慶英会 塾長｜慶應義塾大学卒・英検1級
中高一貫校の学校英語・NEW TREASURE・英検対策を専門とするオンライン個別指導塾です。塾長紹介
結論：英検1級の意見英作文で240語を超えるときは、重要な理由や例外を先に削らず、意味のない前置き・同じ主張の反復・長過ぎる言い回しから縮めます。慶英会の独自教材では240語を超えた答案2本を200〜240語に修正する全文比較と、意味を保つ短縮36問を掲載。修正前後を実際に数え、論旨を保てているか確認できます。
英検1級の一次試験では意見論述と英文要約が出題されます（英検協会の公式試験内容）。英作文の200〜240語という目安は受験回の問題冊子の指定に従い、変更があれば公式を優先してください。本教材のTOPIC・原稿・添削は慶英会が作成した独自課題であり、公式過去問の再現ではありません。
まず削る場所を決める｜残す内容と削る内容
- 残す：序論の立場、独立した理由、根拠となる具体例、反論への対応、結論の条件。
- 削る：『この後説明する』『先ほど述べたとおり』などのメタ文章。
- 削る：重要・大切・必要の同義反復、For exampleの二重書き。
- 条件を守る：may / sometimes / not all / provided that等の限定を削らない。
単なる『短い表現ほど良い』という話ではありません。100語に短縮できても理由が不足すれば目的を達しません。文を短くする判断は、英語の自然さと内容の正確性を同時に満たす必要があります。
全文添削1｜Should governments prioritize preventive maintenance over building new public facilities?
Before：修正前 301語。原文の主張の方向を変えずに、何を削れるか考えてください。
In other words, I believe this policy should be discussed carefully, and there are several important reasons for considering it. Governments should generally prioritize preventive maintenance over constructing new public facilities when existing infrastructure remains safe and useful. This approach can protect limited budgets, preserve essential services, and reduce unnecessary waste.
This matters because governments cannot spend the same money on several different projects at the same time. First, maintenance can prevent small defects from becoming expensive failures. Public funds spent on prominent new projects may leave insufficient resources for repairing bridges, water systems, and schools. Comparing full lifetime costs helps authorities decide where investment is most valuable.
I would like to emphasize that reliable public facilities matter greatly to the people who rely on them. Second, reliable facilities are particularly important to people who have few alternatives. A damaged school roof or failing heating system may interrupt learning, while unreliable equipment can disrupt public services. Regular inspections cannot eliminate every risk, but they may reduce avoidable interruptions and allow repairs to be planned.
It is worth pointing out once again that environmental consequences should not be overlooked in any decision. Third, maintaining buildings can prevent usable materials from being discarded. Nevertheless, renovation is not always environmentally preferable. An unsafe or highly inefficient building may need replacement. Decisions should therefore consider energy performance, construction waste, and long-term operating requirements rather than the age of the facility alone.
To summarize the points I have already made in the paragraphs above, I would like to restate my conclusion. In conclusion, preventive maintenance deserves priority when it can sustain safe and effective services at reasonable cost. Governments should still invest in new facilities when existing infrastructure cannot meet essential needs. The objective is dependable public service, not preserving every old structure at any price.
After：修正後 210語（91語短縮）
Governments should generally prioritize preventive maintenance over constructing new public facilities when existing infrastructure remains safe and useful. This approach can protect limited budgets, preserve essential services, and reduce unnecessary waste.
First, maintenance can prevent small defects from becoming expensive failures. Public funds spent on prominent new projects may leave insufficient resources for repairing bridges, water systems, and schools. Comparing full lifetime costs helps authorities decide where investment is most valuable.
Second, reliable facilities are particularly important to people who have few alternatives. A damaged school roof or failing heating system may interrupt learning, while unreliable equipment can disrupt public services. Regular inspections cannot eliminate every risk, but they may reduce avoidable interruptions and allow repairs to be planned.
Third, maintaining buildings can prevent usable materials from being discarded. Nevertheless, renovation is not always environmentally preferable. An unsafe or highly inefficient building may need replacement. Decisions should therefore consider energy performance, construction waste, and long-term operating requirements rather than the age of the facility alone.
In conclusion, preventive maintenance deserves priority when it can sustain safe and effective services at reasonable cost. Governments should still invest in new facilities when existing infrastructure cannot meet essential needs. The objective is dependable public service, not preserving every old structure at any price.
修正の理由｜序論から結論まで
- 冒頭：個人の意見表明を二重にせず、原則・条件・3理由を直接示す。
- 理由1：有限な予算という既述を繰り返さず、修理費用と新設の比較を残す。
- 理由2：サービスの停止という具体的な効果を残し、価値判断の繰り返しは削る。
- 理由3：安全性・省エネ・廃棄という条件は重要なので削らない。
- 結論：議論の振り返り予告を消し、原則と例外の両方を示す。
全文添削2｜Should cities encourage local food-sharing programs to reduce avoidable waste?
Before：修正前 331語。原文の主張の方向を変えずに、何を削れるか考えてください。
I personally think that this is a very important subject, and in this essay I am going to explain the reasons for my position. Cities should encourage local food-sharing programs as one way to reduce avoidable waste, provided that food safety and operating costs are managed responsibly. Such programs can improve the use of surplus food, support community cooperation, and provide information that helps prevent future waste.
This is a helpful and valuable possibility because making good use of food that would otherwise be wasted is valuable. First, food-sharing networks may redirect suitable surplus food from shops and restaurants to organizations that can distribute it. This can make better use of edible items, but clear storage and handling rules are necessary because not all surplus products are safe to share.
Furthermore, cooperation is very important in a community, and strong cooperation can be useful for everyone involved. Second, coordinated efforts can strengthen cooperation between businesses and community groups. Volunteers may help arrange collection and distribution, while participating organizations can identify where needs are greatest. These activities could also improve residents’ understanding of avoidable waste without implying that all discarded food should be redistributed. Partnerships should assign technical tasks to trained staff where appropriate so that volunteers are not expected to handle every responsibility.
I want to emphasize once more that reliable information about how a program works is important to the decision. Third, records of surplus supply may help organizations adjust purchasing and preparation. However, redistributed quantities alone do not prove that total waste has fallen. Cities should compare actual waste prevention with transportation, refrigeration, and staffing requirements. Careful evaluation could also reveal whether one neighborhood benefits disproportionately while another still lacks reliable access.
As I have already stated in the introduction and the body, this is my final position on the topic. In conclusion, local food-sharing schemes deserve support when they can deliver measurable benefits safely and efficiently. They should complement prevention at the source rather than replace other measures.
After：修正後 232語（99語短縮）
Cities should encourage local food-sharing programs as one way to reduce avoidable waste, provided that food safety and operating costs are managed responsibly. Such programs can improve the use of surplus food, support community cooperation, and provide information that helps prevent future waste.
First, food-sharing networks may redirect suitable surplus food from shops and restaurants to organizations that can distribute it. This can make better use of edible items, but clear storage and handling rules are necessary because not all surplus products are safe to share.
Second, coordinated efforts can strengthen cooperation between businesses and community groups. Volunteers may help arrange collection and distribution, while participating organizations can identify where needs are greatest. These activities could also improve residents’ understanding of avoidable waste without implying that all discarded food should be redistributed. Partnerships should assign technical tasks to trained staff where appropriate so that volunteers are not expected to handle every responsibility.
Third, records of surplus supply may help organizations adjust purchasing and preparation. However, redistributed quantities alone do not prove that total waste has fallen. Cities should compare actual waste prevention with transportation, refrigeration, and staffing requirements. Careful evaluation could also reveal whether one neighborhood benefits disproportionately while another still lacks reliable access.
In conclusion, local food-sharing schemes deserve support when they can deliver measurable benefits safely and efficiently. They should complement prevention at the source rather than replace other measures.
修正の理由｜序論から結論まで
- 冒頭：『この後に理由を述べる』の予告を削って立場に直行。
- 理由1：usable surplusと安全な配布の条件を削らない。
- 理由2：協力は何をすることかを具体的に残し、『大切だ』の反復を削る。
- 理由3：再配布の数量と総廃棄削減を区別し、輸送・冷蔵などの費用を残す。
- 結論：他の予防策を補完する立場を保持する。
独自36問｜意味を変えずに短くする
修正前の英文を読み、言い過ぎや情報欠落を起こさずに短くしてください。元の条件・人数・時間・因果は必ず保持します。
問1：There are many reasons why I support the proposal.
問2：In my own personal opinion, the reform is necessary.
問3：It is important to point out that budgets are limited.
問4：The reason why people cannot use it is because transport is scarce.
問5：In a situation in which staffing is limited, choices are necessary.
問6：I would like to explain one of my points below.
問7：At the present point in time, the service is unavailable.
問8：A large number of residents rely on transport.
問9：The number of people using the service has grown.
問10：The facility has the ability to reduce delays.
問11：It is possible that the pilot could help some groups.
問12：In order to improve access, councils should cooperate.
問13：Due to the fact that costs vary, comparison is needed.
問14：Whether or not the policy will succeed remains uncertain.
問15：For the purpose of limiting waste, reuse may help.
問16：One issue that must be considered is accessibility.
問17：This is important because it is an important issue.
問18：The program provides support to people who need assistance.
問19：For example, to give one example, leaks can disrupt classes.
問20：Another additional concern involves maintenance.
問21：However, nevertheless, the costs may increase.
問22：The approach has both positive benefits and possible drawbacks.
問23：I think it is possible that some people could benefit.
問24：It should be noted that not all areas would benefit.
問25：Over the coming years in the future, costs may rise.
問26：There are several possible alternative options available.
問27：The first and foremost reason is the low cost.
問28：Another important point is the importance of safety.
問29：As already explained in my first paragraph, access matters.
問30：It is possible that some users might be excluded.
問31：Despite the fact that prices are falling, costs remain high.
問32：A further additional factor is environmental performance.
問33：Considering all the arguments I have presented above, I believe reform deserves support.
問34：For all the various reasons mentioned in this essay, I support targeted reform.
問35：It should be clearly noted that funding is required.
問36：In conclusion, I would like to conclude by emphasizing access.
36問の全解答・短縮理由
解1：I support the proposal for three reasons. 解説：予告と立場の重複を圧縮。
解2：I believe the reform is necessary. 解説：個人意見の重複を除く。
解3：Budgets are limited. 解説：注目を促す前置きを削る。
解4：People cannot use it because transport is scarce. 解説：理由表現の二重化を修正。
解5：When staffing is limited, choices are necessary. 解説：条件の語数を減らす。
解6：—（削除） 解説：予告自体は論拠にならない。
解7：Currently, the service is unavailable. 解説：時間の冗長さだけを削減。
解8：Many residents rely on transport. 解説：多数という意味を保つ。
解9：The number of users has grown. 解説：人数という測定対象を維持。
解10：The facility can reduce delays. 解説：能力の冗長表現を短縮。
解11：The pilot may help some groups. 解説：不確実性と対象を維持。
解12：To improve access, councils should cooperate. 解説：in order to を to に圧縮。
解13：Because costs vary, comparison is needed. 解説：因果関係を維持。
解14：Whether the policy will succeed remains uncertain. 解説：or notは不要。
解15：To limit waste, reuse may help. 解説：目的とmayを保持。
解16：Accessibility must be considered. 解説：実質的な論点を残す。
解17：This issue matters. 解説：意味の薄い同義反復を除去。
解18：The program supports people in need. 解説：対象範囲を保持。
解19：For example, leaks can disrupt classes. 解説：例示予告の重複。
解20：Another concern involves maintenance. 解説：another/additionalの重複。
解21：However, costs may increase. 解説：逆接を1つに。
解22：The approach has possible benefits and drawbacks. 解説：positive benefitsの重複を除く。
解23：Some people may benefit. 解説：someとmayを残す。
解24：Not all areas would benefit. 解説：部分否定は必ず保持。
解25：Costs may rise in future years. 解説：未来表現の重複。
解26：Several alternatives are available. 解説：possible alternativesをまとめる。
解27：First, the cost is relatively low. 解説：費用比較の主張を残し冗長な導入を削る。
解28：Safety also matters. 解説：重要性の二重表現。
解29：Access matters. 解説：先行段落への自己言及を削る。
解30：Some users might be excluded. 解説：可能性と一部対象を維持。
解31：Although prices are falling, costs remain high. 解説：譲歩を維持。
解32：Environmental performance also matters. 解説：further/additionalの重複。
解33：Overall, reform deserves support. 解説：結論予告を消し、立場を維持。
解34：I support targeted reform. 解説：同じ理由を繰り返す定型句を削る。
解35：Funding is required. 解説：実質的根拠を残して前置き削除。
解36：In conclusion, access matters. 解説：concludeの重複を除く。
削らない方がよい表現12例
重要表現1：some residents。一部の住民という範囲を消して全員へ拡張しない。
重要表現2：may improve。改善の可能性と確実性を混同しない。
重要表現3：provided that safety is maintained。安全という実施条件は重要。
重要表現4：compared with the existing system。比較対象がないと優位性を判断できない。
重要表現5：at least two reasons。少なくとも2つという数量の下限は保持する。
重要表現6：for low-income households。施策の対象を全世帯と混同しない。
重要表現7：not all participants benefited。一部が恩恵を受けていないという部分否定を残す。
重要表現8：in the long term。長期という時間の基準が論点なら必要。
重要表現9：according to the preliminary survey。暫定的な調査に基づくという留保が重要。
重要表現10：does not necessarily follow。必然性の否定を全面否定に変えない。
重要表現11：rather than replacing。補完と置換の違いを消さない。
重要表現12：although initial costs are high。反論を認めた上での主張であることを残す。
初見英作文の復習手順
- 1日目：全文添削1の修正前から語数を削れそうな前置きに印を付ける。
- 2日目：添削1を修正後の答案を見ずに200〜240語へ再編集する。
- 3日目：全文添削2で食品安全・費用・例外の条件を残す。
- 4日目：添削2を再編集し、3つの理由が残ったか確認する。
- 5日目：問1〜18を解き、意味を変えずに語数を減らす。
- 6日目：問19〜36を再編集し、文法・条件・主張の強さを点検。
- 7日目：公式の未使用トピックで自分の意見を書き、最後に削る工程を実施。
FAQ｜英検1級英作文の語数超過
240語を超えたら理由を3つから2つに減らすべきですか？
すぐに理由を減らすのではなく、同じ内容を繰り返す箇所から削るのが基本です。実際の問題冊子に理由数や語数の指示がある場合はその指定を優先します。
短い英文ほど評価は高くなりますか？
短さだけでは決まりません。内容・構成・語彙・文法の質を保ち、指示に従った論述が必要です。
どのくらいの語数で下書きを止めるべきですか？
最初から指定範囲に収まる構成が理想です。時間配分と得意な構文に応じて練習し、最後の編集時間を残してください。語数は最終的に本番の問題冊子の指示で確認します。
慶英会の関連無料教材
英作文の添削で論旨を崩さずに語数を調整したい場合は、慶英会の最大1か月無料体験・学習相談をご利用ください。
参考にした主な公式情報
教材のTOPIC・英文・添削例は慶英会のオリジナル素材です。公式の採点結果や英検協会の問題ではありません。
最大1か月完全無料体験・学習相談受付中
最大1か月の完全無料体験をご案内
学校教材・学力・目標に合わせた個別指導
入塾前に授業の進め方や講師との相性をお確かめください。
学校英語・定期テスト・英検の学習相談にも対応します。
保護者様の教育相談も無料で承ります。
1.学年 2. 学習目標 3.体験ご希望をお送りください。
体験の期間・回数・担当講師・日程は、ご希望と受付状況を確認してご案内します。
慶英会 塾長｜慶應義塾大学卒・英検1級。中高一貫校の学校英語・NEW TREASURE・英検対策を専門としています。塾長の経歴・指導方針を確認する