日本テクニカルコミュニケーション協会
TEP TEST 1級 解答
TEP TEST® (早稲田大学―ミシガン大学テクニカルライティング英語検定試験)
主催:日本テクニカルコミュニケーション協会
後援:アメリカ大使館/日本商工会議所/ジャパンタイムズ

《第61回》 1級解答
1.SUMMARY(20 minutes)

  Summarize the following English text into Japanese.
(200文字以内)
ミシガン州における水圧破砕法の問題点 ミシガン州には天然ガスを内蔵する広大な頁岩(シェール)層があり、シェールガス採取が盛んに行われている。採取には水圧破砕またはフラッキングと呼ばれる議論の多い方法が採用されている。この方法では、化学物質等を含む水を高圧で大量に注入して頁岩を破砕し、ガスを取り出す。フラッキングの問題点は二つある:帯水層の汚染と有害な化学物質を含む破砕液によって環境が汚染される可能性である。

2. EDITING (30 minutes)

  Revise and edit the following material so that it incorporates effective content, structure, and style. Do not limit yourself to mere stylistic revision; rethink the content and arrangement as well.

The instructions for this exercise asked candidates to edit the following material, not limiting themselves to mere stylistic revision but rethinking the content and arrangement as well. 

 

Shipping Magnets Internationally by Air
If you want to ship magnets internationally by air to or from the United States, you must know the regulations of the US Federal Aviation Administration and the International Air Transport Association.   This is because magnets are covered by DGR regulations.

Any package containing magnets must carry the following Dangerous Goods Regulation label.

Flux measurements of all packages containing magnets must measure less than 0.00525 Gauss at a distance of 7 feet from the package. If flux measurements are less than 0.002 Gauss, the package is not considered to contain magnetic material and is not considered to be covered by DGR. A sensitive magnetometer can be used to determine the field strength at different distances.

Packaging materials for air shipment of magnets must be designed to contain the magnetic field produced by the magnets.  Powerful magnet components and assemblies must generally be completely enclosed in steel-lined boxes.

Both the IATA and the FAA classify magnets as “Dangerous Goods” under the specific conditions described above.  This is because a magnetic field could interfere with an airplane’s magnetic compass.  Even with GPS navigation, the basic “wet” compass is still an important part of aircraft navigation.

 

Critique:
We had hoped that in their responses to this editing exercise, candidates would recognize and correct two important problems in the original text.

First, we had hoped that candidates would recognize the most significant problem in the original text, in which the main idea really did not appear until the next-to-the-last sentence in the whole passage.  Instead, the original text merely began by saying that shippers must know “DGR” regulations (whatever those are), if they wish to ship magnets by air to or from the United States.  The obvious question is why?  What problem do the regulations seek to solve? 

As you can see, the first paragraph completely misses the key point that magnets can potentially interfere with the navigation of airplanes; therefore, the FAA and the IATA created regulations that shippers must observe if they wish to ship magnets by air internationally.  The appropriate structure here would have been what we call “Problem/ Solution.”  First the problem; then the solution.  As it is in the original, the movement is solution to problem.  That movement buries the main idea in the final paragraph.

Second, we had hoped that candidates would recognize that the arrangement of the original text is rather illogical.  “Paragraph” 2 of the original talks about the warning label.  “Paragraph” 3 talks about flux measurements that would determine whether or not a particular magnet would indeed be dangerous as defined by the FAA and IATA regulations. “Paragraph” 4 talks about the packaging materials required if a magnet’s flux measurement exceeds a specific quantity.  To us, this original sequence of ideas seemed rather illogical.

We would recommend an arrangement based upon a problem-solving process. That is, what would a shipper have to do to deal with the fact that magnets might interfere with aircraft navigation?  Once a shipper had identified a specific magnet that he or she would like to ship by air, he or she would use flux measurements to determine if that magnet would or would not meet a specific flux standard established by the FAA and IATA.  Once the shipper knew the flux measurement, he or she would know whether or not steel-shielded packaging would be required.  Then after the proper type of packaging had been determined, the shipper would package the magnet for shipping.   Finally, when the packaging had been completed, the shipper would affix the required warning label to the outside of the container.

Now, in passing, let us point out a confusing point related to warning labels in the original passage.  It presents an editing problem that neither we nor any of the TEP Test candidates could have solved without calling up the FAA and the IATA for clarification.  Note that paragraph 2 says,  “Any package containing magnets must carry the DGR label.”  In other words, whether their flux measurements meet a specific standard or not, any package containing a magnet must carry the DGR label. No exceptions.  However, now look at paragraph 3.  It says, “ If flux measurements are less than 0.002 Gauss, the package is not considered to contain magnetic material and is not considered to be covered by DGR.  So does the label need to be put on all packages or not?  Only the FAA and IATA would be able to answer that question.  Thus, as the original text stands, readers could not know for certain whether a label is required or not.   That is clearly a flaw in the original text. (The safe solution for a shipper might be to place the label on all packages.)

In addition to the two main problems that we hoped candidates would recognize, there are at least three other smaller problems in the original text that candidates might have addressed. The first of these appears in paragraph 1, which introduces the term “DGR” with no definition.  Paragraph 2 supplies the definition, “Dangerous Goods Regulation.”   Candidates must remember that acronyms should never precede the full terms for which they substitute.

The second of these minor problems appears in paragraph 3. There are 3 sentences in the paragraph, the first and second of which specify the flux measurement standards that must be determined.  The third sentence identifies the tool by which those measurements can be made:  “a sensitive magnetometer can be used to determine the field strength at different distances.”  Wouldn’t the tool be introduced first?  (e.g., “Use a sensitive magnetometer to determine flux measurements at the following specific distances…..”) 

Finally, a third minor problem of the original text is just plain wordiness and imprecision.  For example, look at the first sentence:  “If you want to ship magnets internationally by air to or from the United States, you must know the regulations of the US Federal Aviation Administration and the International Air Transport Association”.  The first three words are superfluous.  Drop out the “you” and just begin with to statement “To ship magnets internationally by air….”    Then replace “you must know” with “you must observe” or “follow.” Knowing the regulations is not the same thing as doing what they require. Such a minor change will make the text only slightly shorter but more precise. (Another sentence appropriate for polishing is in paragraph 3—the sentence beginning “If flux measurements are less than….” )

Several candidates definitely supplied improved versions of the original passage.  Among them, one candidate provided the following revision:

The Regulations for Shipping Magnets Internationally by Air

Purpose of This Material
Because a magnetic field can interfere with an airplane’s magnetic compass, if you wish to ship magnets internationally, you must conform to the Dangerous Goods Regulations (DGR) of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and the International Air Transport Association (IATA).  This material summarizes those regulations.

Regulations
The regulations for shipping magnets are based upon two criteria for magnetic force and packaging.

1. Magnetic force
Flux measurements of all packages containing magnets must be taken with a sensitive magnetometer.  These measurements must register less than 0.00525 Gauss at a distance of 7 feet from the package if the package is to be shipped by international air.  If  flux measurements are less than 0.002 Gauss, the package is not considered to contain magnetic material and is not considered to be covered by DGR.

2. Packaging
Packaging materials for air transport of magnets must be designed to contain the magnetic field produced by the magnets contained therein.  Powerful magnet components and assemblies therefore must generally be completely enclosed in steel-lined boxes.  In addition, all packages containing magnets must carry the following Dangerous Goods Regulation label:



3. COMPOSITION (70 minutes)

Situation:
You are a Engineer in the Testing Department of the Winter Tire Company of Minneapolis, Minnesota.  You company produces unique types of automobile and truck tires. These tires are designed specifically for winter use in areas where extreme winter conditions are typical.  Such areas often have heavy snow accumulations and ice-covered roads for as many as five months per year.  (Minnesota, Alaska, North Dakota, and Montana are all such areas.)

To cope with these extreme winter conditions, your company produces two specialized types of tires that are to be used only during winter months. These are: (1) “Vulcan tires, ” which are studded with metal studs that can grip the ice, and (2) “Hercules tires, ” which have extremely deep and rugged tread designs to grip snow. Unfortunately, the market for these specialized tires has gradually declined as other tire manufacturers have shifted production to so-called “All Weather” tires that can be left on a vehicle year around.

The decline in sales has concerned your company’s President, James Lott.  To complete successfully with “All Weather” tire manufacturers, President Lott would like to be able to develop research that would document the fact that Vulcan and Hercules tires significantly out-perform “All Weather” tires produced by the three major competitive companies (Akron Tire, Good-Day Tires, and Suzuki Tires.)  At present, no such performance comparisons exist.

At President Lott’s request, your Department Manager, Mr. Lewis Boyken, has called you into his office and instructed you to design a small-scale pilot test to determine if it would be practical for the company to invest in a large-scale comparison test of the sort that President Lott would like to have.

The meeting was brief, and there were no written instructions.  So immediately after the meeting with Mr. Boyken, you quickly wrote down topics that you remember Mr. Boyken mentioning.  (Your notes are attached.)

 

Instructions:
Using whatever information you wish from the attached notes, and adding any useful information you would like to invent, write a proposal for a small-scale test of Winter Tires against “All Weather” tires.

(attachment)

You notes of issues mentioned by with Mr. Boyken:
(Here listed in alphabetical order.)

Budget?
Drivers?
Ice conditions?
Location?
Results: recording, presentation?
Snow conditions?
Schedule?
Tires to be tested?
Temperature ranges?
Test design?  (e.g., Acceleration, Braking, Skid, Hill Climb.  Others?)
Time required?
Vehicles? 

About the audience for your proposal:
This composition assignment requires candidates to compose a proposal to an audience that might appear to consist of just two persons (President Lott and Manager Boyken).  In fact, of course, such a proposal might potentially involve other readers at Winter Tires because other departments and people would definitely be affected if the proposal were approved by the two principal readers. In fact, Lott and Boyken might consult with other people during their evaluation of the proposal. The implication of that fact is that your proposal does need to begin with an introduction that would inform other potential readers of problem and purpose behind your proposal.  Of course, Lott and Boyken would know the background, but other readers would not.  (We make this initial point because several candidates omitted any heading or introduction in their proposals, beginning by simply saying, “Dear Mr. Boyken, I propose….” )

About the format and structure of your proposal:
The format is almost certain to be a memorandum format. Oh, it could be letter format, but memorandum format is more likely.  In either case, the proposal would require heading information, an introduction, and an initial summary of the basic concept of your proposal. Unfortunately, quite a few candidates omitted some of these three elements. Many omitted the summary.  It is essential that a summary provide a succinct synopsis of the concept of your proposal. As a proposal addressed to top administrators, your memorandum needs to catch their attention and evoke a positive response immediately.  (To dive into detail right away is usually a mistake in almost any report or memo.  Instead, provide an overview up front.)

After the brief summary, of course, the discussion needs to provide detail about what you propose, but the discussion section should still be quite selective in explaining your basic concept.  You can achieve this selectivity in the discussion by attaching detail after the discussion. That is the obvious way to avoid overloading the discussion itself.  In any case, remember that this proposal’s purpose is not to provide sufficient detail to actually implement a test; rather, its purpose is only to convey a persuasive concept of how a small-scale test might be done.

As for the topics that you choose to discuss in the body of your memorandum, selectivity and sequence are both of concern.  From the list of topics in your notes (see the assignment), you certainly do not need to discuss all of them.  Nor should you discuss them in the arbitrary alphabetical order indicated in the assignment.  Rather, you must choose the topics that need discussion, relegating other topics to the attachments.  Moreover, we suggest that you order the sequence of your topics in a descending order of importance.


出題例ページへ
日本テクニカルコミュニケーション協会(JATEC)
〒150-0002 東京都渋谷区渋谷 1-20-1 TEL:(03) 3406-3731/FAX:(03) 3486-7634
Copyright(C)2004 Japan Association for Technical Communication. All Rights Reserved.