英検1級・電子ごみ6,200万トンと正式リサイクル率22.3％【ITU・UNITAR】長文・要約・面接8問

結論：英検1級で電子ごみ（e-waste）の統計を読む場合、発生量と正式に回収・再資源化された量、報告書の発行年とデータの対象年、回収イベントの参加人数と実際の処理成果を区別しましょう。UNITAR・ITUのGlobal E-waste Monitor 2024では2022年に世界で6,200万トンが発生し、その22.3％が正式に回収・再資源化されたと記録されています。慶英会はこの一次情報を参考に、独自長文554語・6問、聞き取り151語・4問、要約98語、意見論述212語、面接8問・全解答を作成しました。

主な公式情報：ITU｜The Global E-waste Monitor 2024、UNITAR｜Global E-waste Monitor 2024 Press Release。数値は2022年の世界推計であり、残りの77.7％が全て同じ方法で廃棄されたことを意味しません。Harborsideは慶英会が創作した架空の市で、実在する回収制度を説明するものではありません。英検の正式形式は英検協会公式で確認してください。

電子ごみ統計の5つの区別

用語	表すこと	誤読の例
Generated	一定期間に発生した電子ごみ量	正式に回収された量と同じ
Documented formally collected and recycled	正式な回収・再資源化として記録された量	残りの全てが埋立処分されたとの断定
Publication year	報告書の公表年：2024	統計対象年も2024であるという推測
Repair and reuse	修理や再使用	材料を取り出すリサイクルと全く同じ
Verified outcome	処理や再使用に関する検証済み成果	イベントの参加者数と同じ

慶英会独自長文｜E-waste Statistics and Real Recycling（554語）

Paragraph 1. Electronic waste includes discarded devices and other electrical or electronic equipment that people and businesses no longer use. A smartphone that is replaced every few years can become part of this stream, but it would be misleading to assume that all discarded equipment is immediately dumped in an open landfill. Devices can move through repair, reuse, storage, informal handling, formal collection and recycling systems. The environmental and resource consequences depend partly on how equipment is managed after use. Policy therefore needs to distinguish the quantity of electronic waste generated from the quantity documented as properly collected and recycled.

Paragraph 2. The International Telecommunication Union and the United Nations Institute for Training and Research published the Global E-waste Monitor 2024 using data that include estimates for 2022. The report states that the world generated 62 million tonnes of e-waste in 2022, of which 22.3 percent was documented as formally collected and recycled. These figures should not be described as quantities measured in 2024 simply because the report was published that year. Nor does the undocumented remainder prove that every unrecorded item was discarded in the same way. The statistics describe an important documentation and management gap, not the exact history of every device.

Paragraph 3. In the fictional city of Harborside, officials launch an initiative to collect used household electronics. Their first public announcement reports that thousands of residents attended collection events. The project looks successful in photographs, but a local researcher asks what happened to the equipment after it was accepted. Some devices may be repaired, some may enter verified recovery facilities, and others may await processing. Counting people who visit an event cannot establish the mass actually collected, the materials recovered or the environmental quality of the subsequent treatment. The city therefore considers a reporting system that follows relevant items through their next stages.

Paragraph 4. Business owners warn that detailed records could be costly for small repair shops and recyclers. They also note that keeping a working device in service longer can have a different purpose from breaking it down to recover materials. An educational campaign that tells people to recycle every product immediately could overlook reasonable opportunities for repair or reuse. However, encouraging repair does not mean that unsafe or unsuitable equipment should be kept in service indefinitely. Officials propose guidance that distinguishes repair, reuse, collection and environmentally sound treatment according to the circumstances.

Paragraph 5. Another difficulty concerns product design and the availability of collection services. Residents may be willing to return unused equipment but lack convenient points or clear instructions. Some devices contain valuable materials, yet their composition and the methods required for recovery differ. A statement that a product contains recoverable metals is not evidence that those materials have already been recovered economically and safely. The city considers coordination among retailers, public facilities and suitable operators while avoiding promises that one technology can solve every problem.

Paragraph 6. Harborside decides to evaluate the initiative through verified collection, appropriate treatment, opportunities for reuse and practical access for residents. It will disclose which measures describe activities and which describe actual results. The council does not dismiss the value of collection events, but it rejects the claim that high attendance alone establishes successful waste management. The broader lesson is that electronic-waste statistics become useful when their observation years, reporting boundaries and practical meanings are explained rather than turned into oversimplified slogans.

長文内容一致・独自6問

Reading Q1

What is the central purpose of the passage?

• (A) To show that every discarded device goes directly to a landfill.
• (B) To argue that repairing electronic devices is always preferable.
• (C) To distinguish e-waste generation, documented formal recycling and actual management outcomes.
• (D) To claim that all recycling statistics should be abandoned.

Reading Q2

What does the 62-million-tonne figure refer to?

• (A) Estimated global e-waste generated in 2022, reported in the 2024 monitor.
• (B) The volume recycled in 2024.
• (C) A guaranteed global figure for 2030.
• (D) The weight of all new phones sold in 2022.

Reading Q3

Why is the undocumented share difficult to characterize?

• (A) The report proves that every device was reused.
• (B) No electronic equipment can be measured.
• (C) Every unrecorded device contains identical materials.
• (D) A lack of documented formal recovery does not establish one disposal route for every item.

Reading Q4

Why does the researcher question collection-event attendance?

• (A) The city prohibited electronic collections.
• (B) Attendance does not show verified mass, treatment or recovery after the event.
• (C) All participants bought new electronics.
• (D) Event records cannot be kept.

Reading Q5

How does the author treat repair and reuse?

• (A) As identical to formal recycling.
• (B) As a requirement to keep every device indefinitely.
• (C) As possible alternatives that need to be considered according to safety and practical conditions.
• (D) As unrelated to the useful life of equipment.

Reading Q6

Which evaluation would be most consistent with the passage?

• (A) Track confirmed collection, suitable treatment, reuse and practical access.
• (B) Count only social-media photographs.
• (C) Announce that all material was recovered if it contains metal.
• (D) Measure only how many volunteers joined an event.

6問の全解答・本文根拠

Reading Q1 正解（C）To distinguish e-waste generation, documented formal recycling and actual management outcomes.。The introduction and conclusion emphasize the different statistical categories and outcomes.

Reading Q2 正解（A）Estimated global e-waste generated in 2022, reported in the 2024 monitor.。The source figure is for generation in 2022, not the report publication year.

Reading Q3 正解（D）A lack of documented formal recovery does not establish one disposal route for every item.。Undocumented does not mean that a single fate has been established.

Reading Q4 正解（B）Attendance does not show verified mass, treatment or recovery after the event.。The case distinguishes participant counts from treatment outcomes.

Reading Q5 正解（C）As possible alternatives that need to be considered according to safety and practical conditions.。The passage makes repair, reuse and recovery distinct, conditional choices.

Reading Q6 正解（A）Track confirmed collection, suitable treatment, reuse and practical access.。The closing paragraph specifies verified outcomes and access.

独自リスニング台本（151語）

音声ファイルは付属しません。台本を隠し、第三者または端末の英語読み上げで一度だけ聞いて4問に回答します。英検本番の録音とは異なるので、英検協会公式音源でも初見問題を練習してください。

At a fictional city meeting, a waste coordinator announces that thousands of residents attended an electronics collection event. A researcher asks how much equipment was formally processed after collection. The coordinator replies that attendance figures do not answer this question. Some devices may be repaired, while others need suitable recycling or further assessment. Another participant cites the Global E-waste Monitor 2024 and says that 62 million tonnes of waste were generated in 2024. The researcher corrects the statement: the figure refers to 2022, although the report was published in 2024. A shop owner then claims that the 22.3 percent documented formal collection and recycling rate means every other device was dumped in a landfill. The researcher explains that missing formal documentation does not establish one identical fate for the remainder. The committee agrees to separate event attendance, verified collection and treatment outcomes, while also considering practical opportunities for repair and reuse.

リスニング4問

Listening Q1

Why does the researcher challenge the event’s success claim?

• (A) No residents took part.
• (B) The city had no electrical waste.
• (C) Every participant received a payment.
• (D) Attendance does not establish how much material was appropriately processed.

Listening Q2

What year does the 62-million-tonne estimate concern?

• (A) 2010.
• (B) 2022.
• (C) 2024.
• (D) 2030.

Listening Q3

Why is the claim about the undocumented remainder rejected?

• (A) No equipment was generated.
• (B) All undocumented equipment was correctly recycled.
• (C) The statistics do not identify one identical fate for every undocumented item.
• (D) Every device was certainly repaired.

Listening Q4

What will the city evaluate next?

• (A) Verified collection, treatment and opportunities for repair or reuse.
• (B) Only the number of event photographs.
• (C) Only the number of new devices sold.
• (D) Whether every resident attended.

聞き取り4問の全解答

Listening Q1 正解（D）Attendance does not establish how much material was appropriately processed.。The researcher wants evidence beyond event activity.

Listening Q2 正解（B）2022.。Publication year 2024 differs from observation year 2022.

Listening Q3 正解（C）The statistics do not identify one identical fate for every undocumented item.。Undocumented formal handling is not a universal landfill claim.

Listening Q4 正解（A）Verified collection, treatment and opportunities for repair or reuse.。The meeting adopts output and outcome distinctions.

英文要約｜90〜110語のモデル

2024年版と2022年統計の違い、正式な回収記録と実際の処理の区別、修理・再使用の位置づけを残します。

The Global E-waste Monitor 2024 estimates that 62 million tonnes of electronic waste were generated in 2022, with 22.3 percent documented as formally collected and recycled. Those figures do not establish what happened to every remaining item. In a fictional city, popular collection events reveal little about actual treatment or material recovery. Officials therefore propose tracking verified collection and processing while considering repair and reuse where appropriate. Small businesses raise concerns about reporting costs, and residents need convenient services. The city aims to evaluate genuine waste-management outcomes rather than equate event attendance or recyclable materials with successful recovery.

慶英会独自モデル98語。架空事例は世界の実測値と区別してください。

英作文｜電子ごみ対策を強化すべきか

Original TOPIC: Should governments strengthen electronic-waste collection and recycling?

Governments should strengthen electronic-waste collection and management, but policies must distinguish registration, collection and actual treatment. The growing quantity of discarded devices creates environmental and resource challenges that cannot be solved by publicity alone. First, better collection systems can make suitable handling more accessible. Residents need understandable instructions and practical locations to return equipment. The number of people attending a public event does not establish how much material is later processed appropriately. Second, responsible management can improve the use of valuable resources. Some devices may be repaired or reused, while others require appropriate recycling. However, a product containing recoverable metals does not guarantee those materials have already been recovered safely or economically. Third, transparent records can improve policy decisions. Reports should identify the year measured and distinguish formally documented recycling from activities that are not included in that category. Critics reasonably worry that detailed reporting imposes costs on smaller operators. Governments should therefore use proportionate requirements and provide practical guidance rather than demand identical systems from every business. Relevant authorities should also explain clearly how the different material streams have been classified. In conclusion, I support evidence-based measures combining access, responsible treatment and accountability. Success should be judged by verified outcomes and reduced avoidable harm, not just the number of collection events.

独自意見論述212語。回収・資源利用・正確な統計という3つの理由を論じています。

二次面接｜独自スピーチと追質問8問

Original TOPIC: Should governments do more to manage electronic waste?

I believe governments should improve the management of electronic waste because discarded devices can contain useful resources and potentially harmful materials. However, counting collection events is not enough. First, residents need practical return options. People may be willing to dispose of equipment responsibly but lack clear information or convenient services. Second, different devices need appropriate treatment. Repair and reuse can be useful in some cases, while unsuitable equipment may require regulated recycling. These activities should not be treated as identical. Third, reporting must be accurate. The Global E-waste Monitor 2024 describes waste generated in 2022, so the publication year and the measurement year must not be confused. Moreover, an undocumented share does not prove that every item went to a landfill. There are costs to proper collection and recordkeeping, especially for small businesses. I would support suitable guidance and proportionate oversight. Successful policy should also examine whether the facilities remain accessible to different communities. Overall, electronic-waste policy should focus on responsible outcomes rather than impressive photographs or misleading statistics.

独自スピーチ169語。自分の発話速度に合わせ2分間練習してください。

Interview Q1

Question: Is all electronic waste landfilled?

Model answer: No. Devices may be repaired, reused, collected, processed or handled through different systems.

Interview Q2

Question: What did the Global E-waste Monitor 2024 measure?

Model answer: It includes estimates for 2022, including 62 million tonnes generated and 22.3 percent documented formally collected and recycled.

Interview Q3

Question: Does undocumented recycling necessarily mean landfill disposal?

Model answer: No. The category does not provide a complete item-by-item explanation of the remainder.

Interview Q4

Question: Why should repair be considered?

Model answer: Suitable repair can extend useful life, but decisions depend on device condition and safety.

Interview Q5

Question: Do valuable metals guarantee profitable recycling?

Model answer: No. Recovery depends on composition, facilities, costs and suitable methods.

Interview Q6

Question: Should collection events continue?

Model answer: They can be useful, provided the results are evaluated beyond attendance.

Interview Q7

Question: Could reporting requirements be unfair to small businesses?

Model answer: They might impose disproportionate costs, so the design should be practical.

Interview Q8

Question: How would you judge progress?

Model answer: By reliable data on collection, suitable treatment, reuse and meaningful community access.

e-waste・循環経済の重要語彙20表現

英語	意味
electronic waste	電子廃棄物
formal recycling	正式な回収・リサイクル
documented collection	記録された回収
generated mass	発生量
observation year	統計の対象年
publication year	公表年
treatment facility	処理施設
material recovery	材料回収
repair and reuse	修理と再使用
recyclable material	再資源化可能な材料
verified outcome	検証された成果
informal handling	非公式な取扱い
collection point	回収拠点
recovery rate	回収率
waste stream	廃棄物の流れ
product lifespan	製品寿命
end-of-life device	使用済み機器
hazardous component	有害な構成物
responsible management	責任ある管理
extended producer responsibility	拡大生産者責任

よくある誤読6例

• The 2024 report contains estimates for 2022.
• Generated e-waste is not the same as formally recycled e-waste.
• An undocumented remainder does not prove one identical disposal route.
• Event attendance is not verified recovery.
• Repair, reuse and recycling are different activities.
• A product containing valuable metal is not evidence of actual material recovery.

7日間の4技能復習

• 1日目：長文6問の根拠・誤答を確認する。
• 2日目：2022年の発生量6,200万トンと22.3％の意味・重要語彙20表現を整理。
• 3日目：リスニング4問を台本なしで一度聞き演習。
• 4日目：90〜110語で英文要約を書く。
• 5日目：200〜240語で意見論述を完成させる。
• 6日目：2分間スピーチと追質問8問を練習する。
• 7日目：英検1級の未使用公式問題で未知の文章へ応用する。

FAQ

2024年に世界で電子ごみが6,200万トン発生しましたか？

報告書の題名は2024年版ですが、6,200万トンは2022年の世界推計です。

22.3％の正式な回収・再資源化率なら残りは全て埋立地ですか？

いいえ。正式な回収・処理として記録されない部分について、全ての機器の行き先が同一だと結論できません。

修理とリサイクルは同じですか？

修理は既存機器を使い続けるための活動で、材料の回収とは目的や工程が異なります。

公式資料・関連記事

• ITU｜Global E-waste Monitor 2024
• UNITAR｜2024年公式発表
• 英検協会｜英検1級形式
• 重要鉱物と電池リサイクルの4技能教材
• プラスチックの再使用と再資源化
• 慶英会英検1級の総合教材ガイド

慶英会の無料体験・学習相談

科学・環境の英文では統計の主語や対象年を確認し、本文にない断定を加えないことが大切です。最大1か月無料体験・学習相談はこちら。独自問題と全解答は登録不要で閲覧できます。

最大1ヶ月無料体験授業受付中！（残り枠わずかです！）

最大1ヶ月の「完全無料」指導体験
平均2~3時間のレッスン ＋ 毎日LINEサポート付き

ご入塾前に、慶英会の圧倒的な指導品質をじっくりご体感ください。

無料体験だけで成績が上がる方も続出!!
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。

⚠️【塾長直接指導の残り枠わずか】
枠が埋まり次第終了となります。お早めにお申し込みください。

最大1ヶ月無料体験（残り枠わずか）Eメールでのお申し込み