資料を読むReading Source Materials
Chapter Objectives
By the end of this chapter, you will be able to:
- Attribute a claim to a specific source using によれば.
- Report a widely held view or common characterization using とされる.
- Present a reasoned judgment as your own interpretation using と考えられる.
- Distinguish, in a chain of attribution, what a source states, what is generally said, and what the writer concludes.
- Compare two or more sources on the same topic and note where they agree and disagree.
- Paraphrase a source's claim in your own words without copying its sentence structure.
- Read a report, article, or survey summary and identify its sources, claims, and evidence.
- Write a short source-based paragraph that attributes claims accurately and draws its own conclusion.
Communication Scenario
Emma's position paper on the 地域リサイクル制度 persuaded her study group, but 佐藤さん points out a problem: her argument in Chapter 3 rested on claims she has not yet traced back to any actual source. Where did the figure about resident satisfaction come from? Who says the cost is high, and compared to what? Before the group presents its position publicly, Emma needs to find real reports, articles, and survey summaries about the program, read them carefully, and show clearly which claims come from which source, which claims are simply "said to be true" without a named source, and which conclusions are her own judgment based on the evidence. 佐藤さん is preparing a similar review of sources for his own field. This chapter gives Emma and 佐藤さん the tools to read source materials critically and to write about them honestly: attributing a claim to where it came from, reporting what is generally said, offering their own reasoned conclusion, and keeping all three clearly distinct.
- The learner attributes a specific claim to a named source using によれば.
- The learner reports a general characterization using とされる, without claiming it as the writer's own view.
- The learner offers a reasoned conclusion as their own interpretation using と考えられる.
- The learner reads a report or article and identifies its sources, key claims, and supporting evidence.
- The learner compares two sources on the same topic and states where they agree and where they differ.
Core Vocabulary
This chapter introduces vocabulary for reports, institutional pages, articles, survey summaries, interviews, and cultural sources. All items are active for production from this chapter forward.
| Japanese | Reading | English meaning | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| 出典 | しゅってん | source (of a citation or claim) | noun; often paired with を示す or が不明だ |
| 調査 | ちょうさ | survey; investigation | noun; 調査する = to survey, investigate; 調査結果 = survey results |
| 報告書 | ほうこくしょ | report (document) | noun; more formal than 記事 |
| 記事 | きじ | article (news or magazine) | noun; often paired with 読む or 掲載される |
| 信頼性 | しんらいせい | reliability; credibility | noun; often paired with が高い / が低い |
| 比較する | ひかくする | to compare | する-verb, transitive; 二つの資料を比較する |
| 要約する | ようやくする | to summarize | する-verb, transitive; distinct from 引用する (to quote) |
| 一致する | いっちする | to agree; to match; to coincide | する-verb, intransitive; 意見が一致する = opinions agree |
These eight items are the chapter's productive vocabulary. Combine them with Chapter 2's definitional vocabulary and Chapter 3's argument vocabulary (主張, 根拠, 反論, 結論, 妥当だ) as you build a source-based paragraph.
れんしゅう — Practice: Choose a report, article, or survey summary related to your Chapter 3 position and write one true sentence for each of the eight words above, applying it to that source.
Script and Kanji Focus
This chapter's script focus covers source terminology, verified names and dates, and citation-like formatting, building on Chapter 3's kanji for logic, claim, and evidence.
When you write about a source, the institution name, publication date, and any numerical figures you cite must match the source exactly. Do not adjust an organization's name to a more familiar-looking form, and do not guess at a date or a percentage. A common project convention for referring to a source in a short paragraph is: 〈組織名〉の〈報告書名〉（年）によれば、 — for example, 〇〇市の報告書（２０２５年）によれば、. Use Arabic numerals for years, percentages, and other survey figures, consistent with this volume's numeral conventions.
Furigana in this chapter appears only on the four new words above and on rare or unscheduled readings. Chapter 2 and Chapter 3 vocabulary, and all kanji consolidated by the end of Volume III, should appear without furigana.
れんしゅう — Practice: Find 出典 and 調査 in the Model Dialogue or Reading Practice passage below and identify what kind of information follows each one.
Pronunciation and Listening Focus
When a speaker moves from reporting a source with によれば or とされる into their own judgment with と考えられる, listen for a small change in pace or emphasis that often marks this shift, similar in function to the transition-word pause you practiced in Chapter 3 but occurring here between reported information and personal interpretation rather than between two logical steps. Missing this shift can lead a listener to mistake the speaker's own opinion for something the source actually said, or vice versa.
Continue maintaining mora timing, vowel length, moraic ん, and phrase-level intonation as in previous chapters; this chapter adds attention to the boundary between reported and original content specifically.
Grammar: Attributing and Weighing Sources
This chapter activates three attribution and evaluation tools: によれば for naming a specific source, とされる for reporting a general or widely held characterization without a named source, and と考えられる for presenting your own reasoned conclusion. Together with Chapter 3's argument tools, these let you build a paragraph that is honest about where each claim comes from.
によれば — Attributing a claim to a named source
Purpose: to introduce information as coming specifically from a named person, organization, report, or document, rather than presenting it as the writer's own claim.
- 担当者によれば、費用の大部分は初期投資であり、年々減少している。According to the official in charge, most of the cost is initial investment, and it is decreasing year by year.によれば + attributed claim
とされる — Reporting a general characterization
Purpose: to report a claim, belief, or characterization that is widely held or generally stated, without attributing it to one specific named source and without presenting it as the writer's own view.
- 地域住民の協力がなければ、この制度は機能しないとされる。It is generally said that without the cooperation of local residents, this system will not function.とされる + general characterization
と考えられる — Presenting the writer's own reasoned conclusion
Purpose: to present a judgment or interpretation as the writer's own reasoned conclusion, based on the evidence discussed, rather than as something reported from a source or generally believed.
- 二つの報告書の数字が一致していることから、この結果は信頼性が高いと考えられる。Because the figures in the two reports agree with each other, this result is thought to be highly reliable.と考えられる + writer's judgment
Comparing sources
Purpose: to compare what two or more sources say about the same topic, noting agreement, disagreement, or difference in emphasis, using 比較する and 一致する together with attribution language.
Keep the three attribution tools distinct as you compare sources: use によれば when you can name the exact report, article, or person a claim comes from; use とされる when a claim is commonly stated but you cannot or do not need to name one specific source; and use と考えられる only for your own conclusion after weighing the evidence. A paragraph that compares sources typically states what Source A says (によれば), what Source B says (によれば), whether the two 一致する or differ, and finally what the writer concludes (と考えられる).
〇〇市の報告書（２０２５年）によれば、この制度の参加率は約六十パーセントである。一方で、地元新聞の記事によれば、参加率は五十パーセントにとどまるという。二つの数字は完全には一致していないが、大きな傾向としては近いと言える。この違いは調査方法の違いによるものだと考えられる。
According to the city's 2025 report, participation in this system is approximately sixty percent. On the other hand, according to a local newspaper article, participation remains at only fifty percent. The two figures do not match completely, but it can be said that they are close in overall tendency. This difference is thought to be due to a difference in survey methods.
Grammar Practice
- Write one sentence attributing a claim to a named source using によれば.
- Write one sentence reporting a general characterization using とされる, without naming a specific source.
- Write one sentence of evidence, then a conclusion using と考えられる.
- Write a short comparison of two sources on the same topic, using によれば twice, noting whether they 一致する, and closing with と考えられる.
Model Dialogue
Setting: Emma and 佐藤さん meet in the library to find and evaluate sources for Emma's recycling-program position before the group presents it.
ないようりかい — Comprehension questions:
- What two sources does Emma cite for her participation-rate claim?
- Do the two sources' figures agree with each other? What does Emma say about the difference?
- What does 佐藤さん recommend Emma do with the two sources in her summary?
Guided Practice
タスク１ — Vocabulary in context. Using at least five of the eight core vocabulary words, write three sentences describing a report, article, or survey related to your Chapter 3 position.
タスク２ — Attribution practice. Take one fact you might state in English about a topic you know well, and write it in Japanese twice: once as if attributed to a named source using によれば, and once as a general characterization using とされる.
タスク３ — Conclusion practice. Write two sentences of evidence from different (real or invented but plausible) sources, then a conclusion using と考えられる that draws on both.
タスク４ — Source comparison. Find or invent two plausible sources that give slightly different information on the same topic. Write a short paragraph that attributes each claim with によれば, notes whether they 一致する, and closes with your own conclusion using と考えられる.
Listening Practice
Ask your instructor, a partner, or a text-to-speech tool to read the following passage aloud at a natural pace.
きくタスク — Two surveys on remote work
ある企業の調査によれば、在宅勤務をしている社員の八割が生活の質が向上したと答えている。一方で、別の調査によれば、その割合は六割にとどまるとされる。二つの数字は完全には一致していないが、在宅勤務が多くの社員にとって好意的に受け止められていることは確かだと考えられる。
聞くタスク — Listening task: Identify (1) the two sources mentioned and what each reports, (2) whether the two figures 一致する, and (3) the speaker's own conclusion, and which phrase introduces it.
Speaking Practice
コントロールされた練習 — Controlled practice: Attribution frames
- ＿＿＿＿＿によれば、＿＿＿＿＿。
- ＿＿＿＿＿とされる。
- ＿＿＿＿＿。以上のことから、＿＿＿＿＿と考えられる。
コミュニケーションタスク — Comparing two sources aloud
With a partner, present two (real or plausible invented) sources on the same topic from your own field or interest. State what each source says using によれば, note whether the two 一致する, and close with your own conclusion using と考えられる. Your partner should ask at least one question about your sources' 信頼性.
ひとりでもできる練習 — Solo practice: Recorded source comparison
Record yourself giving the source comparison you wrote in Guided Practice Task 4. Listen back once to check that によれば, とされる, and と考えられる are each used correctly, and once for the intonation shift between reported content and your own conclusion, as described in the Pronunciation Focus above.
Reading Practice
Read the following short report summary, then answer the questions below. Furigana is provided only for the chapter's new vocabulary and one rare reading.
「地域リサイクル制度に関する調査報告」の要約 — Summary of a survey report on the community recycling program
〇〇市の報告書（２０２５年）によれば、地域リサイクル制度に参加している住民の約六十パーセントが、制度の満足度を「高い」と答えている。この報告書は、参加率の増加が資源の無駄の減少と関係していると述べている。一方で、地元新聞の記事によれば、一部の住民は初期費用の高さを不満として挙げているとされる。二つの資料の数字は完全には一致していないが、全体として制度への評価はおおむね肯定的だと言える。この違いは、報告書が制度参加者のみを対象にした調査であるのに対し、新聞記事はより広い住民を対象にした聞き取りに基づいている可能性が高いためだと考えられる。以上のことから、制度の拡大を検討する際には、参加者と非参加者の両方の声を調査に含めることが望ましいと考えられる。
ないようりかい — Comprehension questions:
- What does the city's 2025 report say about resident satisfaction, and how is this claim attributed?
- What does the newspaper article report, and how is this claim attributed differently from the city report?
- Where do the two sources agree, and where might they differ? What explanation does the writer offer for the difference?
- Identify the sentence that uses と考えられる and explain what conclusion it presents as the writer's own judgment.
Writing Workshop
In this workshop you will write a short source-based paragraph on the topic you argued in Chapter 3, now grounding your claim in named sources and your own reasoned conclusion, in addition to the accuracy audit habits from Chapter 1.
- Identify at least one source relevant to your Chapter 3 claim, real or plausible, and state what it reports using によれば.
- Report a general characterization related to your topic using とされる, without attributing it to one named source.
- Note whether your sources 一致する, or where they differ, using 比較する or 一致する directly.
- Close with your own conclusion using と考えられる, drawing on Chapter 3's したがって or 以上のことから if useful.
- Run the four-point audit from Chapter 1: particles, predicate form, register consistency, and clause connection, and confirm that によれば, とされる, and と考えられる are each attached to the right kind of claim.
チェックリスト — Editing checklist:
- My paragraph attributes at least one specific claim to a named source using によれば.
- My paragraph reports at least one general characterization using とされる, without over-attributing it to one source.
- My paragraph notes whether its sources 一致する, or explains a difference between them.
- My paragraph closes with my own conclusion using と考えられる.
- I have not confused によれば, とされる, and と考えられる with one another.
- I have checked every particle and predicate form in my paragraph.
- My paragraph maintains one consistent register from start to finish.
Culture and Communication
Clearly attributing a claim to its source, or clearly marking a claim as a general characterization rather than the writer's own view, is widely valued in Japanese reports, academic writing, and serious journalism as a sign of careful, trustworthy work. Learning to use によれば, とされる, and と考えられる precisely gives you access to this expectation; it is not a claim that every piece of Japanese writing in every genre attributes sources this formally.
How formally a source is cited, and how much detail is expected, differs across newspapers, government reports, academic journals, and casual blogs, and also varies between institutions and fields. A government report may require a full citation of the survey name, date, and sample size, while a newspaper article may simply say 関係者によれば without further detail; both are appropriate within their own genre and context.
Using とされる to report a general characterization does not mean the writer personally endorses that characterization; it simply reports that the view is commonly held or stated. Do not use とされる when you mean to state your own conclusion — reserve と考えられる for that purpose, and reserve によれば for claims you can trace to a specific, identifiable source.
Common Mistakes to Avoid
Error: *によれば、この制度は良い。 — によれば requires a specific source noun immediately before it; leaving the source unnamed defeats its purpose.
Correction: 〇〇市の報告書によれば、この制度は資源の無駄を減らしている。 — always name the specific source that によれば attributes the claim to.
Error: Writing この制度は有益だとされる。 when the writer means to state their own conclusion after weighing the evidence.
Correction: 以上のことから、この制度は有益だと考えられる。 — reserve とされる for reporting what is generally said, and と考えられる for the writer's own reasoned judgment.
Error: Reproducing a source's sentence nearly word for word and simply adding によれば at the front, which blurs the line between summary and copying.
Correction: Restate the source's claim in your own words and sentence structure — for example, 要約する — before attaching によれば, keeping only names, dates, and figures exact.
Chapter Review
Section A — ごい (Vocabulary)
1. Write one original sentence using each of the eight core vocabulary words from this chapter, applied to a source relevant to your Chapter 3 topic.
Section B — もじ (Script)
1. Write the readings for 出典, 調査, 報告書, and 信頼性 from memory, then check them against the Script and Kanji Focus section.
Section C — ぶんぽう (Grammar)
1. Write one sentence using によれば, one using とされる, and one using と考えられる, each applied to your own topic.
2. Explain, in your own words, the difference among によれば, とされる, and と考えられる, giving one original example sentence for each.
Section D — どっかいりかい (Reading comprehension)
1. Look again at the Reading Practice passage about the recycling program survey report. Summarize, in English, what each of the two sources claims and how the writer accounts for the difference between them.
Section E — かくこと (Writing)
1. Complete your source-based paragraph following the Writing Workshop steps, as part of the Practical Performance Task below.
Section F — はなすこと (Speaking)
1. Have or record the source-comparison conversation from Speaking Practice, as part of the Practical Performance Task below.
Practical Performance Task
パフォーマンスタスク
資料を読んで比較する — Reading and comparing sources on your position
Complete both parts below to build on your Chapter 3 position paragraph.
- Written source summary: Write a five-to-seven sentence paragraph that attributes at least one claim to a named source using によれば, reports at least one general characterization using とされる, notes whether your sources 一致する or differ, and closes with your own conclusion using と考えられる. Audit it using the Writing Workshop checklist before submitting.
- Spoken source comparison: Present the same comparison aloud to a partner or instructor, following the model dialogue's pattern, and respond to at least one question they raise about your sources' 信頼性.
Assessment focus: accurate attribution using によれば; correct use of とされる for general characterizations; a clear comparison noting agreement or disagreement between sources using 比較する or 一致する; a well-supported conclusion using と考えられる; accurate use of the chapter's core vocabulary; and comprehensible pronunciation with a clear boundary between reported content and the speaker's own judgment.
Answer Key
Core Vocabulary and Script Review
Open-ended for original sentences; check readings for 出典 (しゅってん), 調査 (ちょうさ), 報告書 (ほうこくしょ), and 信頼性 (しんらいせい) against the Script and Kanji Focus section above.
Grammar Practice
Open-ended, based on each learner's chosen topic and sources. A correct explanation notes that によれば attributes a claim to one specific, named source (e.g., 報告書によれば、参加率は六十パーセントだ); とされる reports a claim as generally said or believed without one identifiable source (e.g., 費用がかかりやすいとされる); and と考えられる presents the writer's own reasoned judgment after weighing evidence (e.g、以上のことから、この制度は有益だと考えられる).
Model Dialogue — Comprehension
- Emma cites the city's 2025 report and a local newspaper article.
- The two sources' figures do not agree completely (sixty percent versus fifty percent); Emma explains that this kind of system commonly has fluctuating figures early on, so she does not consider it a major discrepancy.
- 佐藤さん recommends that Emma include both sources in her summary and explain the reason for the difference in one sentence.
Listening Practice — Model summary
One company survey reports that eighty percent of remote-working employees say their quality of life has improved. A separate survey reports that this figure is only sixty percent. The two figures do not match completely, but the speaker concludes, using と考えられる, that it is certain remote work is viewed favorably by many employees.
Reading Practice — Comprehension
- The city's 2025 report states, attributed with によれば, that about sixty percent of participating residents rate their satisfaction as high, and that increased participation is linked to reduced resource waste.
- The newspaper article reports, also attributed with によれば, that some residents cite the high initial cost as a complaint, marked additionally with とされる as a commonly voiced view rather than the writer's own claim.
- The two sources' figures do not match completely, though the overall evaluation is broadly positive; the writer suggests the difference likely comes from the report surveying only program participants while the newspaper's interviews included a broader range of residents.
- と考えられる appears twice: once explaining the likely reason for the difference between the two sources, and once in the final sentence, concluding that both participants' and non-participants' views should be included in future surveys.
Chapter Review — Sections A and B
Open-ended; check against the Core Vocabulary and Script and Kanji Focus sections above.
Chapter Review — Section C
Open-ended for item 1; see Grammar Practice guidance above. For item 2, see the model explanation above.
Chapter Review — Section D
Model answer: the city report claims high participant satisfaction and a link between participation and reduced waste; the newspaper article reports resident complaints about initial cost as a commonly voiced view; the writer attributes the discrepancy in figures to a difference in who was surveyed (participants only versus a broader resident base).
Chapter Review — Sections E and F, and Practical Performance Task
These are open-ended production tasks. Evaluate the written source summary against the Writing Workshop checklist above, and evaluate the spoken comparison against the assessment focus listed under the Practical Performance Task.
Looking Ahead
いまできること — What you can do now
You can attribute a claim to a named source, report a general characterization without over-attributing it, compare two sources and note where they agree or differ, and close with your own reasoned conclusion, all while keeping these three kinds of statement clearly distinct. Combined with Chapter 2's definitions and Chapter 3's argument structure, you now have the full set of tools this unit set out to build. Chapter 5 draws all of this together into one integrated assessment.