   また、一時期は計画停電も実施された. 実施する is the verb for carrying out a measure or a policy, and 実施された is its passive — the standard register for an administrative action. 一時期[いちじき] is for a period, which renders for a time better than しばらく, a more conversational choice. 計画停電 is the established term and should be used rather than described. も carries the also that links this clause to the previous request.

3. 03Sentence 2, first half: have continued to is 続けている, and use less needs an object

   それ以来、電気の使用を控え続けている人も多い. 控える[ひかえる] is to hold back or moderate, a more precise verb than 減らす for continuing restraint, and 控え続ける chains it with 続ける on the ます-stem. それ以来 is since then. 人も多い is many people, with も again linking. Note the shift from 電力 to 電気: the first was the supply, the second is what a household uses, and Japanese makes that distinction more readily than English does.

4. 04Sentence 2, second half: it is not clear how far is an embedded question

   ただし、その習慣がどこまで続いているのかは明らかではない. どこまで続いているのか is an embedded question — how far it has continued — packaged with のか and then made the subject with は. 明らかではない is the written-register form of is not clear. ただし concedes the qualification without reversing the sentence before it. Compare かどうか, which would be whether at all rather than how far; the English says how far, so どこまで is required.

5. 05Sentence 3: such as is ～といった or ～などの, and attracting attention is 注目される

   すだれを掛けるといった昔からの工夫も、再び注目されている. ～といった after a clause or noun means such as and introduces an example, slightly more formal than など. 掛ける is the correct verb for hanging a screen. 昔からの工夫 is devices or contrivances from long ago — 工夫[くふう] is a very useful noun here and better than 方法. 注目される is the passive of 注目する, to pay attention: are being paid attention to, which English renders as are attracting attention. 再び is again in written register.

6. 06Check the register, the technical words and the honesty

   Technical words: 電力 for supply, 電気 for household use, 計画停電 as the real term, すだれ as the real object, 工夫 rather than a vague 方法. Register: 求められた, 実施された, 多い, ない, 注目されている — plain throughout, three passives, which suits a passage about measures. Honesty: the English hedged with it is not clear, and the Japanese hedged with 明らかではない; nothing was made more certain or less certain in translation, which is the translator's whole obligation.

Result: 事故の後、東日本の家庭では電力の使用を減らすことが求められた。また、一時期は計画停電も実施された。それ以来、電気の使用を控え続けている人も多い。ただし、その習慣がどこまで続いているのかは明らかではない。すだれを掛けるといった昔からの工夫も、再び注目されている。 The scoring decisions: 求められた as an institutional passive, ことが nominalisation, 実施される for carrying out a measure, the real term 計画停電, 控える plus 続ける, the embedded question どこまで…のか, ～といった for such as, and 注目されている for attracting attention.

Your research subject is 福島原発事故後の省エネ生活. The unseen text describes a town that installed solar panels on public buildings and ran a household energy-saving campaign, and reports that consumption fell and then partly rose again. The statement is: 事故のあと、日本の人々の生活は本当に変わったと言えるか。Plan and write the answer's argumentative spine.

1. 01Read the statement for its verb, not its topic

   本当に変わったと言えるか — can it really be said to have changed. The load is on 言えるか, which asks about warrant: not did behaviour change, but is the evidence sufficient to say so. That is a question about criteria and evidence, which is good news, because it is answerable from a research subject rather than from statistics you do not have. Section C is 40 marks in a recommended 1 hour 25 minutes at 600 to 700 characters, and identifying the verb takes ninety seconds and shapes everything after it.

2. 02Plan all three aspects onto paragraphs before writing

   Paragraph one: 日常生活の中の省エネ — what changed in 2011, with 計画停電 and 節電 as the anchors. Paragraph two: the unseen text, whose fell-then-partly-rose shape is the evidential heart of the answer. Paragraph three: エネルギー供給をめぐる議論 — the argument continues, which is itself evidence that nothing was settled. Paragraph four: 省エネに関する昔の知恵 — the practices that were revived, and what their revival does and does not show. Paragraph five: the conclusion, which must answer 言えるか.

3. 03Open by separating two changes the statement runs together

   「生活が変わった」と言うとき、二つの異なる変化を区別する必要がある。一つは、電力が足りないという事態に対応した一時的な変化であり、もう一つは、その後も続いた習慣の変化である。 This is the move that makes the whole essay work: the statement asks about change, and there are two kinds. Naming them in paragraph one means every later paragraph has somewhere to attach, and it demonstrates the analytical control the AO4 grid describes as sustaining a line of argument.

4. 04Make the unseen text carry the evidential weight

   本文が示している変化は、この区別をよく表している。使用量がいったん減り、その後一部は戻ったという事実は、緊急時の対応と定着した習慣とが同じものではないことを示している。 The AO2 grid out of 10 asks that the text contribute to your argument, and here it supplies exactly the shape your distinction predicted. Note いったん…その後 for once and then, and ～とが同じものではない for the two are not the same thing. The text is being used as evidence for a claim, not summarised.

5. 05Use the continuing argument as evidence, not as a digression

   また、エネルギー供給のあり方をめぐる議論が今も続いていること自体が、社会全体としての方向がまだ定まっていないことを示していると言えるだろう。 This turns aspect two into evidence for your thesis rather than an obligatory paragraph. ～こと自体が, the very fact that, is a strong analytical frame. あり方 is the way something should be, a compact noun much used in Japanese policy writing. And the whole is hedged with と言えるだろう, because it is an inference.

6. 06Conclude by answering 言えるか, and no more

   以上のことから、生活が「変わった」と一言で言うことは難しい。緊急時の行動が変わったことは確かであり、昔からの工夫が見直されたことも事実である。しかし、それが定着した変化かどうかは、なお判断がつかないと考えられる。 The conclusion answers the question that was asked — whether it can be said — rather than the question about whether life changed. It concedes what is established, refuses what is not, and hedges to exactly the strength the evidence supports. Then check: three aspects covered, text used, no number invented, no energy position endorsed, one register throughout, 600 to 700 characters.

Result: The argumentative spine: 「生活が変わった」と言うとき、二つの異なる変化を区別する必要がある。一つは、電力が足りないという事態に対応した一時的な変化であり、もう一つは、その後も続いた習慣の変化である。…本文が示している変化は、この区別をよく表している。…エネルギー供給のあり方をめぐる議論が今も続いていること自体が、社会全体としての方向がまだ定まっていないことを示している。…以上のことから、生活が「変わった」と一言で言うことは難しい。しかし、それが定着した変化かどうかは、なお判断がつかないと考えられる。 Note what the answer never does: it takes no position on nuclear power, because the question did not ask for one and because the research subject's job is to describe the argument accurately.