Your learning plan · Continue · Review →
保存した位置はこのブラウザに留まります。再開してもImplementedの完了や回答にはなりません。
The right answer is not always written down
-
Your goal: distinguish a supported reading from a plausible guess, and track whose view a passage reports. Start with information and missing evidence.
-
Reading can require stated information or a conclusion supported by connected evidence. Neither kind automatically outranks the other: choose what answers the question. A plausible claim without support cannot be accepted as true merely because it sounds sensible.
-
Original example: “After the new timetable, evening visits rose from 80 to 160.” The two counts are stated; comparison supports a rise and doubling. Student popularity is not established: visits are not a survey of attitudes. In an information/claims task, recognizing that missing evidence can correctly lead to NOT GIVEN. The passage cannot read visitors' minds.
Original passage: After the timetable changed, evening visits rose from 80 to 160. Which option directly repeats the stated counts?
難易度 1/5 · 100 コイン + 今日初回完了時に小ボーナス付与
The first option directly repeats the stated figures. Twice as many is a supported calculation from 160 and 80, not an inferior answer in a task asking for that comparison. Student approval is not reported.
Distinguish evidence without ranking valid answers
- Stated or paraphrased: the complete meaning matches the text. Supported conclusion: connected evidence justifies the conclusion. For the numerical example, 160 is twice 80; neither label makes the writer endorse an unstated reason for the change.
- Merely consistent: a claim could be true or false without changing the passage. Do not select it as supported. For TRUE/FALSE/NOT GIVEN or YES/NO/NOT GIVEN, distinguish missing evidence from contradiction instead of treating every unsupported statement as false.
Put this evidence-checking routine in a usable order.
難易度 3/5 · 200 コイン + 今日初回完了時に小ボーナス付与
This is one helpful routine, not an official mandatory order. Stated information and supported inference can both answer a question; neither automatically outranks the other.
Qualifiers decide whether an inference holds
- Watch strength and scope. “All twelve tested lamps worked” supports at least one working lamp in that tested group, but not success for every lamp made. A claim about some lamps does not establish success for all lamps. Read some as at least one here, not as proof of not all.
- Watch time and scope. “Has worked in trials so far” does not establish “will work in general”. An inference that widens the passage's time, place or population is usually a guess in a tailored suit.
- For factual conclusions, ask whether the evidence establishes the claim. For a writer's attitude or purpose, compare the interpretations with the full wording: choose the best-supported reading, rather than demand that every reading question behave like an arithmetic proof.
If an option is plausible and does not contradict the passage, it is a correct inference answer.
難易度 1/5 · 100 コイン + 今日初回完了時に小ボーナス付与
Plausibility and lack of contradiction do not establish support. For a missing-evidence task, that same lack of support may justify NOT GIVEN. Judge the requested task and the actual evidence.
The trap answer is plausible on purpose
- Some wrong options borrow your world knowledge. A passage about falling rainfall may suggest “farmers planted less” — a possible story, but not evidence of a planting decision.
- Before choosing, point to the wording that supports the interpretation. If the explanation comes only from your experience, look again. For a missing-evidence label, explain what the passage leaves unsettled instead of inventing a supporting sentence.
Original passage: All twelve lamps tested in the workshop worked. Statement: Every lamp manufactured by the company works. Choose TRUE, FALSE or NOT GIVEN.
難易度 1/5 · 100 コイン + 今日初回完了時に小ボーナス付与
NOT GIVEN. The tested twelve are a limited group. No result for every manufactured lamp is supplied, and no failed lamp is described to establish FALSE. Keep the claim within the tested scope.
Original passage: Rainfall fell for a third consecutive year. The reservoir held 80 units two years ago, 60 last year and 40 now. Match each claim to its evidence description.
難易度 2/5 · 140 コイン + 今日初回完了時に小ボーナス付与
40 is stated directly, and 40 is half of the earlier 80. The numbers supply the comparison; rainfall decline alone would not establish those reservoir levels. No farming decision is supplied.
A worked decision, sentence by sentence
- Original passage: “Rainfall fell for a third consecutive year. The reservoir held 80 units two years ago, 60 last year and 40 now.” “The reservoir holds half its amount from two years ago” is supported by the figures: 40 is half of 80. The rainfall trend alone would not establish the individual earlier reservoir levels; the explicit figures supply that evidence.
- “Farmers reduced their planting” is not established: no planting decision appears in the passage. Nor do the figures by themselves prove that rainfall was the only cause. Keep a supported comparison separate from an explanation the text has not supplied.
Where inference earns marks, and what to do next
- Evidence reasoning supports several task families, but answer the requested task. In a views/claims task, use YES for agreement, NO for contradiction and NOT GIVEN when the writer's position is neither supported nor contradicted. Reporting another person's view does not by itself show endorsement.
- Next step: take one timed Academic Reading set from the practice list and label every wrong answer with its rung — stated, supported or guessed. The label tells you which habit to repair, and lesson 0302's decision tree is the companion for TRUE / FALSE / NOT GIVEN.
- Sources checked on 15 October 2026: official IELTS Academic Reading format. All passages and claims in this lesson are original practice material; they teach evidence decisions and predict no official score.
- Use the evidence that answers the question. Distinguish a supported conclusion, a contradiction and an unsettled claim; do not replace a missing writer's position with your own opinion.
New context: “Since the café introduced a quiet-work room, laptop users stay on average forty minutes longer.” Which conclusion is supported?
難易度 1/5 · 100 コイン + 今日初回完了時に小ボーナス付与
Staying longer than before entails a shorter previous stay. Profit and preference are plausible but need evidence the passage never provides — revenue, prices and preferences are all unmentioned.
In a YES / NO / NOT GIVEN question about the writer's views, the passage describes both sides of an argument and the writer never commits. The statement says the writer supports one side. What is the answer?
難易度 1/5 · 100 コイン + 今日初回完了時に小ボーナス付与
Describing a position is not adopting it. Without a statement of the writer's own view there is nothing to agree or disagree with — NOT GIVEN, and NO would wrongly claim the writer takes the opposite view.
Three worked writers' claims
- Agreement: Original writer: “Although the trial was expensive, I recommend keeping the evening service.” Statement: “The evening service should continue.” YES: the recommendation supplies the writer's position. Mentioning a cost is not itself rejection of the service.
- Contradiction: Original writer: “A larger audience alone does not prove that a programme is better.” Statement: “A larger audience is sufficient proof of a better programme.” NO: the writer explicitly rejects sufficiency. Preserve alone and sufficient when comparing.
- Attribution: Original writer: “The organiser calls the new hall essential. The report lists the proposed rooms and their sizes.” Statement: “The new hall is essential.” NOT GIVEN for the writer's position: the organiser holds the quoted view; the writer has not adopted or opposed it. The quoted word is evidence of attribution, not a vote by the writer.
Original passage: I support keeping the village library open, even though the building needs repair.
Statement: The village library should remain open.
Does the statement agree with the writer’s views or claims?
難易度 1/5 · 100 コイン + 今日初回完了時に小ボーナス付与
I support keeping it open states agreement, so YES. Acknowledging repair needs does not reject the library. Read the recommendation alongside the drawback.
Original passage: The manufacturer calls the device revolutionary. I find that claim exaggerated.
Statement: The device deserves to be called revolutionary.
Does the statement agree with the writer’s views or claims?
難易度 1/5 · 100 コイン + 今日初回完了時に小ボーナス付与
The writer rejects the manufacturer’s description as exaggerated, so NO. The quoted praise belongs to someone else and is explicitly challenged. Track attribution and response.
Original passage: Two residents favour the new hall. Three residents have raised concerns about it.
Statement: Building the new hall is a good idea.
Does the statement agree with the writer’s views or claims?
難易度 1/5 · 100 コイン + 今日初回完了時に小ボーナス付与
The passage reports residents’ views without supplying the writer’s judgement, so NOT GIVEN. Neither side’s opinion can automatically become the writer’s own position.
Original passage: Cost matters, but safety must come first in this decision.
Statement: Cost should have priority over safety.
Does the statement agree with the writer’s views or claims?
難易度 1/5 · 100 コイン + 今日初回完了時に小ボーナス付与
Safety must come first contradicts cost having priority, so NO. The acknowledgement that cost matters is weaker than making it the first priority. Preserve the comparison.
Original passage: The survey is small, so its results should be treated cautiously.
Statement: The survey results require caution.
Does the statement agree with the writer’s views or claims?
難易度 1/5 · 100 コイン + 今日初回完了時に小ボーナス付与
The writer explicitly recommends caution, so YES. That is not the same as saying the results are useless or must be ignored. Match the strength of the claim.
Original passage: The organiser predicts a larger audience next year. The article lists this year’s programme.
Statement: A larger audience would make next year’s programme better.
Does the statement agree with the writer’s views or claims?
難易度 1/5 · 100 コイン + 今日初回完了時に小ボーナス付与
An organiser’s prediction and a programme list do not establish the writer’s judgement of quality, so NOT GIVEN. Audience size is not automatically evidence of the writer’s approval.
Original passage: A new bridge might help, but I cannot recommend this design until its safety has been tested.
Statement: This untested design should be recommended now.
Does the statement agree with the writer’s views or claims?
難易度 1/5 · 100 コイン + 今日初回完了時に小ボーナス付与
Cannot recommend until testing contradicts recommendation now, so NO. Might help is not present endorsement of the specific design. Keep the condition and timing.
Original passage: I once opposed the route, but the revised plan has persuaded me to support it.
Statement: The revised route plan deserves support.
Does the statement agree with the writer’s views or claims?
難易度 1/5 · 100 コイン + 今日初回完了時に小ボーナス付与
The writer’s current support is explicit, so YES. The earlier opposition is not the final position. Follow the change of view introduced by but.
Original passage: The report quotes a shopkeeper who says the pedestrian zone has helped trade.
Statement: The pedestrian zone has benefited trade.
Does the statement agree with the writer’s views or claims?
難易度 1/5 · 100 コイン + 今日初回完了時に小ボーナス付与
The reported claim belongs to the shopkeeper. Without the writer adopting or opposing it, agreement with the writer’s own view is NOT GIVEN. Identify the owner of the claim before labelling it.
Original passage: Competition can encourage effort, but it should not be the only measure of success.
Statement: Competition should be the sole measure of success.
Does the statement agree with the writer’s views or claims?
難易度 1/5 · 100 コイン + 今日初回完了時に小ボーナス付与
Should not be the only measure directly contradicts sole measure, so NO. A possible benefit does not establish an exclusive standard. Compare the qualification, not just the shared topic.
Read fresh views and claims
- Use YES, NO or NOT GIVEN for the next twenty original mini-passages. Keep a quoted source, a former opinion and the writer's current judgement distinct. An admission of a drawback does not automatically cancel a recommendation; a qualification remains part of the view.
- After feedback, name whose words decide the answer and explain one tempting wrong label. These snippets practise a task distinction. They do not reproduce a complete IELTS section, certify comprehension of long passages or predict an official score.
Original passage: Free entry is essential if this museum is to serve the whole community, in my view.
Statement: Admission to this museum should be free.
Does the statement agree with the writer’s views or claims?
難易度 1/5 · 100 コイン + 今日初回完了時に小ボーナス付与
The writer explicitly calls free entry essential, so YES. The community reason supports the same position. No contradictory or missing position needs to be invented.
Original passage: Vendors credit the lighting change for higher sales. I find their causal claim unconvincing.
Statement: The lighting change can be accepted as the explanation for higher sales.
Does the statement agree with the writer’s views or claims?
難易度 1/5 · 100 コイン + 今日初回完了時に小ボーナス付与
The writer calls that causal claim unconvincing, so NO. The vendors’ confidence does not override the writer’s rejection. Distinguish quoted support from the writer’s response.
Original passage: The council proposes longer library hours. The proposal lists the extra shifts required.
Statement: Longer library hours would benefit local families.
Does the statement agree with the writer’s views or claims?
難易度 1/5 · 100 コイン + 今日初回完了時に小ボーナス付与
The proposal and shifts are described, but the writer supplies no judgement about benefits to families. Agreement or disagreement with that view is NOT GIVEN. Do not substitute the council’s proposal for the writer’s evaluation.
Original passage: Price is relevant, but it is not the only proper basis for choosing a service.
Statement: Price alone should determine which service is chosen.
Does the statement agree with the writer’s views or claims?
難易度 1/5 · 100 コイン + 今日初回完了時に小ボーナス付与
Not the only basis contradicts alone should determine, so NO. Relevance is not sufficiency. Preserve the limitation when comparing the claim.
Original passage: Although the pilot cost more than expected, I still recommend retaining it.
Statement: The pilot service should continue.
Does the statement agree with the writer’s views or claims?
難易度 1/5 · 100 コイン + 今日初回完了時に小ボーナス付与
Still recommend retaining it expresses support, so YES. The cost drawback does not cancel the recommendation. Read the concession and the conclusion together.
Original passage: Several commuters describe long delays on the route. The article records their examples and journey dates.
Statement: The route’s delays are a serious problem.
Does the statement agree with the writer’s views or claims?
難易度 1/5 · 100 コイン + 今日初回完了時に小ボーナス付与
The examples belong to commuters; the writer’s assessment of seriousness is not supplied. The answer about the writer’s position is NOT GIVEN. Reporting a complaint is not automatically adopting its judgement.
Original passage: The shorter queues are promising, though they do not yet establish that this approach is the best.
Statement: Shorter queues are an encouraging result.
Does the statement agree with the writer’s views or claims?
難易度 1/5 · 100 コイン + 今日初回完了時に小ボーナス付与
Promising supports encouraging, so YES. The limitation concerns whether the approach is best, not whether the result is encouraging. Keep both parts of the qualified judgement.
Original passage: Nothing in this survey justifies closing the small branches.
Statement: The survey provides sufficient justification for closing the small branches.
Does the statement agree with the writer’s views or claims?
難易度 1/5 · 100 コイン + 今日初回完了時に小ボーナス付与
The writer explicitly denies that justification, so NO. Survey existence alone does not establish the stated conclusion. Compare the writer’s judgement of what it warrants.
Original passage: Some automation is useful, but replacing the entire staff would be a mistake.
Statement: The whole staff should be replaced by automation.
Does the statement agree with the writer’s views or claims?
難易度 1/5 · 100 コイン + 今日初回完了時に小ボーナス付与
Would be a mistake contradicts should be replaced, so NO. Support for some automation is not support for complete replacement. Preserve the scope of some and entire.
Original passage: The organiser predicts that a second entrance will shorten queues. A diagram shows where it would be built.
Statement: A second entrance is the best solution to the queue problem.
Does the statement agree with the writer’s views or claims?
難易度 1/5 · 100 コイン + 今日初回完了時に小ボーナス付与
The organiser’s prediction and location diagram do not establish the writer’s judgement that it is best. NOT GIVEN fits; there is no writer’s opposing claim to establish NO. Avoid upgrading a prediction to an endorsement.
Original passage: We should improve bus frequency first, then consider a fare discount.
Statement: More frequent buses should have priority over a fare discount.
Does the statement agree with the writer’s views or claims?
難易度 1/5 · 100 コイン + 今日初回完了時に小ボーナス付与
First and then give the writer’s proposed priority, so YES. This does not reject all future discounts. Match the order rather than invent an absolute ban.
Original passage: I welcome the riverside path plan, provided that its habitat protections are kept.
Statement: The path plan deserves support if its habitat protections remain in place.
Does the statement agree with the writer’s views or claims?
難易度 1/5 · 100 コイン + 今日初回完了時に小ボーナス付与
The statement preserves the writer’s condition, so YES. Removing the if-condition would strengthen the claim beyond what was said. Compare the qualification as part of the view.
Original passage: The profile describes a designer’s lightweight chair and names the materials she used.
Statement: This chair is the safest design available.
Does the statement agree with the writer’s views or claims?
難易度 1/5 · 100 コイン + 今日初回完了時に小ボーナス付与
No safety comparison or writer’s judgement of safest is supplied. The claim is NOT GIVEN, rather than NO merely because safety is unmentioned. Weight and materials do not settle that evaluation.
Original passage: I cannot endorse this untested scheme; it should not proceed before a trial.
Statement: The untested scheme should proceed before a trial.
Does the statement agree with the writer’s views or claims?
難易度 1/5 · 100 コイン + 今日初回完了時に小ボーナス付与
Should not proceed before a trial directly contradicts should proceed before a trial, so NO. The issue is the stated condition, not the mere presence of the word trial.
Original passage: The study’s most useful contribution was exposing a gap in the records, not demonstrating a sales increase.
Statement: Revealing a gap in the records was the study’s most useful contribution.
Does the statement agree with the writer’s views or claims?
難易度 1/5 · 100 コイン + 今日初回完了時に小ボーナス付与
Revealing a gap matches exposing a gap, and the statement preserves most useful contribution, so YES. A claim about usefulness should not silently become a different measure such as size or sales. Match the exact judgement.
Original passage: The mayor supports the festival. A local critic argues that its funds should go to parks instead.
Statement: Festival funding should be transferred to parks.
Does the statement agree with the writer’s views or claims?
難易度 1/5 · 100 コイン + 今日初回完了時に小ボーナス付与
The park proposal belongs to the critic. The writer reports both positions without adopting one, so NOT GIVEN for the writer’s view. Do not turn a named speaker’s argument into the narrator’s position.
Original passage: This price increase is avoidable, and I oppose it.
Statement: Every price increase is unavoidable.
Does the statement agree with the writer’s views or claims?
難易度 1/5 · 100 コイン + 今日初回完了時に小ボーナス付与
The writer identifies this increase as avoidable, which is a counterexample to every increase being unavoidable. NO fits the contradiction. One explicit exception can defeat a universal claim.
Original passage: I used to distrust the plan. The new access arrangements have now convinced me that it should go ahead.
Statement: The plan should now go ahead.
Does the statement agree with the writer’s views or claims?
難易度 1/5 · 100 コイン + 今日初回完了時に小ボーナス付与
The current judgement is explicit, so YES. Used to describes the former distrust, not the present conclusion. Track the change signalled by now.
Original passage: Neither a large audience nor a prize is proof of good teaching on its own.
Statement: Winning a prize alone proves that teaching is good.
Does the statement agree with the writer’s views or claims?
難易度 1/5 · 100 コイン + 今日初回完了時に小ボーナス付与
The writer explicitly rejects a prize alone as proof, so NO. Mentioning the prize does not establish that it is a sufficient measure. Preserve on its own.
Original passage: The article compares the prices and dimensions of two storage systems and quotes their makers.
Statement: The first system is the better choice for small offices.
Does the statement agree with the writer’s views or claims?
難易度 1/5 · 100 コイン + 今日初回完了時に小ボーナス付与
Specifications and makers’ comments do not supply the writer’s overall recommendation for small offices. NOT GIVEN fits the missing evaluation; no opposing recommendation establishes NO.
Explain a decision in a new context
- Draft a short evidence explanation before revealing the model. If the claim is unsettled, distinguish the quoted person's position from the missing writer's judgement. Do not use your own approval or disapproval of the proposal to supply that missing judgement.
- The transfer decisions introduce new reviews. Choose the label that fits the requested writer's view, then revise your reason if it overlooked a contrast or condition. The model checklist supports self-review; it does not automatically grade your explanation.
Original passage: The hotel’s location is convenient, but I cannot recommend it while its fire exits remain blocked.
Statement: The hotel should be recommended under its current conditions.
Does the statement agree with the writer’s views or claims?
難易度 1/5 · 100 コイン + 今日初回完了時に小ボーナス付与
The current blocked-exit condition prevents the writer’s recommendation, so NO. A convenient location does not erase that explicit limit. Compare the recommendation as a whole.
Original passage: A sponsor calls the event a success. The review gives the attendance figure and lists the performers.
Statement: The event deserves to be considered a success.
Does the statement agree with the writer’s views or claims?
難易度 1/5 · 100 コイン + 今日初回完了時に小ボーナス付与
The success judgement is attributed to the sponsor, not adopted by the reviewer. The attendance and performer list do not settle the reviewer’s evaluation, so NOT GIVEN. Neither an endorsement nor an opposing judgement is supplied.
Original passage: The agency recommends a weekend market. The article describes the agency’s plan and lists the proposed stalls. Statement: A weekend market is the best use of the square. Write YES, NO or NOT GIVEN for the writer’s view, with a short evidence explanation.
Compare your label, decisive evidence and rejected alternative with the model. Revise an unclear link, then try a fresh passage. Several explanations can meet the checklist; this is self-review, not an automatic mark or official score.
Recall the speaker and the qualification
- Tomorrow, try the review questions before reopening the worked cases. Say which person owns the relevant view and which qualifier matters. A later-recall record needs an earlier successful answer for the same current-version objective; a self-review is a separate record.
- Next: apply this distinction to an unfamiliar passage from Reading practice. Keep the evidence label and a brief repair note for a mistake. Format guidance checked 2026-10-19: official IELTS Reading guide. All extension texts, statements, feedback and the model explanation are originally authored.
Original passage: I recommend keeping the garden, although the paths need repair.
Statement: The garden should be retained.
Does the statement agree with the writer’s views or claims?
難易度 1/5 · 100 コイン + 今日初回完了時に小ボーナス付与
The recommendation is explicit, so YES. A repair need is compatible with retaining the garden. Retrieve the difference between a drawback and rejection.
Original passage: The committee says the tower is essential. The article reports the proposed construction schedule.
Statement: The tower is essential.
Does the statement agree with the writer’s views or claims?
難易度 1/5 · 100 コイン + 今日初回完了時に小ボーナス付与
The committee owns the claim, and the writer’s judgement is not supplied. NOT GIVEN fits. Reporting the schedule does not turn the committee’s view into the writer’s endorsement.