If milk is set to boil in a saucepan, it boils over. I do not know, and have

さくらの個別指導 (さくら教育研究所)
次の英文を読み、設問(A,B) に答えよ。
If milk is set to boil in a saucepan, it boils over. I do not know, and have never
wanted to know, why this happens; (ア)if pressed, I should attribute it to a natural
inclination in milk to boil over, which is true enough but explains nothing. But then
I am not a natural scientist. In the same way, one can read, or even write, about
the events of the past without wanting to know why they happened, or be content
to say that the second world war occurred because Hitler wanted war, (イ)which is
true enough but explains nothing. But one should not then call oneself a student
of history or a historian. The study of history is a study of causes.
Let us begin by asking what the historian in practice does when (ウ)he is
confronted by the necessity of assigning causes to events. The first characteristic
of the historian's approach to the problem of cause is that he will commonly assign
several causes to the same event. If he were required to consider the causes of
the Russian Revolution, he might name Russia's successive military defeats, the
collapse of the Russian economy under pressure of war, the effective propaganda of
the revolutionaries -- in short, a random mass of economic, political, social and
personal causes. The historian, by expanding and deepening his research,
constantly accumulates more and more answers to the question "Why?" The
development in recent years of economic, political and legal history --(エ)not to
mention fresh insights into the complexities of human psychology -- has
enormously increased the number and range of our answers.
But that brings us at once to the second characteristic of the historian's
approach. The historian,
(オ)with this list of causes of his own making before him, would feel (カ)a professional
compulsion to reduce it to order, to establish some organization of causes which
would fix their relation to one another, perhaps to decide which cause should be
regarded as the ultimate cause, the cause of all causes. Every historical argument
revolves round the question of the priority of causes.
A. 上記の英文の第 1~3 パラグラフのそれぞれの内容について、次の問に答えよ。
(1)第一パラグラフ(If milk is ... a study of causes.)の内容と一致しないものを 1 つ、
さくらの個別指導 (さくら教育研究所)
(b)歴史家は、第 2 次世界大戦が起きたのはヒトラーが戦争を望んだからだ、
(2)第 2 パラグラフ(Let us begin ... of our answers.)の内容と一致しないものを 1
(3)第 3 パラグラフ(But that brings ... priority of causes.)の内容と一致しないも
のを 1 つ、下記の(a)~(c)から選んで、その記号をマークせよ。
B. 上記の英文の下線部(ア~カ)のそれぞれについて、次の問に答えよ。
(1)下線部(ア)の意味は、次の(a)~(d)のどれに最も近いか、その記号を 1 つマー
を 1 つマークせよ。
(a) 'Hitler wanted war' の中の 'war' 一語
(b) 'Hitler wanted war' 全体
(c) 'the second world war occured because Hitler wanted war' 全体
(d) 'the second world war' 全体
(3)下線部(ウ)の意味は、次の(a)~(d)のどれにもっとも近いか、その記号を 1 つ
さくらの個別指導 (さくら教育研究所)
(a) he feels it necessary to think of causes for events
(b) he thinks it is needless to find causes for events
(c) he has to put up a sign of causes for events
(d) he is obliged to give up causes to events
(5)下線部(オ)の意味は、次の(a)~(d)のどれに最も近いか、その記号を 1 つマー