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級英作文でカンマ・セミコロン・コロンを誤ると、英文の論理や対象が読み取りにくくなります。例えば however の前後をカンマだけでつなぐcomma splice、Although … .の不完全な一文、関係詞節のカンマによる対象範囲の変化に注意します。慶英会の独自36題と全解説、200〜240語の模範2題を公開します。
英検協会が公表するWriting評価観点は内容・構成・語彙・文法です。英検協会の評価観点と1級の試験内容をご確認ください。句読点の一般的な原則にはPurdue University Writing Labの解説も参照しました。ここで扱う36問は慶英会の独自教材で、公式試験に同じ修正問題が出るという意味ではありません。
英検1級の句読点で見直す5つのポイント
- 2つの独立した節は、ピリオド・セミコロン・カンマ＋等位接続詞などで分ける。カンマのみで結ばない。
- However / Therefore / Neverthelessのような接続副詞は、等位接続詞but / soとは使い方が異なる。
- Although / Because / Ifは従属節を導くため、主節に正しく結びつける。
- 関係代名詞who / whichの前後のカンマは、補足説明か対象の限定かという意味に影響する。
- コロンはリストや後続の説明を示すことがある。英作文では無理に高度な句読点を多用する必要はない。
修正前と改善例を見比べ、なぜその句読点を選ぶかを説明してください。複数の自然な修正があり得るため、ピリオドにするかセミコロンにするかを一律に決めつけません。正しい文を修正不要とする問題も含みます。
独自36問｜文章の区切り・節・修飾を直す問題編
独立節をカンマだけでつなぐ誤り（comma splice）
Q1：The results were promising, the sample was very small.
Q2：Online lessons are useful, some students still need printed resources.
Q3：The school gathered feedback, it did not measure understanding.
Q4：The route helps some commuters, it also requires subsidies.
Q5：The assessment was delayed, officials needed more data.
Q6：More residents used the site, not everyone understood the instructions.
however・therefore・neverthelessを正しく区切る
Q7：The evidence was limited, however, the council approved the trial.
Q8：The fee rose, therefore, some users needed assistance.
Q9：The first trial failed, nevertheless the team continued its work.
Q10：The sample was small; therefore further research was required.
Q11：The policy improved access, moreover it simplified applications.
Q12：Some residents gained access; on the other hand others were excluded.
従属節を不完全な独立文にしない
Q13：Although the system was convenient. Some users needed help.
Q14：Because the evidence was incomplete. The trial continued.
Q15：If funding increases. More routes could operate.
Q16：Despite the research was limited, its results gained attention.
Q17：The study was useful, although the data incomplete.
Q18：Since the trial lasted one month; its lasting effects were unclear.
関係詞節のカンマが対象範囲を変える
Q19：Students, who needed printed copies, received them.
Q20：The proposal, that the council discussed, was revised.
Q21：Researchers who reviewed the pilot, identified problems.
Q22：The library, which opened in June served many readers.
Q23：The committee, after extensive discussion, extended the trial.
Q24：The only pilot, which involved five schools showed mixed outcomes.
コロン・セミコロンと列挙を取り違えない
Q25：The review focused on three things; access, cost and safety.
Q26：There was one limitation, the sample was not representative.
Q27：Officials considered: transport and staffing.
Q28：The plan has two priorities: access; and safety.
Q29：The trial was useful: however, costs remained uncertain.
Q30：The programme had two goals: lowering fees and to improve access.
所有格・ハイフン・ダッシュ・日時の表記
Q31：The citys programme requires review.
Q32：The schools equipment was expensive.
Q33：The researcher said its conclusion was tentative.
Q34：It was a six month programme in two schools.
Q35：The report was published in May, 2026.
Q36：Three factors mattered – cost, safety and access – they required review.
独自36問の全解答・修正理由
独立節をカンマだけでつなぐ誤り（comma splice）｜解答
Q1 改善英文：The results were promising, but the sample was very small.
理由：2独立節をカンマだけでつなげない。butで逆接。
Q2 改善英文：Online lessons may be useful; some students still need printed resources.
理由：セミコロンで独立節を分ける。
Q3 改善英文：The school gathered feedback, but it did not measure understanding.
理由：2つの独立節にbutを補う。
Q4 改善英文：The route may help some commuters. It also requires subsidies.
理由：2文に分けて費用と便益を明示。
Q5 改善英文：The assessment was delayed because officials needed more data.
理由：理由をbecause従属節として結ぶ。
Q6 改善英文：More residents used the site, but not everyone understood the instructions.
理由：利用と理解という別の結果をbutで対比。
however・therefore・neverthelessを正しく区切る｜解答
Q7 改善英文：The evidence was limited; however, the council approved the trial.
理由：however前の独立節をセミコロンで区切る。
Q8 改善英文：The fee rose. Therefore, some users needed assistance.
理由：thereforeは接続副詞。文末区切りを使う。
Q9 改善英文：The first trial failed. Nevertheless, the team continued its work.
理由：独立節を分け、Neverthelessの後にカンマ。
Q10 改善英文：The sample was small; therefore, further research was required.
理由：接続副詞の後ろにカンマを置く。
Q11 改善英文：The policy improved access; moreover, it simplified applications.
理由：moreoverはカンマだけで独立節を接続しない。
Q12 改善英文：Some residents gained access; on the other hand, others were excluded.
理由：on the other handの後ろをカンマで区切る。
従属節を不完全な独立文にしない｜解答
Q13 改善英文：Although the system was convenient, some users needed help.
理由：Although節に主節を続ける。
Q14 改善英文：Because the evidence was incomplete, the trial continued.
理由：理由節だけで文を終えない。
Q15 改善英文：If funding increases, more routes could operate.
理由：条件節と主節をカンマで接続。
Q16 改善英文：Although the research was limited, its results gained attention.
理由：despite＋節ではなくalthough＋節。
Q17 改善英文：The study was useful, although the data were incomplete.
理由：従属節内の述語wereを補う。
Q18 改善英文：Since the trial lasted one month, its lasting effects were unclear.
理由：従属節と主節の間にセミコロンは不要。
関係詞節のカンマが対象範囲を変える｜解答
Q19 改善英文：Students who needed printed copies received them.
理由：一部の対象を限定するならwhoの前後にカンマを置かない。
Q20 改善英文：The proposal that the council discussed was revised.
理由：限定用法のthat節をカンマで囲まない。
Q21 改善英文：Researchers who reviewed the pilot identified problems.
理由：主語の限定修飾と述語を不要なカンマで区切らない。
Q22 改善英文：The library, which opened in June, served many readers.
理由：補足のwhich節を2カンマで囲む。
Q23 改善英文：The committee, after extensive discussion, extended the trial.
理由：修正不要。挿入句を2カンマで正しく囲んでいる。
Q24 改善英文：The only pilot, which involved five schools, showed mixed outcomes.
理由：非制限のwhich節を閉じるカンマが必要。
コロン・セミコロンと列挙を取り違えない｜解答
Q25 改善英文：The review focused on three things: access, cost and safety.
理由：リストの導入にコロンを使う。
Q26 改善英文：There was one limitation: the sample was not representative.
理由：独立節が前の名詞を説明する場合のコロン。
Q27 改善英文：Officials considered transport and staffing.
理由：動詞と目的語の間をコロンで切らない。
Q28 改善英文：The plan has two priorities: access and safety.
理由：短い単純な並列にセミコロンは不要。
Q29 改善英文：The trial was useful; however, costs remained uncertain.
理由：逆接の接続副詞にはセミコロンが自然。
Q30 改善英文：The programme had two goals: lowering fees and improving access.
理由：コロンの後の列挙を動名詞形でそろえる。
所有格・ハイフン・ダッシュ・日時の表記｜解答
Q31 改善英文：The city’s programme requires review.
理由：単数cityの所有格にアポストロフィ。
Q32 改善英文：The school’s equipment was expensive.
理由：1校の所有ならschool’s。複数校ならschools’。
Q33 改善英文：The researcher said the conclusion was tentative.
理由：人間の研究者をitsで受けず、the conclusionと明示。
Q34 改善英文：It was a six-month programme in two schools.
理由：名詞に先立つ複合修飾にハイフン。
Q35 改善英文：The report was published in May 2026.
理由：月＋年だけなら普通カンマ不要。日付を含む場合と区別。
Q36 改善英文：Three factors mattered—cost, safety and access—and all required review.
理由：挿入部分を対のダッシュで囲み後続独立節をandで接続。
独自模範英作文2題｜適切な句読点で論理を伝える
独自TOPIC 1｜Should municipalities publish the results of public-service pilot programmes?
先に自力で200〜240語の意見論述を作成し、独立した理由3つと最後の反論の扱いを点検してください。模範英文では接続副詞の前後の句読点・関係詞なども確認します。
模範英作文1（202語）
I believe municipalities should publish clear evaluations of pilot programmes before deciding whether to expand them. A promising trial may justify further action, but its initial results should not automatically be treated as proof of long-term success.
First, transparent reports can improve accountability. Residents should know what an authority intended to achieve and which outcomes were measured. For example, a booking platform might process more applications without becoming accessible to every user. The report should distinguish activity from meaningful access.
Second, public evaluation can identify practical problems. A short trial may reveal unclear instructions, maintenance costs or barriers faced by particular groups. Discussing these limitations allows officials to improve a programme instead of repeating the same mistakes elsewhere.
Third, sharing methods can support better decisions in other communities. A policy that works in one municipality may depend on local transport, staff capacity or financial conditions. Detailed documentation would help others decide whether the approach is suitable.
Critics may argue that producing reports takes time and delays urgent improvements. That concern deserves attention. Municipalities should match the depth of evaluation to the importance and urgency of the decision. Nevertheless, clear findings and transparent uncertainty can reduce the risk of costly, poorly designed expansion.
独自TOPIC 2｜Should universities teach students how to evaluate research claims?
先に自力で200〜240語の意見論述を作成し、独立した理由3つと最後の反論の扱いを点検してください。模範英文では接続副詞の前後の句読点・関係詞なども確認します。
模範英作文2（220語）
I believe universities should teach evidence evaluation alongside subject-specific knowledge. Students encounter scientific headlines, political arguments and claims about new technologies, but attractive language does not necessarily reflect the strength of the underlying evidence.
First, these lessons can improve students’ understanding of uncertainty. A small study may identify a promising relationship without proving that it applies to every population. Learning the difference between an association and a causal explanation can help students interpret results more carefully.
Second, practical evaluation can improve communication. For example, two research reports may appear to disagree because they examine different groups or time periods. A student who identifies those differences can explain the apparent conflict instead of concluding that research is unreliable.
Third, universities can support independent thinking through unfamiliar examples. Students might compare a report with its summary, identify claims that go beyond the findings and suggest which additional evidence is needed. These activities encourage reasoning rather than memorization. They could also be integrated into laboratory exercises and discussions, making the training more relevant to different academic disciplines.
Critics may argue that university courses already contain too much material. That is a reasonable concern. Instructors could integrate short evidence-checking tasks into existing classes instead of creating another large requirement. With manageable implementation, students could develop valuable skills while continuing to learn essential subject knowledge.
独自の追加8判断｜原文と修正で意味が変わるか
追加判断1：Two independent clauses joined by a comma alone can usually be divided with a period.
適切：二つの独立節をピリオドで分ける方法がある。
追加判断2：A semicolon is required in every EIKEN Grade 1 essay.
不適切：特定記号の使用を強制する公式ルールはない。
追加判断3：A restrictive relative clause can identify only the students concerned.
適切：対象の範囲を限定する修飾節の役割。
追加判断4：Adding commas around who never affects meaning.
不適切：限定と補足の違いに影響し得る。
追加判断5：Although may introduce a dependent clause that needs a main clause.
適切：従属節は通常、主節と一つの構文を作る。
追加判断6：A comma automatically proves that a causal relationship is true.
不適切：句読点は因果の証拠ではない。
追加判断7：Clear punctuation can make the writer’s reasoning easier to follow.
適切：文構造・論理関係を読者へ示せる。
追加判断8：A list must always use the Oxford comma in every writing style.
不適切：文体によって異なり、誤解のない列挙が重要。
7日間の英検1級英作文復習
- 1日目：Q1〜6。独立節をどこで切れるか確認する。
- 2日目：Q7〜12。however・thereforeの用法を復習する。
- 3日目：Q13〜18。because・althoughなどの従属節を主節につなぐ。
- 4日目：Q19〜24。限定・非限定のカンマを確認する。
- 5日目：Q25〜30。コロン・セミコロンと列挙。
- 6日目：Q31〜36。所有格・複合修飾・数字表記を確認する。
- 7日目：模範のTOPICを新たに自分で書き、句読点・論理・指定語数を点検する。
よくある質問
英検1級でセミコロンを使えば高得点になりますか？
セミコロンを使用したこと自体に公式の独立配点があるわけではありません。正確な句読点と意味の明瞭な英文を優先します。
Oxford commaは必須ですか？
リストの最後のandの前にカンマを置くかどうかは、文体上の選択があります。読み手が誤解しない構造にすることを優先してください。
文法が正しくても内容がずれているとどうなりますか？
英検協会は課題への回答・内容の論拠・構成・語彙・文法を評価します。英文の形だけでなく、TOPICと理由3つの対応を確認する必要があります。
関連記事と学習相談
慶英会の最大1か月無料体験・学習相談はこちら。この教材の36問・模範2題は登録不要です。
主な参考情報：英検協会のWriting評価観点、Purdue University Writing Lab・句読点、Cambridge Grammar・Punctuation。練習英文・修正例は慶英会独自制作で公式過去問ではありません。
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