Extended Response in Japanese on the Prescribed Issue: Building a Reasoned Argument
What the extended Japanese response demands
This task asks you to write a sustained response in Japanese on the prescribed issue, drawing on the texts and ideas studied during the course. You are assessed on relevance to the issue, depth of argument, organisation, and control of Japanese (range of structures, appropriate register, accuracy). A description of your feelings is not enough; you need a position, reasons, and evidence or examples. Plan for two to three minutes before writing: state your 立場 (standpoint), list two or three 根拠, and decide on a counter-argument you will acknowledge and rebut.
Concepts you must control
Use a clear essay architecture: 導入 (issue restated and position signalled) → 本論 (one paragraph per reason, each with a topic sentence, explanation, and example) → 反論の検討 (確かに〜という意見もあるが) → 結論 (restated position, perhaps with a condition or proposal). Deploy argument language deliberately: 〜という点から見れば、〜と考えられる、その一方で、したがって、〜ざるを得ない、〜にほかならない. Vary sentence types - use nominalised forms (〜こと、〜という事実) to sound academic, and avoid over-relying on です・ます in a formal essay; だ・である調 is usually appropriate for an argued piece, but keep it consistent. Connect to the prescribed issue's key vocabulary explicitly so the examiner sees relevance.
Traps that appear in questions
- Drifting off the issue into a general opinion piece; keep returning to the issue's specific terms.
- Listing reasons without development - each reason needs a なぜなら／というのは explanation.
- Ignoring the counter-argument, which caps depth marks.
- Register mixing: switching randomly between です・ます and だ・である.
- Overlength or underlength: a response far beyond the guide wastes time and invites error; plan paragraph count to fit.
- Unsupported assertion: 「私はそう思う」 without grounds earns little.
Worked example and rule of thumb
If the issue concerns technology and human connection, a strong opening might read: 「技術の進歩は人と人とのつながりを深めたのか、それとも薄めたのか。私は、使い方次第で深めうると考える。」 Then one paragraph on access, one on shallow communication, a concession (確かに直接の対話は減った), and a conclusion proposing a condition. Rule of thumb: every paragraph should contain one clear claim plus one reason plus one illustration - if a paragraph lacks a reason, cut or merge it.