早稲田大学 法学部 傾向対策解答解説 2019問題1
共有です。クリックでシェアできますよ。
目次です。クリックで移動できますよ。
スポンサーさん
早稲田法学部 2019問題1
【大問１ 文章読解】
READING/GRAMMAR SECTION All answers must be indicated on the MARK SHEET.
Read the passage and answer the questions below.
１ In the late １９４０s, the United States Air Force had a serious problem: its pilots could not keep control of their planes. The accidents were so frequent and involved so many different aircrafts that the Air Force had an alarming life-or-death mystery on its hands. At first, the military brass blamed the men in the cockpits, citing “pilot error" as the most common reason in crash reports. This judgment certainly seemed reasonable, since the planes themselves seldom malfunctioned. Engineers confirmed this time and again, testing the planes and finding no defects. Pilots, too, were baffled. The only thing they knew for sure was that their piloting skills were not the cause of the problem. If it wasn't human or mechanical error, what was it?
２ After multiple investigations ended with no answers, officials turned their attention to the design of the cockpit itself. Back in １９２６, when the army was designing its first-ever cockpit, engineers had measured the physical dimensions of hundreds of male pilots (the possibility of female pilots was never a serious consideration then), and used this data to standardize the dimensions of the cockpit. For the next three decades, the size and shape of the seat, the distance to the pedals and control stick, the height of the windshield, even the shape of the helmets were all built to conform to the average dimensions of a １９２６ pilot.
３ Now military engineers began to wonder if the pilots had gotten bigger since １９２６. To update their assessment of pilot dimensions, the Air Force authorized the largest study of pilots that had ever been undertaken. In １９５０, researchers at Wright Air Force Base in Ohio measured more than ４,０００ pilots on １４０ dimensions of size, including thumb length, crotch height, and the distance from a pilot's eye to his ear, and then calculated the average for each of these dimensions. Everyone believed this improved calculation of the average pilot would lead to a better fitting cockpit and reduce the number of crashes - or almost everyone. One newly hired twenty-three-year-old scientist had doubts.
４ Lieutenant Gilbert S. Daniels was not the kind of person you would normally associate with the masculine culture of aerial combat. He was slender and wore eyeglasses. He enjoyed flowers and landscaping. When he joined the Aero Medical Laboratory at Wright Air Force Base out of college, he had never even been in a plane before. But it didn't matter. As a junior researcher, his job was to measure pilots' limbs with a tape measure. It was not the first time Daniels had measured the human body. As a major in physical anthropology, a field that specialized in the anatomy of humans, Daniels had written a graduation thesis on the study of ２５０ male classmates' hands. Unexpectedly, he had found that their hands were not similar at all, even though the students came from very similar ethnic and sociocultural backgrounds. So when the Air Force put him to work measuring pilots, Daniels harbored a private conviction about averages that rejected almost a century of military design philosophy. As he sat in the lab measuring pilots, he kept asking himself the same question in his head: How many pilots really were average?
５ He decided to find out. Using the size data he had gathered from ４,０６３ pilots, Daniels calculated the average of the ten physical dimensions believed to be most relevant for design, including height, chest circumference, and sleeve length. These formed the dimensions of the "average pilot,” which Daniels generously defined as someone whose measurements were within the middle range of values for each dimension. So, for example, even though the precise average height from the data was １７５ cm, he defined the height of the average pilot as ranging from １７０ cm to １８０ cm. Next, Daniels compared each individual pilot, one by one, to the average pilot.
６ Before Daniels crunched his numbers, his colleagues anticipated that the vast majority of pilots would fall within the average range on most dimensions. After all, the pilots had already been preselected because they appeared to be average sized. The scientists also expected that a sizable number of pilots would be within the average range on all ten dimensions. But even Daniels was stunned when he tabulated the actual number: zero. Out of ４,０６３ pilots, not a single airman fit within the average range on all ten dimensions. Even when Daniels picked out just three of the ten dimensions of size, less than ３.５ percent of pilots were average-sized on all three dimensions. Daniels' finding was clear and incontrovertible. There was no such thing as an average pilot. If you've designed a cockpit to fit the average pilot, you've actually designed it to fit no one.
７ Amazingly, and to its credit---the Air Force welcomed Daniels' counterintuitive arguments. “The old Air Force designs were all based on finding pilots who were similar to the average pilot,” Daniels would later explain. “But once we showed them the average pilot was a useless concept, they started fitting the cockpit to the individual. That's when things started getting better.” The Air Force altered its design philosophy to one based on a new guiding principle: individual fit. Aeronautical engineers quickly came up with solutions that were both cheap and easy to implement. They designed adjustable seats, adjustable foot pedals, adjustable helmet straps and flight suits. Pilot performance soared and the U.S. Air Force became even more powerful.
８ Imagine the good that would have resulted if our society had followed suit. Rather than comparing people to a misguided ideal, we could have seen them and valued them---for what they are: individuals. Instead, most schools, workplaces, and scientific institutions continue to believe in the reality of “the average pilot.” They design structures and conduct their research around an arbitrary standard---the average---compelling us to compare ourselves and others to a phony ideal. From the cradle to the grave, you are measured against the ever-present yardstick of the average, judged according to how closely you approximate it or how far you are able to exceed it. The concept of average has been so thoroughly ingrained in our minds that we rarely question it seriously. Despite our occasional discomfort with the average, we accept that it represents some kind of objective reality about people. What if I were to tell you that this form of measurement is almost always wrong? That when it comes to understanding individuals, the average is most likely to give incorrect and misleading results? What if, like the cockpit design, this ideal is just a myth?
Todd Rose. The End of Average How We Succeed in a World That Values Sameness.
(１) Choose the best way to complete the following sentences about Paragraphs １ to ８.
１ In Paragraph １, the author mainly
２ In Paragraph ２, the author mainly
３ In Paragraph ３, the author mainly
４ In Paragraph ４, the author mainly
５ In Paragraph ５, the author mainly
６ In Paragraph ６, the author mainly
７ In Paragraph ７, the author mainly
８ In Paragraph ８, the author mainly
A compels us to resist the idea of average because it perpetuates important individual distinctions.
B credits a mid-century innovation in Air Force design philosophy as having brought about corresponding advances in society at large.
C describes one researcher's attempt to systematically resolve his own doubts about a basic premise in the Air Force's thinking.
D explains that initial aeronautical designs championed the notion of statistical average, which then governed subsequent efforts for many years.
E identifies a troubling issue and how initial suspicions regarding its cause all seemed off the mark.
F illustrates how Daniels' conclusion induced a paradigm shift in the Air Force, and how cockpits came to better accommodate individual particulars.
Ｇ indicates that most researchers, with one notable exception, continued to assume that conventional wisdom could be used to enhance cockpits.
H introduces a skeptic whose past experience led him to wonder whether a prevailing norm was truly valid.
I presents Gilbert Daniels as the lone military scientist who refused to believe that American pilots' bodies could have changed so much in just thirty years.
J problematizes how society habitually obeys the notion of average despite its flaws and artificiality.
K shows that the Air Force's anatomical data had become outdated and that the size of American pilots had grown significantly between １９２６ and １９５０.
Ｌ suggests that the frequency of U.S. Air Force accidents was due to falsified data regarding cockpit dimensions taken back in １９２６.
M tells us how unlikely it had seemed to the participants, until they learned otherwise, that a common belief about pilot size would prove unfounded.
(２) Choose FOUR sentences that are NOT correct according to the passage. You may NOT choose more than FOUR statements.
A Contrary to the author's wishes, society values the idea of average in a way that he believes is unwarranted.
B Daniels was surprised to learn that only three out of every ten airmen could have been considered average-sized.
C In his １９５０ study, Daniels defined average as a single value rather than a numerical range.
D It took nearly three decades for the Air Force to realize that cockpits had become too small for its pilots.
E The Air Force was reluctant to answer Daniels' call to abandon average-based standardization.
F The willingness to overturn conventional thinking served the U.S. Air Force well.
G Using a statistical average to satisfy everyone can end up satisfying no one.
H What Daniels had learned as a student was later confirmed in his professional life.
I When the Air Force undertook its study in １９５０, it still followed a premise established back in １９２６.
(３) Choose the best way to complete each of these sentences, which relate to the
underlined words in the passage.
１ Here “baffled” means
A certain.
B confusing.
C curious.
D puzzled.
E suspected.
２ Here "to conform to” means to
À correct.
B insist.
C measure.
D pursue.
E suit.
３ Here “generously” means
A comprehensively.
B liberally.
C numerically.
D strictly.
E unilaterally.
４ Here "incontrovertible” means
A imaginable.
B inconclusive.
C incredible.
D undeniable.
E unpredictable.
５ Here “phony” means
A fake.
B final.
C personal.
D smart.
E unfair.
(４) Choose the ONE sentence that BEST summarizes the author's main idea in the passage.
A As desirable as the concept of average is, it is inferior to that of individuality, which allows us to better appreciate differences in personality.
B It takes an unlikely and unusual innovator like Gilbert Daniels to reaffirm the true value and utility of the concept of average.
C Society should be more suspicious of false ideals such as average because they often emerged from dubious military thinking of the early twentieth century.
D The dominance of average can have unwanted consequences, and thus we should shift our societal focus from standardization to individualization.
E The social prevalence of individualization is such that even cutting-edge military researchers often could not help but be deceived by it.
早稲田法学部 2019問題1 解答
【大問１ 文章読解 解答】
(１)
１. E
２. D
３. G
４. H
５. C
６. M
７. F
８. J
(２) B, C, D, E
(３)
１. D
２. E
３. B
４. D
５. A
(４) D
早稲田法学部 2019問題1 解説
【大問１ 文章読解 解説】
説明文。長文を読み進めながら適語補充し、まとめて内容理解が問われます。大問１と大問２は同じ形式となります。ある論点に対して、異なる視点が次々に紹介され、情報を整理しながら読解する能力が問われています。
文章内容は、アメリカ空軍の事故の責任を巡って、どのような視点があるのか紹介していきます。制度の問題と科学の問題を、区別して理解しましょう。
【重要表現】
military brass 軍隊幹部 意味解説例文
harbor harbour 胸に抱く 意味解説例文
phony フォーニィ 偽りの 意味解説例文
undertake アンダーテイク 担当する 意味解説例文
早稲田法学部 2019問題1 全訳
【大問１ 文章読解 全文】
１ １９４０年代後半、アメリカ空軍は深刻な問題を抱えていました。パイロットたちは、飛行機を管理できませんでした。事故は非常に頻繁であり、非常に多くの異なる航空機が関与したため、空軍は驚くべき生死の謎を手渡された。当初、軍隊幹部はコックピットにいる男性を非難し、事故報告では最も一般的な理由として「パイロットの間違い」を挙げていました。飛行機そのものが故障することは稀だったので、この判断は、確かに合理的に見えました。技術者はたびたび飛行機検査をして、故障は何も見つかりませんでした。パイロットたちも困惑しました。彼らが確実に知っていたのは、パイロットの技が問題の原因ではないということだけでした。もしそれが人間の誤りか、あるいは機械の誤りではないのなら、一体何だったのでしょうか？
２ 回答が得られずに複数回の調査が終了した後、担当者はコックピット自体の設計に注意を向けました。軍隊が初めてコックピットを設計していた１９２６年に、設計技術者はは数百人の男性パイロットの物理的寸法を測定し(女性パイロットの可能性は決して真剣な考慮事項ではありませんでした)、このデータを、コックピット寸法を標準化するために、使用しました。次の30年間、座席の寸法と形状、ペダルと操縦棒までの距離、前面ガラスの高さ、ヘルメット形状でさえ、すべてが１９２６年のパイロット寸法の平均に適合するように製作されました。
３ 現在、軍事技術者たちは、１９２６年からパイロットが大きくなったのではないかと考え始めました。パイロット寸法の評価を更新するために、空軍はこれまでに実施された最大のパイロット研究を承認しました。 １９５０年、オハイオ州ライト空軍基地の研究者は、親指の長さ、股の高さ、パイロットの目から彼の耳までの距離を含む１４０の寸法について、４,０００人以上のパイロットを測定し、それぞれの寸法の平均を計算しました。この改善された平均的パイロットの計算が、コックピットのより良い使い心地を導き、航空事故の件数を減らすと、全員が信じました。いや、ほぼ全員が信じました。新しく雇われた23歳の科学者1人が、疑いを持っていました。
４ ギルバート・S・ダニエルズ尉官は、一般的には空軍の男性文化から連想する種類の人間ではありません。彼は細身で、眼鏡をかけていました。彼は花と造園を趣味にしていました。彼が大学を出て、ライト空軍基地の航空医学研究所に入社したとき、彼は飛行機に乗った経験すらありませんでした。しかし、それは問題ではありませんでした。若手研究者としての仕事は、巻尺でパイロットの手足を測定することでした。ダニエルズが人体測定したのは初めてではありませんでした。ダニエルズは、人間解剖学の領域に特化し、物理人類学の専攻があり、250人の同級生男性の手の研究に関する卒業論文を書いていました。意外なことに、彼は、学生が非常に似た民族的および社会文化的背景の出身でも、彼らの手はまったく似ていないことを発見しました。そのため、空軍が彼にパイロットの測定作業を任せたとき、ダニエルズは平均についての私信を胸に抱いており、ほぼ1世紀にわたる軍事設計哲学を拒否していました。彼は実験室に座ってパイロットを測定している間、彼は同じ質問を頭の中で続けました。いったいどれくらいのパイロットが実際に平均的なのだろうか。
５ 彼は調べることにしました。ダニエルズは４０６３人のパイロットから収集した寸法データを使用して、身長、胸囲、袖丈など、設計に最も関連すると信じられる１０分野の物理的寸法の平均を計算しました。これらは「平均パイロット」の寸法を形成し、ダニエルズは、測定値が各次元の値の中間範囲内にあるようにゆるやかに定義しました。したがって、例えば、もしデータの厳密な値が１７５ｃｍであっても、彼は平均パイロットの身長を１７０ｃｍから１８０ｃｍの範囲に定義しました。続いて、ダニエルは各パイロットを1人づつ、平均パイロットと比較しました。
６ ダニエルズが彼の標本を計算する前に、彼の同僚は、パイロットの大多数がほとんどの次元で平均範囲内に収まると予想していました。つまり、パイロットは平均的なサイズのように見えるため、既にあらかじめ選考されていました。科学者はまた、かなりの数のパイロットが10次元すべてで平均範囲内にあることを期待していました。しかし、ダニエルズでさえも、実際の数字であるゼロを図表にしたとき、愕然としました。４,０６３人のパイロットのうち、1人のパイロットも、１０次元すべての平均範囲には収まっていませんでした。ダニエルズが１０次元の寸法のうち３つだけを選んだ場合でも、パイロットの３．５パーセント未満が３つの次元すべてで平均寸法でした。ダニエルズの発見は明確で、議論の余地のないものでした。平均パイロットのようなものは存在しませんでした。もし平均パイロットに適合するようにコックピットを設計した場合、実際には誰にも適合しないように設計しています。
７ 驚くべきことに、そしてその功績として、空軍はダニエルズの直観に反する議論を歓迎しました。「古い空軍の設計は、すべて平均パイロットに似たパイロットを見つけることに基づいていました」とダニエルズは後で説明します。「しかし、平均パイロットが役に立たない概念であることを示すと、彼らはコックピットを個人に適合し始めました。その時こそ、物事が好転し始めたのです」空軍は、その設計哲学を、新しい指針である個人適合に基づいたものへと変更しました。航空技術者は、安価で実装が容易な解決方法をすぐに思い付きました。彼らは、調整可能な座席、調整可能なフットペダル、調整可能なヘルメットストラップ、フライトスーツを設計しました。パイロットの成績が急上昇し、米国空軍はさらに強力になりました。
８ 私たちの社会がそれに追随した場合に得られるであろう美点を想像してください。人々を見当違いの理想と比較するのではなく、彼らを見て、彼らを評価することができたはずです。彼らそのもの、つまり個人として。代わりに、ほとんどの学校、職場、および科学機関は、「平均パイロット」の実在を信じ続けています。彼らは、構造を設計し、任意の基準、つまり平均を中心に研究を行っていて、私たちと他人を、偽りの理想と比較するよう強制します。ゆりかごから墓地まで、あなたは平均という常駐尺度と比較測定され、それをどれだけ近づけるか、それをどれだけ超えることができるかによって、判断されます。平均の概念は私たちの心に徹底的に染み込んでいるので、真剣に疑問を呈することはめったにありません。 私たちは、時折、平均値に不快感を覚えますが、それが人々に関するある種の客観的な現実を表していることを受け入れています。この形式の測定は、ほとんど常に間違っていると、私があなたに言ったらどうなるでしょうか。個人を理解するとなれば、平均値は不正確で誤解を招く結果を与える可能性が最も高いのでしょうか。コックピットの設計のように、この理想が単なる神話だとしたらどうでしょうか。
質問と回答を書きこむ
質問と回答