Help to choose best option that fit in paragraph


>
> A社がインターネット関連会社と組み、月額料金10万5千円で販売を始めたソフトは、社名や製品名などをキーワードとして設定すると、掲示板やブログの中から関連した記述を集めてきてくれる。
>
> ただ記述を並べられても、皆読むのは大変。そこで、プラスマイナスのどちらの評価が多いか分析する機能をつけた。
>
> 例えば、文中「いい」「素晴らしい」があればプラス、「悪い」「ひどい」があればマイナスというように、事前に用意された辞書に従ってシステムが判断していく。
>
>
> **しかし、日本語は単純ではない。例えば「―はいいが、―は気にくわない」というように、相反する評価が並ぶとソフトが「良い」「悪い」を判断できず中立にしてしまう。前後の文脈を加えた解析や、業界ごと特有の表現への対応など、精度を上げていく＿＿＿＿＿。**
>
>   1. ことは不可能である
>   2. 余地があるという
>   3. はずである
>   4. はずではない
>

The answer is 余地があるという. Why is it not はずである？ I know that
相反する評価が並ぶとソフトが「良い」「悪い」を判断できず中立にしてしまう this part showing unsatisfied feeling

前後の文脈を加えた解析や、業界ごと特有の表現への対応など、精度を上げていく＿＿＿＿ And the last sentence said that to
sum up, in order to correspond to every special industry expression, there is
room to improve accuracy (?) there is a room means they should work hard to
improve accuracy? Why not はずである？




～する余地がある means "there is room for ～ing" and 精度を上げていく余地がある indeed means "there
is room for improving accuracy". But the use of 余地がある is not very important to
determine the correct answer here.

The critical difference between 3 and 4 is ～という and ～はずだ. [Sentence-end
～という](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/q/33563/5010) is used to repeat
someone else's statement ("they say ...", "according to them, ..."), whereas
～はずだ is used to show the writer's own strong expectation ("I think they will
...", "they must ...").

Apparently, this article is written from the third person's standpoint, by
someone who do not develop this system. Typically, this looks like a news
article based on a press release from the manufacturer or an interview with
the developer. In such a setting, in general, a writer (who is not necessarily
an expert in this field) rarely gives his own technical opinion using はずだ in
the middle of the article. Perhaps the writer even did not see the system
before writing this.

Please re-read the question carefully, and see which fits the context better:

  * 精度を上げていくはずだ ≒ "I, as an interviewer/writer, am sure that they will improve the accuracy (for some reason)" or "Everyone should naturally expect that they will improve the accuracy".
  * 精度を上げていく余地があるという ≒ "According to the developers, there is still some room for improvement"

* * *

**EDIT:** To reach the correct answer, it is important to make a correct
assumption regarding **who wrote this article**. There are a number of reasons
to believe this was _not_ officially written by someone on behalf of A社. In
general, official announcements are far politer (です, ます, _keigo_ ) and use
more formal wordings. For instance, compare [this official
announcement](http://www.jp.playstation.com/info/release/nr-20160824-ds4-usbwa.html)
and [this news article](http://ascii.jp/elem/000/001/216/1216915/). They both
convey the same information, but they look drastically different. Noticed that
only the latter article uses という? Actually I'm pretty confident that this
writing style is that of a typical technical news writer. Thus everything in
the article is basically hearsay information based on another information
source.

And most importantly, there is no way that one wants to use はず in an article
like this, because はず expresses the speaker's _subjective_
impression/understanding. If this were written by someone on behalf of A社 or
in charge of the actual development of the system, concluding the announcement
saying 精度を上げていくはずだ ("It _appears_ that (or in our understanding) we will
improve...") would sound totally irresponsible and funny. Instead, they should
clearly state 精度を上げていく予定です, 精度の向上に努めます, etc. If this is written by someone not
directly related to A社 (e.g., a writer of wired.com), suddenly saying
something subjective like 精度を上げていくはずだ is out of the question, too.




> 前後の文脈を加えた解析や、業界ごと特有の表現への対応など、精度を上げていくはずである。

(3) is a wrong answer because, this (above) is not grammatical.

The following would be:

  * a. （※） 前後の文脈を加えた解析や、業界ごと特有の表現への対応などの努力によって、精度を上げていくはずである。 （※）

  * b. （※） 前後の文脈を加えた解析や、業界ごと特有の表現への対応などの改善によって、精度を上げていくはずである。 （※）

  * 前後の文脈を加えた解析や、業界ごと特有の表現への対応などの努力や改善によって、精度が上っていくはずである。

  * 前後の文脈を加えた解析や、業界ごと特有の表現への対応などによって、精度が上っていくはずである。

I'm a bit uncomfortable with (a and b) （※） ... 精度を上げていくはずである。 （※）

It feels like an awkward version of [This car drives well.]

The following (which includes the が) would be grammatical :

> 前後の文脈を加えた解析や、業界ごと特有の表現への対応などが、精度を上げていくはずである。

* * *

To answer this question, you only need the text that you posted first (the
part after しかし、).

3 and 4 are wrong answers because without the が, it wouldn't be grammatical.

1 and 2 would be grammatical, but 1 is a wrong answer because the meaning
would be wrong (because there is room for improvement).

