Kyoto Entrance English flashcards

32 cards. Read the term and the definition here. The deck at the top of this page is optional.

Thesis vs. topic

A topic names the subject ('urban farming'); a thesis states an arguable position about it plus a reason ('urban farming should be subsidized because it reduces food miles'). Only the thesis can anchor an argumentative essay.

Concession-rebuttal structure

The author grants an opposing point ('admittedly', 'granted'), then returns to the main claim ('however', 'even so'). The author's actual position is what follows the concession, not the conceded point itself.

Scope-word answer filtering

Options containing all, only, primarily, or most must match the passage's exact scope. An option that is true but broader or narrower than the text's hedge ('tends to', 'some') is incorrect even if factually plausible.

Claim versus evidence

A claim is general and contestable; evidence is specific (data, example, quotation). Questions asking why an author cites something are answered by the claim the evidence supports, not by the evidence's own content.

Inference question constraint

Inference answers require exactly one logical step from stated text. An option needing outside knowledge, or two chained assumptions, exceeds the passage and is out of scope regardless of its truth.

Antecedent resolution rule

For 'this' or 'such a view', the antecedent is normally the nearest preceding noun phrase that fits both grammar and meaning. Read backward, not forward, when resolving demonstratives.

Shakudoku working order

Find the finite verb and subject, bracket subordinate clauses, then reorder into Japanese SOV with the predicate last. English postmodification becomes Japanese premodification; translate meaning, not word order.

Hedge strength preservation

Modal force must survive translation: may → かもしれない, must → にちがいない, should → すべきだ, can → しうる. Upgrading a hedge to a flat assertion is a translation error, not a stylistic choice.

Partial versus full negation

'Not all X are Y' means some X are not Y (部分否定); 'all X are not Y' means none are (全体否定). Japanese must mark the difference explicitly, since the English word order alone can mislead.

English passive to Japanese

English passives often become Japanese active or intransitive forms, or ～される／～によって. Choose by whether the agent matters; mechanical ～される for every passive produces unnatural Japanese.

Article and number omission

Japanese frequently omits English articles and number distinctions: 'a dog' and 'dogs' may both be 犬. Definiteness still matters for reference, so decide what the Japanese must make explicit.

Technical term equivalence

Terms with established Japanese equivalents (仮説, 遺伝子, 需要と供給) should use them. Inventing katakana for a term that already has a standard translation reads as mistranslation to examiners.

Japanese clause chaining

Japanese chains clauses with ～て, ～が, ～ので before a final predicate. English requires mapping each to a finite clause, participial phrase, or prepositional phrase, with the final predicate rendered first in analysis.

Null subject supply

Japanese omits subjects freely; English finite clauses require an explicit subject except imperatives. Infer the subject from context, supply it, and keep it consistent across the English sentence.

Wa versus ga in translation

は typically marks given information, favoring definite articles or topic position; が typically introduces new information, favoring indefinite articles or focus constructions. The choice affects English article selection.

Japanese nominalization unpacking

Japanese packs clauses into nouns (～こと, ～という事実, ～の可能性). English prefers verbs and clauses: 彼が来たという事実 becomes 'the fact that he came' or simply 'that he came'.

Tense-aspect mapping

Japanese ～ている is present progressive when the action is ongoing and present perfect when it is a resultant state. ～た is past or perfect. Select from context, not from the form alone.

Connector logical mapping

Match the logical relation, not the dictionary gloss: しかし→however, したがって→therefore, ところが→yet, なぜなら→because, つまり→in other words. A wrong connector changes the argument's structure.

Arguable thesis test

A thesis must be specific and deniable: it names a position plus a reason. If no reasonable person could disagree, it is a summary or topic statement, not an argumentative thesis.

Paragraph unity rule

Each paragraph carries one controlling idea, stated in a topic sentence, supported by evidence, and closed by a link to the thesis. Two unrelated ideas in one paragraph should be split.

Counterargument requirement

Strong argumentative essays state the strongest opposing view fairly, then show its limit or why the author's reason outweighs it. Omitting the counterargument weakens the essay's credibility.

Evidence integration pattern

Introduce the source, present the evidence, then interpret it ('This suggests that...'). An uninterpreted quotation does not support a claim and reads as dropped-in material.

Comma splice and fragment

A comma splice joins two independent clauses with only a comma; a fragment lacks a finite predicate or complete thought. These are the most frequent mechanical penalties in timed essays.

Formal register constraints

Formal academic prose avoids contractions, slang, and unsupported first-person anecdote. Use 'one' or recast to avoid generic 'you'; reserve personal narrative for prompts that invite it.

Affect versus effect

Affect is usually a verb meaning to influence; effect is usually a noun meaning result. 'The policy affected the market' versus 'the policy had an effect on the market'.

Lie versus lay

Lie is intransitive (recline): lie, lay, lain. Lay is transitive (put something down): lay, laid, laid. 'Lay down' without an object is a classic error.

Imply versus infer

The speaker implies (suggests indirectly); the listener infers (draws a conclusion). Reversing them is a frequent vocabulary-item distractor in context sentences.

Result in versus result from

Result in introduces the effect ('the delay resulted in losses'); result from introduces the cause ('the losses resulted from the delay'). The preposition reverses the causal direction.

Subject-verb agreement traps

Intervening prepositional phrases do not change the head noun ('the list of items is'). Each, every, either, and neither take singular verbs; 'the number of' is singular, 'a number of' plural.

Dangling modifier rule

An introductory participial phrase modifies the subject of the main clause. 'Walking home, the rain began' fails because the rain was not walking; the subject must be the agent of the participle.

Listening: restatement signals

'That is', 'in other words', and 'what this means is' introduce a paraphrase that often matches the correct answer option. Treat restatement markers as answer-location cues during lectures.

Two-passage relation types

Cross-passage relations are agreement, factual disagreement, interpretive disagreement, or differing scope. An integrated summary must state which relation holds, not merely summarize each passage separately.