Kyoto Entrance English case studies
Kyoto Entrance English · Put your knowledge to work in context.
The Kyoto University General Entrance Examination - English component (commonly called Kyoto Entrance English) is the English paper taken by applicants to Kyoto University's general admission route. It is a university-set, high-stakes academic exam, not a certificate in business or conversational English: its purpose is to let Kyoto's faculties judge whether a candidate can read demanding English prose, follow an argument, and render meaning precisely in Japanese and English. The Kyoto Entrance English case studies are 5 cases and about 2,806 words.
1Concession vs. Proof in an Argumentative Passage
At a Kyoto prep seminar, a student is working through an argumentative passage about smartphone use in classrooms. The passage argues: "Although several studies report that phones distract students, it does not follow that banning them raises achievement; distraction is not the same as lost learning, and bans may displace attention to laptops." The student's answer to an inference question reads: "The author proves that phone bans fail." The teacher flags two problems: the verb "proves" and the missing scope of "may." A second question asks for the function of the "Although" clause.
477 words, about 2 min2Relative Clause Scope in Shakudoku Translation
A second-year student translates a shakudoku passage for a Kyoto University practice set. The target sentence is: "The report that the committee commissioned, which critics said ignored rural schools, was released only after the minister, who had promised transparency, added a preface." The student's draft reads: 「委員会が委託した、批評家が農村部の学校を無視したと述べた報告書は、透明性を約束していた大臣が序文を加えた後にようやく公表された。」 The instructor marks two problems: the relative clause "which critics said ignored rural schools" has been attached to the critics' speech rather than to the report, and "only after" has been flattened into a simple sequence.
421 words, about 2 min3Repairing a Japanese-to-English Relative Clause and Nominalized Claim
A Japanese-to-English item asks students to render: 「先生に勧められて読んだその論文は、データの解釈に慎重を期すべきだという点で、私が以前読んだどの研究よりも説得力があった。」 A student submits: "The paper which was recommended by my teacher and I read was more persuasive than any study I had read before in the point that we should be careful about data interpretation." The instructor circles three issues: the relative clause "which was recommended by my teacher and I read" is ungrammatical; "in the point that" is not idiomatic; and the Japanese has no explicit "we," so the English has added a universal subject. The student says the Japanese passive 「勧められて」 forces a passive English clause.
673 words, about 3 min4Qualifying a Thesis Under a Strict Word Limit
An essay prompt asks: "Should universities require applicants to disclose whether they used generative AI in admissions essays?" The instructions cap the response at 140 words and reward a qualified thesis, one concrete criterion, and a concession. Everyone knows rich students can buy better AI, so the system is unfair.
603 words, about 3 min5Integrated Summary Across a Survey and an Operational Study
Two short passages are set for an integrated summary. Passage A: a 2023 survey of 400 remote employees reports that 68% say they are "more productive" at home; the survey was distributed through a company newsletter and had a 22% response rate.
632 words, about 3 min