【技術士二次試験】「試験委員に伝わる」書き方のテクニックの解説

The official X page is: https://x.com/takumi_Lockon The official Note page is: https://note.com/fine_takumi296 The Lock-On course website is below: https://gijutsushi-goukaku.jp/ The sales page for materials such as "Keywords" and "Perspectives and Assignment Texts" is here: https://gijutsushi-goukaku.co.jp/ The Professional Engineer Examination blog is here: https://x.gd/rGS96 #ProfessionalEngineer #CorrespondenceCourse #ProfessionalEngineerSecondExam #ProfessionalEngineerExamPreparation #CorrespondenceEducation #LockOnCourse #TakumiStudy #IntegratedTechnicalManagementDivision #ProfessionalEngineerOralExam #Reiwa8Competency 2. Detailed Meaning of "Techniques for Writing that Conveys to Examiners" Detailed Meaning of "Techniques for Writing that Conveys to Examiners" What I want to say here is that graders are not evaluating difficult Japanese. The pass/fail criteria for the required subjects themselves assess not only specialized knowledge, but also applied skills, problem-solving abilities, and task execution abilities. In other words, graders are looking not at whether you know the information, but whether you can think and write it down. Therefore, effective writing is an integral part of the content itself. "One sentence, one idea" doesn't mean "make it short," but rather "make each sentence serve only one purpose." The 50-character limit isn't a strict rule; it's a guideline. The important thing isn't the character count itself, but stating only one judgment within each sentence. Here's a bad example: "When updating aging facilities, it's necessary to proceed comprehensively, utilizing DX while considering financial constraints, personnel shortages, the increasing severity of recent disasters, and the impact on residents' lives." This sentence contains the background, constraints, considerations, means, and conclusion all in one sentence. It's tiring for the reader. Here's a good example: "The challenge is to clarify the priority order for updating aging facilities. The reason is that financial resources and personnel are limited. Furthermore, the impact of a facility becoming non-functional during a disaster differs from facility to facility. Therefore, the update order will be determined based on importance and soundness." There are three advantages to a one-sentence-one-idea structure. First, it reduces the mismatch between subject and predicate. Second, it makes it easier to spot logical leaps. Third, it prevents graders from getting lost along the way. In the actual exam, readability is a weapon in itself. It makes the grader feel that "this person's thoughts are well-organized." The meaning of clearly stating "data" and "stakeholders" is to translate the answer into the language of the field. This is quite important for reading comprehension in the 2026 exam. The revised competency requirements clearly state that problem-solving involves extracting problem-causing factors and constraints, and considering conflicting requirements. In other words, mere technical discussion is insufficient. Answers that clearly show the basis for selecting the issue, how it will affect others, and how coordination will be handled are stronger. First, data. The data here doesn't have to be strictly statistical figures. Inspection results, accident numbers, renewal rates, operating rates, complaint numbers, flood history, staff age distribution—these practical indicators are all valuable data. "The facilities are aging" is less powerful than "A high percentage of facilities have exceeded their standard service life, making corrective maintenance difficult." "There is a shortage of personnel" is less powerful than "The decrease in maintenance staff makes it difficult to ensure inspection frequency." In short, the purpose of writing data is not to appear intelligent, but to ground your argument in the realities of the field. Next, stakeholders. A common mistake in professional engineer answers is the absence of stakeholders. They write as if the engineer alone is determining the optimal solution. However, this is not how it works in practice. There are always stakeholders involved, including residents, administrators, clients, contractors, users, relevant government agencies, and maintenance departments. Considering conflicting requirements ultimately means resolving the clashes of these demands. Therefore, when writing a solution, simply stating "Technically, this is what we will do" is weak. It becomes stronger when you also include details such as "Technically, we will do this, and to achieve this, we will coordinate with stakeholders in this way." For example, simply stating "We will develop a rainwater storage facility" is weak. Writing "We will develop a rainwater storage facility, explain the situation to surrounding residents, and proceed with consensus building while considering their concerns about land use" makes for a more practical solution. The meaning of a four-part structure i...