N1 Reading · Test 37

The sentence immediately before ① reads: '今の急速な環境変化には、多くの生物種が適応できずに絶滅する可能性が高いかもしれない。そのため、人間は①大きな問題を起こしているのだ'. The '大きな問題' is that humans are causing rapid environmental change so fast that many species may not be able to adapt and could go extinct. Option 3 captures both key elements: '急速な環境変化を起こして' (causing rapid environmental change) and '絶滅させかねない' (could lead to extinction — matching the '可能性が高いかもしれない' phrasing, i.e. it hasn't happened yet but is a real risk).

• 1This says '特定の生物種だけが影響を受ける' (only specific species are affected), but the passage clearly states '多くの生物種' (many species) are at risk, not just specific ones.
• 2This says '絶滅させてしまった' (have already caused extinction), using the completive てしまった. The passage says extinction is a '可能性が高いかもしれない' (high possibility) — it has not yet happened. This is a deliberate trap confusing potential future outcome with past fact.
• 4This focuses on '広範囲に及ぶ' (wide-ranging impact), but the passage's emphasis is on the speed of change ('急速') and the resulting inability of species to adapt, not on the geographic scope of the impact.

• 急速（きゅうそく） — rapid, swift
• 絶滅（ぜつめつ） — extinction, dying out
• 適応（てきおう） — adaptation, to adapt
• 〜かねない — might (do something undesirable); there is a risk that~

②「このこと」refers to the event described in the preceding sentences: despite the massive ecosystem disruption caused by the meteorite 65 million years ago — which wiped out dinosaurs and many other organisms — some organisms survived ('生き残ったものがいた'), adapted to the new environment, and built diverse ecosystems. The author then concludes from this that organisms are 'タフで、打たれ強い' (tough and resilient). Option 1, '多くの生物が滅びる事態が起きても、耐えうる生物種がいたこと' (even when a situation arose in which many organisms perished, there were species that could endure), accurately summarizes this reference.

• 2This says 'どんな生物にも新たな環境に適応する力があった' (all organisms had the ability to adapt to new environments). The passage only says some survived ('生き残ったものがいた'), not that all organisms had this ability. Dinosaurs and many others did not survive.
• 3This says '個々の生物がさらに強くなった' (individual organisms became even stronger). The passage does not state that organisms became stronger as a result; it says surviving organisms adapted and created new ecosystems. This is a misreading of 'タフで、打たれ強い' as a change that occurred, rather than a characteristic demonstrated.
• 4This says 'すぐに元のように修復された' (quickly restored to the original state). The passage says organisms adapted to a '新たにつくられた環境' (newly created environment) and built '多様な生態系' (diverse ecosystems) — a new ecosystem, not a restoration of the old one.

• 攪乱（かくらん） — disturbance, disruption
• 直面（ちょくめん） — to face, to confront
• 打たれ強い（うたれづよい）（うたれづよい） — resilient, tough (able to take hits)
• 生き残る（いきのこる）（いきのこる） — to survive, to live on

The passage states: '人類は滅びるかもしれないが、その急激に変化する環境をうまく生き抜き、新たにつくられた環境の中で繁栄する生物種が必ず出てくるに違いない'. The author is confident that even if humanity perishes, species that can thrive in the newly created environment will definitely emerge. Option 4, '新たに繁栄する生物種が現れる' (new species that prosper will appear), directly matches this claim.

• 1This says '環境を自ら変えることで生き残る' (survive by changing the environment themselves). The passage says organisms will 'うまく生き抜き' (successfully survive through) the changing environment and adapt to the new environment — it does not say they change the environment themselves.
• 2This says '人類が繁栄していた以前の生態系に戻る' (return to the ecosystem that existed before humanity prospered). The passage emphasizes a '新たにつくられた環境' (newly created environment) and a '新しい生態系' (new ecosystem), not a return to a previous one.
• 3This says '新たな環境変化が起きず安定する' (no new environmental change occurs and it stabilizes). The passage describes ongoing change and new ecosystems being formed, not stabilization.

• 生き抜く（いきぬく）（いきぬく） — to survive through, to pull through
• 繁栄（はんえい） — prosperity, flourishing
• 食物連鎖（しょくもつれんさ） — food chain
• 語り継ぐ（かたりつぐ）（かたりつぐ） — to pass down (a story) to future generations

The final paragraph states: '生態系の善し悪しを考えるときには、誰を中心にするか、いつを基準とするのかによって評価が大きく変わることがわかる。したがって、議論をするときには、その基準を決めなければならないだろう'. The author argues that the evaluation of an ecosystem depends on whose perspective and what time period you use as a reference. This means a human-centered view is not the only possible evaluation — other perspectives exist. Option 1, '人間中心の見方とは別の視点で評価することもできる' (it is possible to evaluate from a perspective different from a human-centered view), captures this idea.

• 2This says '人間以外を基準にして議論するべきである' (should discuss based on non-human standards). The author says the standard must be decided ('基準を決めなければならない'), but does not prescribe that it must be non-human. This overstates the author's position.
• 3This says '生態系の善し悪しは環境を基準にして考えるべきである' (should consider the quality of ecosystems based on the environment). The author discusses '誰を中心にするか' (who to center on) and 'いつを基準とするのか' (what time to use as reference), not '環境を基準' (environment as the standard). This misidentifies the proposed framework.
• 4This says '生態系の評価は時代とともに変わっていくものだ' (evaluation of ecosystems changes over time). The author says evaluation changes depending on what reference point you choose, not that evaluations naturally shift over time. This confuses the author's point about perspective-dependent evaluation with a claim about temporal drift.

• 善し悪し（よしあし）（よしあし） — good and bad, merits and demerits
• 基準（きじゅん） — standard, criterion, reference point
• 評価（ひょうか） — evaluation, assessment
• 議論（ぎろん） — discussion, debate