The Listening Question Where Two Answers Are True
In a listening task, a university student, Mika, is recorded talking about her decision to leave a large Tokyo company after one year to join a small design firm in Fukuoka. She says: the salary is lower; the commute is shorter; she has more say in projects; her parents were opposed at first; and her old colleagues were kind. The question asks: 'Why did Mika change jobs? Choose the best answer.' Options: A) The salary was better. B) She wanted more responsibility over her work. C) Her parents told her to. D) Her colleagues treated her badly. A student chooses D because Mika mentions her colleagues, and another chooses C because her parents are mentioned.
1. Explain why B is the only defensible answer, using the function of each detail in the recording rather than simply matching words.
Read the worked answer
The distractors are built from real words in the recording, which is exactly why they tempt. The skill is working out what each detail is doing.
A is contradicted: she says the salary is lower. A student who hears 給料 and stops listening will pick it.
D is contradicted in substance: she says her old colleagues were kind. The mention exists to show she did not leave because of people - it removes a reason, it does not supply one. Choosing D inverts the meaning.
C is a timing and agency error: her parents were opposed at first. Opposition is not instruction, and 'at first' signals the objection was overcome, not that it caused the move. C turns a background obstacle into a cause.
B matches the one detail stated as a gain she values: more say in projects. It is the only option consistent with the overall shape of the talk - she accepts less money and a smaller company, which only makes sense if what she gains is control over her work.
The general rule: in these tasks, a distractor is often a true detail attached to a false relationship. Ask of each option 'does the recording present this as a reason she moved?' If the detail is mentioned in order to be dismissed, or as something she gave up, it is not the answer.
2. What does Mika's decision suggest about changing attitudes to work among young Japanese employees, and what evidence in the recording supports your reading?
Read the worked answer
Mika's choice inverts the traditional weighting. The post-war Japanese employment model prized stability, seniority and loyalty to a large organisation, with salary and company prestige as markers of success. Mika gives up salary and the security of a big Tokyo firm for autonomy and a shorter commute in a smaller city.
Evidence within the recording: she states the salary is lower, so the move is not financially driven; she cites more say in projects, which is about autonomy rather than pay or status; the shorter commute shows she is weighing quality of daily life, not just the job title; and the fact that her parents opposed it at first, and she went ahead, shows the decision is hers against the older expectation. The detail that her old colleagues were kind matters too - she is not fleeing a bad workplace, so the pull of the new job, not the push of the old one, is doing the work.
Caution: this is one person's account. It is consistent with widely discussed trends (labour shortages giving young workers more options, debate about long hours and work-style reform), but a single recording cannot show that a generation has changed. A precise answer says 'Mika's account suggests' and points to the specific details, rather than claiming all young Japanese workers now reject large companies.