EigoPro 1級読解 — The Arithmetic of Superstars

Why should a violinist marginally more gifted than her peers command a hundred times their income, while a labourer twice as strong earns merely double? The answer lies in what economists now call winner-take-all markets, where rewards are governed not by absolute proficiency but by relative rank. When consumers can effortlessly access the very best, they have scant reason to settle for the second-rate, and the resulting demand cascades disproportionately toward whoever happens to sit at the summit, however slender the margin that secured the position. This dynamic was once held in check by the friction of physical distribution. A celebrated soprano could perform only so many nights, in only so many cities; a local tenor of nearly equal ability still found an audience because the diva could not be everywhere at once. Digital reproduction has demolished that ceiling entirely. A single recording, replicated at negligible cost and streamed across borders, now saturates the entire globe in an instant, and the marginal performer is rendered wholly superfluous. Scarcity of conspicuous talent converges with a limitless supply of its product, and the spoils accrue to a vanishing few while the merely competent are left to scramble for crumbs. The consequences ramify far beyond entertainment. In labour markets increasingly mediated by platforms, algorithms, and public rankings, minute disparities in measured output are mechanically amplified into chasms of compensation, a phenomenon that aggravates inequality even among the ostensibly meritorious. Defenders contend that such concentration rewards genuine excellence and spurs aspirants to strive ever harder. Critics retort that the gulf is largely arbitrary: the difference between the anointed champion and the forgotten runner-up may be imperceptible, even wholly illusory, yet the recompense is staggering and the obscurity absolute. What presents itself as a meritocracy is, on this reading, a lottery dressed in the garb of justice, its outcomes magnified by the indifferent mathematics of scale rather than by any commensurate gap in genuine worth.

5問合格 60%以上普通

新規登録またはログインが必要です

この単元の問題を3問、解説つきで公開しています

1級 · 読解 · 全5問

問 1

Which statement best captures the central argument of the passage?

Technological progress has democratised talent by giving second-rate performers equal access to global audiences.
Digital scale amplifies trivial differences in ability into enormous disparities in reward, concentrating gains among a tiny elite.
The strongest labourers and most gifted artists are rewarded in strict proportion to their measurable productivity.
Consumer preference for variety ensures that rewards are distributed evenly across performers of differing ability.

Phrase

winner-take-all markets

1級読解主旨把握論旨

⚡ひとことで

本文の核心は、わずかな能力差がデジタル規模で巨大な報酬格差へ拡大されるという主張。

選択肢の解説Choice Analysis

「Digital scale amplifies trivial differences in ability into enormous disparities in reward, concentrating gains among a tiny elite.」

正解

本文は "minute disparities in measured output are mechanically amplified into chasms of compensation" と述べ、相対順位で報酬が決まる winner-take-all market の構造を論じる。デジタル複製が "the spoils accrue to a vanishing few" を生むという因果が全体の骨子である。したがって、わずかな差が巨大な格差へ拡大し少数に集中するという要約が最も適切。

「Technological progress has democratised talent by giving second-rate performers equal access to global audiences.」
= 技術が二流の演者にも平等な世界市場へのアクセスを与えたとする説 ━ 本文はむしろ "the marginal performer is rendered superfluous" と述べ、二流が淘汰される逆の結論を示す。。
「The strongest labourers and most gifted artists are rewarded in strict proportion to their measurable productivity.」
= 報酬は測定可能な生産性に厳密に比例するという説 ━ 本文の主眼は比例を破る点にあり、バイオリニストが100倍稼ぐ非比例の謎を冒頭で提起している。。
「Consumer preference for variety ensures that rewards are distributed evenly across performers of differing ability.」
= 消費者の多様性志向が報酬を能力差に関わらず均等にするという説 ━ 本文は消費者が最良を選び二流を避ける "scant reason to settle for the second-rate" を強調し、均等化を否定する。。

▦Collocation

パターン	意味	例
command an income	収入を得る・要求する	Star performers command an income far beyond their rivals.
settle for the second-rate	二流で妥協する	Audiences rarely settle for the second-rate when the best is a click away.
accrue to a few	少数に蓄積する	Profits accrue to a few while the majority earn little.
amplify into chasms	深い溝へ増幅する	Small gaps amplify into chasms once scale enters the equation.
aggravate inequality	不平等を悪化させる	Platform rankings aggravate inequality among similar workers.

❝例文

The market rewards relative rank, not absolute skill.
市場は絶対的技能ではなく相対順位に報いる。
A negligible edge in talent yields an outsized share of the spoils.
ごくわずかな才能の優位が、戦利品の不釣り合いな取り分を生む。
Digital reproduction lets one star saturate the globe.
デジタル複製により一人のスターが世界中を覆い尽くす。
The runner
up is forgotten despite near-equal ability. — ほぼ同等の能力でも次点は忘れ去られる。

💡Tip · 覚えるコツ

GIST 設問では冒頭の問い (なぜ微差が巨大な報酬差を生むか) と結論 (少数への集中) を結ぶ因果を選ぶ。逆の結論や本文が否定する説 (均等化・比例) は誤り。

問 2

According to the passage, why did physical distribution once limit superstar economics?

Recordings were legally restricted, so star performers could not distribute their work widely.
Audiences in the past actively preferred local performers over more celebrated national ones.
Consumers could not yet judge relative quality, so rewards were spread evenly by chance.
A performer could appear in only a finite number of places, leaving room for nearly-as-good local rivals to find audiences.

Phrase

the diva could not be everywhere at once

1級読解詳細把握

⚡ひとことで

物理的配布は スターが同時に複数の場所にいられない ため、近接能力の地元演者にも需要が残った。

選択肢の解説Choice Analysis

「A performer could appear in only a finite number of places, leaving room for nearly-as-good local rivals to find audiences.」

正解

本文は "A celebrated soprano could perform only so many nights" と述べ、"the diva could not be everywhere at once" ゆえに "a local tenor of nearly equal ability still found an audience" だったと説明する。つまり物理的制約 (friction) がスター独占を抑えていた。よって有限の出演機会が地元のライバルに余地を残したとする選択肢が正しい。

「Audiences in the past actively preferred local performers over more celebrated national ones.」
= 聴衆が著名な演者より地元の演者を積極的に好んだとする説 ━ 本文は嗜好ではなく物理的制約 (friction of physical distribution) を理由に挙げており、好みの話ではない。。
「Recordings were legally restricted, so star performers could not distribute their work very widely at the time.」
= 録音が法で制限され広範な配布ができなかったとする説 ━ 本文に法規制への言及はなく、制約は出演の物理的回数 (only so many nights) である。。
「Consumers could not yet judge relative quality, so rewards were spread evenly by chance.」
= 消費者が相対的品質を判断できず報酬が偶然均等になったとする説 ━ 本文は地元演者が "nearly equal ability" でも需要を得たと述べ、判断不能ではなく物理的偏在の問題とする。。

▦Collocation

パターン	意味	例
friction of distribution	流通の摩擦・障壁	The friction of distribution once protected lesser performers.
perform so many nights	限られた回数だけ公演する	A singer can perform only so many nights a year.
find an audience	聴衆を得る	A modest tenor could still find an audience locally.
everywhere at once	同時にあらゆる場所に	No artist can be everywhere at once without recordings.
demolish a ceiling	上限を取り払う	Streaming demolished the ceiling on a star's reach.

❝例文

Live performance is bounded by time and place.
生演奏は時間と場所に制約される。
Geographic limits sheltered second
tier artists. — 地理的制約が二流の芸術家を守った。
One body cannot occupy two stages simultaneously.
一つの肉体が同時に二つの舞台に立つことはできない。
Local talent thrived where the famous could not reach.
有名人が届かない場所では地元の才能が栄えた。

💡Tip · 覚えるコツ

DETAIL 設問は本文の語句に厳密に対応させる。ここでは "only so many nights" と "not be everywhere at once" が根拠。嗜好や法規制など本文外の理由は排除する。

問 3

What does the passage identify as the effect of digital reproduction on the marginal performer?

It increases demand for live local performances as a refuge from mass-produced recordings.
It renders the marginal performer superfluous, since one cheaply copied recording can saturate the whole market.
It distributes income more broadly because copies multiply the number of paid performers.
It allows the marginal performer to compete on equal terms by lowering distribution costs for everyone.

Phrase

the marginal performer is rendered wholly superfluous

1級読解詳細把握

⚡ひとことで

デジタル複製は 限界的な演者を不要にする。一つの録音がほぼ無償で世界を覆うため。

選択肢の解説Choice Analysis

「It renders the marginal performer superfluous, since one cheaply copied recording can saturate the whole market.」

正解

本文は "A single recording, replicated at negligible cost and streamed across borders, now saturates the entire globe in an instant, and the marginal performer is rendered wholly superfluous" と明言する。供給が無限化する一方で才能の希少性が残り、"the spoils accrue to a vanishing few" となる。したがって限界的演者が余剰になるとする選択肢が正しい。

「It allows the marginal performer to compete on equal terms by lowering distribution costs for everyone.」
= 配布費低下で限界的演者も対等に競えるとする説 ━ 本文は逆に余剰 (superfluous) になると述べ、対等化ではなく淘汰を示す。。
「It increases demand for live local performances as a refuge from mass-produced recordings.」
= 量産録音への反動で地元生演奏の需要が増すとする説 ━ 本文に生演奏回帰への言及はなく、むしろ録音が世界を飽和させる方向を論じる。。
「It distributes income more broadly because copies multiply the number of paid performers.」
= 複製が有償演者の数を増やし所得を広く分散するとする説 ━ 複製は一人のスターの作品を拡散するだけで、"a vanishing few" への集中を生む。。

▦Collocation

パターン	意味	例
render superfluous	不要にする	Automation can render whole roles superfluous.
at negligible cost	ごくわずかな費用で	Digital copies spread at negligible cost.
saturate the globe	世界中を覆い尽くす	A viral track can saturate the globe overnight.
converge with supply	供給と重なる・収束する	Scarce talent converges with limitless supply.
a vanishing few	ごく少数	Rewards flow to a vanishing few at the top.

❝例文

A single file can reach billions instantly.
一つのファイルが瞬時に何十億人にも届く。
Copying costs approach zero in the digital age.
デジタル時代には複製費がゼロに近づく。
The near
best loses all once the best is everywhere. — 最良が遍在すれば、ほぼ最良の者は全てを失う。
Abundant supply paradoxically concentrates reward.
豊富な供給が逆説的に報酬を集中させる。

💡Tip · 覚えるコツ

複製の効果を問う DETAIL では "rendered superfluous" と "saturates the entire globe" を結びつける。対等化・分散など本文と反対の方向は誤答。

残り2問は、解いて確かめられます

全5問すべてに、この形式の解説が付いています。間違えた問題は記録され、あとから復習できます。

無料で登録して続きを解く

インストール不要・カード登録なし・いま全機能無料

この単元の講義を見る 1級の単元一覧 1級の用語集

EigoPro 1級 読解 — The Arithmetic of Superstars

この単元の問題を3問、解説つきで公開しています

winner-take-all markets

the diva could not be everywhere at once

the marginal performer is rendered wholly superfluous

EigoPro 1級読解 — The Arithmetic of Superstars