In Part 1, we mapped the skeleton of all four cases and identified the "silences in the given text." This time, we break down Case I (specialty goods wholesaler Group A) and Case II (citrus company B) question by question. For each question, keep three things in mind: "limiting words," "where the evidence lives," and "the trap."
The confidence labels (【Confirmed】【Inference】【Speculation】) are the same as in Part 1.
Case I: Group A / Acquisition of Company X
Case Structure
Group A, a specialty goods wholesaler in an inland prefecture (a holding company with Company A and Company α in parallel), acquires Company X, a long-established soy sauce maker in the same region. The setup has the eldest daughter (managing director) concurrently serving as the new president of Company X.
The questions progress chronologically: "Background of the acquisition (Q1) → Foundation for integration (Q2) → Developing people (Q3) → Growth strategy (Q4)," and the paragraphs in the given text follow the same order. Because the paragraphs you need to read for each question are clearly defined, missing a limiting word is a fatal mistake.
Question-by-Question Breakdown
| Q | Points / Length | Limiting Words in the Question | Where the Evidence Lives | The Trap |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Q1 | 20 pts / 60 chars ×2 | "Group A's challenges," "internal/external environment" | Para. 2: thin margins, rising costs, shifting bestsellers, lack of manufacturing capability | Writing Company X's lack of a successor as an external environment issue. That is an "opportunity" for Group A, not a "challenge" facing Group A |
| Q2 | 30 pts / 150 chars | "From the perspective of organizational management," "across the group as a whole" | Para. 9: managing customer touchpoints, cross-functional coordination, foundation for organizational integration | Writing only about the effect of tool adoption (fewer stockouts) and failing to frame it as an "operational" story about organizational integration and resolving mutual distrust |
| Q3 | 20 pts / 100 chars | "Company X's employees," "skills that are conscious of consumer trends" | Para. 10: insufficient consumer touchpoints, vague evaluation criteria, lack of understanding on Company A's side | Making Company A's employees the subject. Mutual understanding in both directions can be mentioned, but the subject is Company X's employees |
| Q4 | 30 pts / 150 chars | "Break away from being a regional wholesaler," "leveraging Company X," "the group as a whole" | Paras. 11–12: tabletop bottles, overseas demand, incorporation into processed foods, staple products as the revenue base | Writing about rapid expansion. The given text explicitly rules this out, stating that "rapid expansion or reorganization of production would destabilize both factory operations and employment" |
Q2: The Conclusion Is Written in the Given Text — the Difference Lies in the Causality
Q2 is worth 30 points, but Paragraph 9 essentially states the conclusion outright: "not merely a tool adoption, but the foundation supporting the group's organizational integration."
What separates answers is not copying that conclusion, but explaining the causality behind why it becomes a foundation.
- The group side's distrust: "Company X can't be managed by the numbers and is slow to change"
- Company X's side's wariness: "Does a new president who isn't even from a technical background really understand soy sauce making?"
- Resolving this mutual distrust through a shared operational platform (phased introduction of Company A's standardized formats → making person-dependent work visible)
Whether you can write to this level is the dividing line 【Inference】.
Q4: A Constraint Repeated Three Times
Three constraints overlap in Q4.
- The president's words: "Protecting local employment is a merchant's responsibility" (Para. 1)
- Roughly 70% of Company X's sales come from one-sho bottles and bulk staple products (Para. 4)
- "Rapid expansion or reorganization of production would destabilize both factory operations and employment" (Para. 11)
Since the same point is repeated three times, the structure strongly suggests that the question setter is demanding the phrase "while protecting the existing business" 【Inference】.
One more thing. The given text does not directly answer the objections raised by the planning and management staff (the harshness of the soy sauce market, aging equipment, insufficient knowledge of fermentation technology). The answer to Q4 should serve as that response — that is this series' reading of the text.
Case II: Company B / Village X Citrus
Case Structure
The subject is Company B, a two-person operation founded just two years ago. It owns neither farmland nor processing equipment, and relies on the president's personal network to source citrus from farmers in Village X, handling sales, product planning, and community-building events.
The axis running through every question is: can you separate and correctly deploy "Company B's strengths" versus "Village X's resources"? The conditions specified in the questions are more detailed than in past years, and Q4 is a condition-fulfillment type requiring you to simultaneously satisfy three conditions (two or more target segments, how each stays continuously involved, and use of local resources).
Question-by-Question Breakdown
| Q | Points / Length | Limiting Words in the Question | Where the Evidence Lives | The Trap |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Q1 | 20 pts / 100 chars ×2 | "Company B's" strengths / weaknesses | Paras. 1, 2, 4, 11–13 | Writing Village X's depopulation and abandoned farmland as weaknesses. Those are external threats. Company B's weaknesses are "few sales channels," "no equipment," and "only 2 staff" |
| Q2 | 25 pts / 150 chars | "Elderly," "difficult to visit the production area," "multiple times a year," "each farmer's characteristics," "DM pamphlet" | Para. 4: multiple varieties with different harvest seasons, year-round farm work / Para. 3: inconvenient access | Proposing EC or SNS. Once the medium is specified as direct mail and the customers are elderly, digital measures clash with the question's premises |
| Q3 | 25 pts / 150 chars | "Building on the track record at the junior colleague's restaurant," "new business operators," "branding of Village X," "ongoing transactions" | Para. 3: hot-spring resort town, popularity of processed souvenir goods / Para. 12: aroma, culinary uses | Making the junior colleague's restaurant the target. Since "new business operators" is explicitly stated, the junior colleague can only be used as evidence of a track record |
| Q4 | 30 pts / 150 chars | "Crowdfunding," "relationship population (kankei jinko)," "two or more target segments," "how each stays continuously involved," "Village X's local resources" | Para. 6: former residents who want to stay connected to their hometown / Para. 3: tourists / Para. 7: veteran farmers' techniques / Para. 10: junior colleague's restaurant | Treating it as simply collecting donations and stopping there. The question demands a design for "staying continuously involved" — a one-time return gift does not satisfy the condition |
Q2: Each Farmer Has a Different Peak Season, Which Is Why "Multiple Times a Year" Works
"Reflecting each farmer's characteristics" corresponds to Paragraph 4: "most farmers grow multiple citrus varieties with different harvest seasons."
The core of the answer is this causality: each farmer's peak season differs → purchasing opportunities arise throughout the year.
Furthermore, the question's premise — that customers are elderly and cannot visit the production area — is also an instruction to write about the ordering method and delivery method (direct shipment from the production area) 【Inference】.
Q4: Two Target Candidates Are Prepared in the Given Text
- Former residents in urban areas: Paragraph 6, "people who hope to return or stay connected to their hometown." The very next sentence adds, "the president was one of them." This line is evidence that the president is personally a member of the relationship population and understands their feelings.
- Tourists visiting the hot-spring resort town: Paragraph 3, "from inside and outside the prefecture throughout the year." This makes it possible to design involvement that is not limited to a single season.
Local resources are scattered throughout the given text: the landscape (Paras. 3 and 7), year-round farm work (Para. 4), veteran farmers' cultivation techniques (Para. 7), and the junior colleague's restaurant (Para. 10). Q4 asks you to gather and combine all of these.
What the Audit of the Model Answers Reveals
I audited the AI-generated model answers (revised versions) for consistency with the given text. Since the scoring criteria are not public, the likelihood of earning points is 【Speculation】. The key thing to notice is "what was removed in the revision."
※ These model answers are bundled with the iPad app "Jirei Drill". In the app, each answer is displayed alongside "the paragraph in the given text that serves as the basis" and "the framework used."
| Q | Word Outside the Given Text in the First Draft | Replacement After Revision | Lesson |
|---|---|---|---|
| I-2 | "a sense of unity" | "while respecting the pride of those on the ground" (wording from Para. 10) | Use the given text's words over stock phrases |
| I-3 | "secondment" | Joint meetings, transaction data, test sales through Company α (venues the given text provides) | Seconding staff from Company X, which has only 9 manufacturing employees, would undermine the production base |
| II-4 | "tree ownership rights" | "harvested citrus and citrus powder" as return gifts | Return gifts should also come from resources within the given text |
| II-1 | "making decisions by trial and error day by day" | (Remaining note) The given text says "carrying out each task together with his wife" | "Trial and error" is a phrase the scorer cannot find in the given text. With 9 characters to spare, there is room to revert to the given text's wording |
In the revised versions, invented content is nearly zero, yet the character count for each question is still fully used. In other words, simply reconnecting the given text's words through causality is enough to reach a passing level of density.
No more than one invented measure per answer — and even that should stay within what can be straightforwardly derived from the question's premises (e.g., phone or postcard ordering for elderly customers). That is the line the audit draws.
The best shortcut for practicing this skill of "connecting the given text's words through causality" is to place the given text and a framework-entry sheet side by side and manually sort which sentence from the given text goes into which cell of the SWOT. Jirei Drill is an app built precisely for that exercise: fill in the framework with hints visible (guided) → hide the hints and fill it in on your own → compare with the AI's sorting and log any gaps as a weakness list. The whole cycle runs on two screens.
Summary
- Case I has a chronological structure. Q2 is differentiated not by "copying the conclusion" but by the causality chain: mutual distrust → shared platform → foundation for integration
- In Case I Q4, the phrase "while protecting the existing business" is the response to a constraint repeated three times
- In Case II, separate "Company B's strengths" from "Village X's resources." Do not write depopulation as a weakness in Q1
- In Case II Q3, the junior colleague is "evidence of a track record," not a "target"
- Model answer audit: removing words not in the given text still leaves the character count filled. Invented content: one per answer, maximum