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 actual assigned issue, drawing on relevant supplied or studied materials. A related donor’s prescribed issue does not define the NRW syllabus. 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 choose です・ます or だ・である according to genre, audience and task; an argued piece can use an appropriate consistent style without making one form universally mandatory. 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 a relevant counter-argument when the task calls for evaluation weakens the reasoning; no universal scoring cap is asserted.
- 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.
Mediation and source handling
When writing for a particular recipient, select the information that person needs and explain necessary context. A word-for-word translation can preserve irrelevant material while missing the communicative purpose. Attribute quotations and paraphrases, and do not present an invented recommendation as something the source said. Revision should examine the line of reasoning before isolated vocabulary. A concise explanation with a clear connection between evidence and conclusion is stronger than a string of difficult structures used without purpose.