EigoPro 1級 読解 — The Price of Necessity: Water as Commodity

Few resources expose the tension between market logic and moral obligation as starkly as water. Proponents of commodification contend that assigning water a genuine market price is the surest remedy for the profligacy that plagues subsidised systems. Where water is nearly free, they argue, it is squandered: aquifers are drained, crops are flood-irrigated, and conservation has no champion. A price signal, by contrast, disciplines consumption, directs the resource toward its most productive uses, and mobilises the capital needed to repair leaking infrastructure that public budgets perennially neglect. Yet this elegant economic syllogism collides with an awkward fact: water is not a discretionary good but a biological imperative. To ration it by willingness to pay is to ration it by ability to pay, and the two diverge violently across the income spectrum. When tariffs rise, the affluent merely adjust their landscaping while the indigent forgo the very litres on which survival depends. Critics therefore denounce commodification as a regressive levy that monetises a human right, converting a commons into a ledger entry and the thirsty into delinquent debtors. The more sophisticated defenders of pricing concede the point and reach for a hybrid: a lifeline tariff that supplies a survival ration gratis or near-gratis, with steeply escalating rates thereafter. Such schemes aspire to harness the efficiency of markets without abandoning the poor to their mercy. But administering them demands metering, billing apparatus, and regulatory vigilance that many water-stressed states conspicuously lack, and the lifeline volume, once politicised, tends to creep upward until the original distortion reasserts itself. The debate thus resists tidy resolution. Whether water can be priced without being effectively privatised, and whether equity can be engineered into a tariff without dissolving the discipline that justified the price in the first place, remains the unresolved crux. What is clear is that to treat water as merely another tradable good is to mistake the conditions of life for an ordinary article of commerce.

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?

  • Lifeline tariffs have definitively solved the conflict between market efficiency and equitable access to water.
  • Water shortages are caused primarily by leaking infrastructure that only privatisation can repair.
  • Subsidised water systems are universally superior because they protect the poor from exploitation by private interests.
  • Pricing water promises efficiency but cannot easily reconcile that aim with the moral claim that water is a necessity rather than ordinary merchandise.
Phrase

The debate thus resists tidy resolution.

1級読解主旨把握論旨
⚡ひとことで

本文は水の商品化が効率と公平の両立を達成できないジレンマを論じる。

選択肢の解説Choice Analysis

「Pricing water promises efficiency but cannot easily reconcile that aim with the moral claim that water is a necessity rather than ordinary merchandise.」

正解

本文は冒頭で「market logic and moral obligation」の緊張を提示し、価格付けが効率を約束する一方で水が必需品である事実と衝突すると論じる。最終文の「to mistake the conditions of life for an ordinary article of commerce」が筆者の核心的立場を示す。効率の利点も公平の懸念も両論併記したうえで未解決と結ぶ点が主旨である。

  • 「Subsidised water systems are universally superior because they protect the poor from exploitation by private commercial interests.」

    = 補助金システムが常に優れていると断じる選択肢 ━ 本文は補助制度が浪費(profligacy)を招くと批判しており、無条件に優れるとは述べていない。。

  • 「Lifeline tariffs have definitively solved the conflict between market efficiency and equitable access to water.」

    = 二段階料金が対立を完全解決したとする選択肢 ━ 本文は lifeline tariff が運用上の困難を抱え「resists tidy resolution」と述べ、解決済みとはしていない。。

  • 「Water shortages are caused primarily by leaking infrastructure that only privatisation can repair.」

    = 漏水修復には民営化のみが有効とする選択肢 ━ 本文は漏水修復を価格付けの利点の一つに挙げるに留まり、民営化が唯一の解とは主張していない。。

▦Collocation
パターン意味例
reconcile A with BAとBを両立させるIt is hard to reconcile profit with public welfare.
resist resolution解決を拒むEthical dilemmas often resist easy resolution.
moral obligation道徳的義務Governments have a moral obligation to the poor.
central argument中心的論点The central argument hinges on fairness.
capture the essence本質を捉えるHer summary captures the essence of the debate.
❝例文

  • The article weighs efficiency against equity without taking sides.

    その記事は効率と公平を秤にかけ、どちらにも肩入れしない。

  • Treating a necessity as a commodity raises moral questions.

    必需品を商品として扱うことは道徳的問題を提起する。

  • The author concludes that the tension remains unresolved.

    筆者はその緊張が未解決のままだと結論づける。

  • A price signal can both discipline and exclude consumers.

    価格シグナルは消費者を律しもし、排除もしうる。

💡Tip · 覚えるコツ

主旨問題では極端な断定(universally / definitively / only)を含む選択肢は誤答であることが多い。本文の両論併記の調子と一致するかを確認しよう。

問 2

According to proponents of commodification, what is the chief benefit of attaching a market price to water?

  • It immediately ends all leakage from ageing pipe networks.
  • It eliminates the need for any government regulation of water supply.
  • It guarantees that low-income households receive a free survival ration.
  • It curbs wasteful overuse and channels water toward its most productive applications.
Phrase

directs the resource toward its most productive uses

1級読解詳細把握
⚡ひとことで

価格は浪費を抑え、水を最も生産的な用途へ振り向けると主張される。

選択肢の解説Choice Analysis

「It curbs wasteful overuse and channels water toward its most productive applications.」

正解

第1段落で推進派は「A price signal... disciplines consumption, directs the resource toward its most productive uses」と述べる。無料に近い水は squandered(浪費)されると指摘し、価格がその規律を与えるとする。よって浪費抑制と最適配分が主たる利点である。

  • 「It guarantees that low-income households receive a free survival ration.」

    = 低所得世帯への無料配給を保証するとの主張 ━ 無料の生存配給はライフライン料金(第3段落)の話で、推進派の主たる利点ではない。。

  • 「It eliminates the need for any government regulation of water supply.」

    = 政府規制を一切不要にするとの主張 ━ 本文はむしろ regulatory vigilance の必要を述べており、規制撤廃は語られていない。。

  • 「It immediately ends all leakage from ageing pipe networks.」

    = 老朽管の漏水を即座に止めるとの主張 ━ 本文は価格が修復資本を mobilise すると述べるが、即時解消とは書かれていない。。

▦Collocation
パターン意味例
discipline consumption消費を律するHigher tariffs discipline household consumption.
direct toward〜へ振り向けるIncentives direct funds toward research.
productive use生産的な用途Scarce water should flow to productive uses.
mobilise capital資本を動員するThe reform mobilised private capital quickly.
curb waste浪費を抑えるMetering curbs domestic water waste.
❝例文

  • Pricing forced farmers to abandon flood irrigation.

    価格付けは農家に冠水灌漑をやめさせた。

  • A clear price signal discourages reckless consumption.

    明確な価格シグナルは無謀な消費を思いとどまらせる。

  • Revenue from tariffs funds long

    deferred repairs. — 料金収入が長年先送りされた修繕を賄う。

  • Cheap water tends to be squandered by everyone.

    安い水は誰もが浪費しがちだ。

💡Tip · 覚えるコツ

「最も生産的な用途へ振り向ける」は経済学の効率配分(allocative efficiency)の言い換え。設問が誰の主張かを問うときは段落の話者を特定すること。

問 3

What practical obstacle does the passage identify for lifeline tariff schemes?

  • Many water-stressed states lack the metering, billing, and regulatory capacity such schemes require.
  • Markets are inherently incapable of generating any efficiency gains.
  • The free survival ration is technically impossible to measure at all.
  • Wealthy households refuse to pay any tariff above the survival ration.
Phrase

metering, billing apparatus, and regulatory vigilance that many water-stressed states conspicuously lack

1級読解詳細把握
⚡ひとことで

ライフライン料金には計量・請求・規制能力が要るが、多くの国がそれを欠く。

選択肢の解説Choice Analysis

「Many water-stressed states lack the metering, billing, and regulatory capacity such schemes require.」

正解

第3段落は「administering them demands metering, billing apparatus, and regulatory vigilance that many water-stressed states conspicuously lack」と明記する。さらにライフライン量が政治化されて上昇する傾向も指摘される。よって行政・技術的能力の欠如が実務上の障害である。

  • 「Wealthy households simply refuse to pay any tariff at all above the basic survival ration.」

    = 富裕層が生存配給を超える料金を拒むという主張 ━ 本文は富裕層が landscaping を調整できると述べており、支払拒否は言及されていない。。

  • 「The free survival ration is technically impossible to measure at all.」

    = 生存配給量が計測不能だとする主張 ━ 本文は計量設備を states が欠くと述べるのみで、計測自体が不可能とは言っていない。。

  • 「Markets are inherently incapable of generating any efficiency gains.」

    = 市場が効率を一切生み出せないとする主張 ━ 本文は市場の efficiency を harness しようとすると述べており、市場の効率を否定していない。。

▦Collocation
パターン意味例
conspicuously lack目立って欠くThe region conspicuously lacks clean water.
administer a scheme制度を運用するOfficials struggle to administer the subsidy scheme.
regulatory vigilance規制上の監視Banking demands constant regulatory vigilance.
billing apparatus請求の仕組みThe utility built a new billing apparatus.
creep upwardじわじわ上昇するCosts tend to creep upward over time.
❝例文

  • Without meters, fair pricing is impossible to enforce.

    計量器なしでは公正な価格を強制できない。

  • Weak regulators allow tariffs to drift from their purpose.

    脆弱な規制当局は料金を本来の目的から逸脱させる。

  • The free allowance expanded after every election.

    無料枠は選挙のたびに拡大した。

  • Poor billing systems undermine well

    designed reforms. — 粗末な請求制度はよく練られた改革を台無しにする。

💡Tip · 覚えるコツ

詳細問題は本文の具体的名詞(metering, billing, regulatory)を含む選択肢が正解になりやすい。一般化しすぎた断定(impossible, incapable)は警戒する。

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