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
英検1級二次面接の無料模擬教材第15集です。慶英会独自のトピックカード5枚・合計25トピック、模範スピーチ5本、追質問15問＋追加20問の計35問と英語の回答例を収録。防災、研究、公共交通、食品流通、学び直しを題材に、条件と反論を取り込む練習ができます。すべて非公式の独自教材です。
結論：英検1級二次面接は、意見を述べ、異なる理由を整理し、反論や追加質問に直接答える力が重要です。公式の二次試験は5トピックから1題を選び、1分間の考慮時間（メモ不可）の後、2分間のスピーチとQ&Aが行われます。英検協会の公式案内を参照し、慶英会が独自の練習問題を作成しました。
1分準備・2分スピーチの組み立て
- 最初の30秒で5テーマの中から理由を出しやすい1題を選ぶ。
- 残り30秒で立場・理由2〜3点・想定反論・結論を頭の中で整理。
- スピーチでは根拠のない統計や「必ず成功する」などの強すぎる断定を避ける。
- 追質問は質問の種類を確認し、まず直接の答え、その後に理由や条件を述べる。
模擬カード1｜防災政策と公平な支援
以下の独自5トピックから、1題だけを選択してください。メモなしで1分準備し、自分の意見を英語で話した後、模範スピーチと比較します。
- 1. Should governments invest more in community disaster preparedness?
- 2. Should disaster aid be distributed according to risk rather than population?
- 3. Can private insurers play a larger role in climate adaptation?
- 4. Should residents be required to follow evacuation drills?
- 5. Should cities prioritize essential public buildings during emergencies?
模範スピーチ1｜Should governments invest more in community disaster preparedness?（214語）
I believe governments should invest more in community disaster preparedness, provided that programs are based on local risks and realistic responsibilities.
First, preparation can make information more accessible. Residents may know the nearest public building, but they might not understand which facilities remain safe during floods or earthquakes. Clear guidance and regular exercises can help families make better decisions. Authorities should also provide information in accessible formats and languages.
Second, community programs can identify people who need additional assistance. Older residents, people with disabilities, and households with limited transport options may face different difficulties. Coordinating with local organizations before an emergency could make support more effective, although personal information must be handled carefully.
Third, preparedness can expose weaknesses in existing systems. Exercises may reveal unreliable communication methods, insufficient supplies, or unclear responsibilities. Officials can then revise their procedures before a real crisis occurs. However, a successful exercise is not proof that every response will work under extreme conditions.
Some critics argue that public funding should prioritize immediate infrastructure repairs. That is a reasonable concern. Governments should compare costs and risks instead of treating training as a substitute for safe roads, buildings, and emergency services.
Overall, community preparedness deserves investment as one component of a broader disaster strategy, not as a replacement for professional planning.
論点の日本語整理：地域の危険度と実施能力を条件に防災投資へ賛成。①災害情報へのアクセス改善、②要配慮者の発見と支援、③訓練による問題発見。反論：道路や建物の安全整備を優先すべきという主張も合理的。対応：専門家による施設・避難経路の整備を補完する仕組みとする。
カード1の追加質問3問・模範回答
Q1. Could volunteer preparedness programs replace professional emergency services?
A1. No. Volunteers can perform suitable supporting tasks, but trained professionals must manage dangerous operations and technical decisions. — 専門家を代替せず補完する。
Q2. How would you decide which communities should receive aid first?
A2. I would assess exposure to hazards, residents’ ability to respond, and the availability of essential services. Population size alone would be insufficient. — 人口だけでなく危険度・脆弱性・サービスを見る。
Q3. What if a disaster drill receives high satisfaction ratings?
A3. That would be encouraging, but satisfaction is not a direct measure of performance during a real disaster. I would also examine response times and unmet needs. — 満足度と実災害での効果を分ける。
模擬カード2｜研究の透明性と社会的信頼
以下の独自5トピックから、1題だけを選択してください。メモなしで1分準備し、自分の意見を英語で話した後、模範スピーチと比較します。
- 1. Should publicly funded research data be made more accessible?
- 2. Should universities require researchers to disclose potential conflicts of interest?
- 3. Is replication more important than originality in scientific research?
- 4. Should policymakers rely on preliminary research findings?
- 5. Should research institutions publish negative results?
模範スピーチ2｜Should publicly funded research data be made more accessible?（208語）
Publicly funded research should generally be more accessible, but openness must be balanced with privacy and legitimate safety concerns.
My first reason is accountability. Taxpayers support research because it may advance knowledge and inform public decisions. Making methods and appropriately prepared data available allows other researchers to examine the evidence and identify mistakes. This does not guarantee that every conclusion will be correct, but it can strengthen scrutiny.
Second, access may reduce unnecessary duplication. When findings and procedures are explained clearly, research teams can build on earlier work instead of repeating avoidable errors. Negative results may also be useful, because they can show which approaches failed under specified conditions.
Third, transparency can improve public understanding. People should be able to distinguish a preliminary hypothesis from a conclusion supported by repeated studies. Institutions that explain uncertainty responsibly may inspire greater confidence than those that present every result as certain.
Critics point out that unrestricted data release could expose confidential medical or personal information. I agree that this is a serious risk. Agencies should remove unnecessary identifying details, use controlled access where appropriate, and publish reasons for restrictions.
In conclusion, research organizations should aim for openness that supports verification and learning while protecting people whose information makes scientific work possible.
論点の日本語整理：公的研究の透明性を支持。ただし無制限な情報公開は否定。①税金を用いた研究の説明責任、②不要な重複と誤りの削減、③仮説と確実な結果の区別。反論：個人情報の漏洩。対応：匿名化や制限付きアクセスで検証と保護を両立。
カード2の追加質問3問・模範回答
Q4. Would publishing more data automatically make research reliable?
A4. No. Reliability also depends on sampling, measurement quality, and independent analysis. Openness enables scrutiny but does not replace good methodology. — 公開だけでは研究の質を保証しない。
Q5. Could researchers misuse an open database?
A5. Yes, so sensitive information may require safeguards, access controls, and accountability for misuse. — 制限付き公開と監査。
Q6. Should failed experiments be reported?
A6. Often yes. Clear descriptions of unsuccessful trials can help other researchers avoid repeating the same mistakes, provided the findings are presented accurately. — 否定的結果も情報価値がある。
慶英会 塾長｜慶應義塾大学卒・英検1級
塾長の経歴・指導方針
中高一貫校の英語・定期テスト・英検の学習状況を整理し、必要な復習の優先順位を考えたい方は、無料体験・学習相談のご案内をご確認ください。最大1か月完全無料体験の対象・回数・担当講師は、お申し込み時にご案内します。
友だち追加後、学年・教材・困っていることと「学習相談希望（ブログ・記事中盤）」をお送りください。LINEを開くだけでは受付は完了しません。LINEを利用できない方はメールでの学習相談も可能です。料金・無料体験の期間と条件はコース・料金・無料体験のご案内でご確認ください。
模擬カード3｜公共交通と地域経済
以下の独自5トピックから、1題だけを選択してください。メモなしで1分準備し、自分の意見を英語で話した後、模範スピーチと比較します。
- 1. Should rural communities subsidize essential public transportation?
- 2. Should cities restrict private cars in crowded historic districts?
- 3. Can remote work reduce the need for transport infrastructure?
- 4. Should public transport be free for all passengers?
- 5. Should transport agencies prioritize reliability over speed?
模範スピーチ3｜Should rural communities subsidize essential public transportation?（215語）
Governments should support essential public transportation in rural communities, although subsidies should be evaluated carefully.
First, transport provides access to basic services. Residents without cars may need buses to reach hospitals, schools, or shops. A route with relatively few passengers can still be important when there is no realistic alternative. Evaluating only ticket revenue may therefore overlook its social value.
Second, reliable services can support local economic activity. Workers need predictable journeys, and businesses benefit when customers can reach commercial areas. Yet a larger timetable does not automatically create new demand. Authorities should examine actual travel needs and coordinate services with employers and community organizations.
Third, transport can reduce isolation. Older adults and people with disabilities may become less connected if the final practical bus route disappears. Accessible stops and clear information matter as much as the number of vehicles.
Critics rightly argue that maintaining nearly empty buses can be expensive. Governments should compare fixed routes with smaller vehicles, flexible bookings, and shared services. They must also account for accessibility and the cost of arranging trips in advance.
In my view, public funding is justified when it secures essential access that the market would otherwise fail to provide. The objective should be dependable mobility rather than simply maximizing the number of buses on the road.
論点の日本語整理：地方の重要な移動手段への補助を支持。①病院・学校等へのアクセス、②通勤と商業活動、③高齢者や障害者の孤立予防。反論：空車の大型バスは高コスト。対応：小型車、予約方式などと比較し、便数より実用的な移動を目標にする。
カード3の追加質問3問・模範回答
Q7. Would free fares always be the best transport policy?
A7. Not necessarily. In some areas, the main problems are service frequency and accessibility rather than ticket prices. — 無料化と利便性は別の課題。
Q8. How could officials measure social value beyond passenger numbers?
A8. They could examine access to essential appointments, travel reliability, and the availability of alternatives. — 乗車数だけでなく目的達成を評価。
Q9. Should every village receive an identical service?
A9. No. Different populations, geography, and mobility needs justify different combinations of routes and flexible services. — 同一施策の一律適用を避ける。
模擬カード4｜食品流通と消費者の選択
以下の独自5トピックから、1題だけを選択してください。メモなしで1分準備し、自分の意見を英語で話した後、模範スピーチと比較します。
- 1. Should governments encourage restaurants to reduce food waste?
- 2. Should retailers disclose the environmental cost of product delivery?
- 3. Is local food always more sustainable than imported food?
- 4. Should consumers pay more for easily repairable products?
- 5. Should manufacturers be responsible for collecting used packaging?
模範スピーチ4｜Should governments encourage restaurants to reduce food waste?（202語）
Governments should encourage restaurants and retailers to reduce food waste, but effective programs require better measurement than sales figures alone.
First, preventing waste can conserve resources. Producing food uses land, water, energy, and labor. If edible products are discarded unnecessarily, some of those resources have been used without achieving their intended purpose. Practical improvements in inventory management can therefore offer benefits.
Second, accurate information can improve business decisions. Restaurants may reduce waste by adjusting preparation to expected demand or finding safe ways to offer surplus meals. However, more discounted orders do not necessarily prove that waste has fallen. A business might prepare additional food because it expects more late orders.
Third, cooperation can spread useful practices. Retailers, food suppliers, and local charities may develop reliable ways to handle suitable surplus products. Any such system must respect food-safety requirements and avoid shifting excessive costs to volunteers.
A common objection is that new reporting requirements burden small businesses. This concern deserves attention. Governments should begin with simple measurements and proportionate support rather than requiring expensive systems everywhere.
Overall, reducing food waste is a worthwhile objective, but policymakers should assess the amount actually discarded, the cost of interventions, and unintended effects before expanding a program.
論点の日本語整理：食品廃棄削減を支持。①食料生産資源の有効活用、②需要に合わせた店舗経営、③企業・地域団体の協力。反論：小規模店の報告負担。対応：簡素な実測と比例的な支援。割引販売件数の増加だけでは廃棄が減ったとは言えない。
カード4の追加質問3問・模範回答
Q10. Would greater sales of discounted meals prove lower food waste?
A10. No. Restaurants might also prepare more food. We should measure discarded quantities and normal production levels. — 販売増加と廃棄削減の違い。
Q11. Should businesses donate all unsold food?
A11. Not always. Food safety, storage, transportation, and suitability must be considered before donation. — 食品安全と物流の条件を確認。
Q12. Could mandatory reports disadvantage small restaurants?
A12. Yes. Requirements should be proportionate, and simple tools or technical assistance could reduce the burden. — 義務の比例性を示す。
模擬カード5｜学び直し・職業資格と公平性
以下の独自5トピックから、1題だけを選択してください。メモなしで1分準備し、自分の意見を英語で話した後、模範スピーチと比較します。
- 1. Should universities expand short courses for working adults?
- 2. Should employers offer paid time for professional education?
- 3. Can digital certificates improve recruitment fairness?
- 4. Should governments subsidize training for career changers?
- 5. Should traditional degrees remain the main signal of professional ability?
模範スピーチ5｜Should universities expand short courses for working adults?（203語）
Universities should expand high-quality short courses for working adults while maintaining the broader educational role of traditional degrees.
First, many workers need targeted learning opportunities as their jobs change. A short course can introduce new software, research methods, or professional communication skills without requiring several years away from employment. This flexibility is valuable, but courses must accommodate different schedules and accessibility needs.
Second, credible assessments can help employers understand what applicants have learned. A certificate should identify specific abilities and show how they were evaluated. Merely watching videos or completing an easy quiz is not sufficient evidence of professional competence.
Third, short courses can support continuous education. A graduate might return to university at different stages of a career, while someone considering a new profession could explore the subject before making a larger commitment. Such courses should complement rather than automatically replace comprehensive degree programs.
One concern is that an increasing number of credentials may confuse employers. I agree. Institutions should explain their standards, publish relevant completion information, and clarify whether credits can transfer to formal qualifications.
In conclusion, short courses could widen educational choice, but their success should be assessed through learning outcomes and access rather than the number of certificates issued.
論点の日本語整理：社会人の短期教育を支持。①仕事を続けながら技能更新、②評価された能力の可視化、③生涯学習の柔軟性。反論：資格の乱立。対応：明確な習得目標・評価方法・単位互換条件。発行件数と実力を区別する。
カード5の追加質問3問・模範回答
Q13. Would high enrollment prove a course is successful?
A13. No. Enrollment shows interest, whereas completion, assessed learning, and employment outcomes provide different evidence. — 登録と成果の違い。
Q14. Should all certificates count toward university degrees?
A14. Not automatically. Credit transfer should depend on academic standards and demonstrated learning. — 単位認定は到達基準次第。
Q15. How can courses serve people with irregular work schedules?
A15. Flexible sessions, accessible materials, and suitable support can reduce barriers without weakening assessment standards. — 柔軟性と品質の両立。
追加の追質問20問（Q16〜Q35）
追加20問では、質問に直接答える英文を自分で2〜3文作ってから模範解答を確認します。質問にない事実・数値を創作せず、答えが条件付きならその条件も伝えてください。
Q16. Would disaster education alone protect every resident?
Q17. How should governments protect sensitive information about vulnerable residents?
Q18. Could private companies contribute to preparedness?
Q19. Should disaster drills always be mandatory?
Q20. Does more published research automatically mean better science?
Q21. Should preliminary findings guide urgent decisions?
Q22. How can universities manage conflicts of interest?
Q23. Should sensitive personal data always be public?
Q24. Can a nearly empty bus route have social value?
Q25. How can a town reduce subsidy costs?
Q26. Should bus services be identical across districts?
Q27. Does working remotely eliminate the need for public transport?
Q28. Do more discounted food sales prove less food waste?
Q29. Are locally produced foods always environmentally preferable?
Q30. Should governments demand complex reports from every restaurant?
Q31. Could food donation introduce safety risks?
Q32. Would short courses replace every university degree?
Q33. Can digital certificates guarantee employment?
Q34. How can employers compare different certificates?
Q35. Should taxpayer subsidies depend only on course enrollments?
追加20問の英語模範回答・日本語解説
A16. No. Training must complement physical safety measures and reliable emergency services. — 教育だけでは施設・インフラの危険を除けない。
A17. Collect only necessary details and use clear access safeguards. — 個人情報の必要最小限化。
A18. Yes, through supplies and expertise, provided their responsibilities are clearly defined. — 契約責任を明確にする。
A19. Not necessarily. Voluntary and accessible participation can be more appropriate for many residents. — 参加の自由を尊重。
A20. No. Research quality depends on methods, evidence, and independent review. — 公開量と品質は別。
A21. They may inform decisions, but their uncertainty should be explicit and other evidence considered. — 暫定結果の扱い。
A22. They should require relevant disclosures and independent review when appropriate. — 利益相反の情報開示。
A23. No. Responsible sharing can involve anonymization or controlled access. — 公開範囲の最適化。
A24. Yes, if it provides essential access with few practical alternatives. — 乗車人数のみでは評価できない。
A25. It could compare flexible booking services with fixed schedules while protecting accessibility. — 代替方式の比較。
A26. No. Local needs and geography differ, so service models may vary. — 一律設計を避ける。
A27. No. Many activities and essential jobs still require physical travel. — 通勤以外の交通需要。
A28. No. Production may rise, so direct waste measurements are necessary. — 廃棄実測が重要。
A29. Not necessarily. Production methods, transport, and storage conditions all matter. — 地元産と環境優位は同義でない。
A30. Requirements should reflect business size and the value of the information. — 負担を比例させる。
A31. Yes. Storage, temperature, and handling rules remain essential. — 食品安全条件。
A32. No. Focused training complements the breadth and depth of degree education. — 補完関係。
A33. No. They may document skills but do not guarantee job opportunities. — 能力の証明と雇用結果を区別。
A34. They can examine learning objectives, assessment methods, and independent standards. — 評価基準の透明化。
A35. No. Access, learning, completion, and employment outcomes should also be assessed. — 登録件数のみでは不十分。
二次面接で失点しないための確認
- Why の質問に単なる提案や方法だけで答えず、理由を示す。
- Should の質問に Yes / No / It depends など明確な立場を先に述べる。
- every、always、neverのような全称表現は事実がある場合だけ使う。
- 反論の一部を正当に認めたうえで実行条件や代替策を示す。
- 声に出して練習し、2分間の中で主要な主張が伝わるよう速度・区切りを調整する。
7日間の反復練習
- Day1：5カードから1題選び、1分準備・2分スピーチを実演。
- Day2：同じテーマを逆の立場で話し、賛否と根拠を分ける。
- Day3：カード1・2の追質問に即答する。
- Day4：カード3・4の追質問に即答する。
- Day5：カード5と追加20問から10問を無作為に選んで答える。
- Day6：録音等を自分で聞き返し、条件・主語・結論の一貫性を確認する。
- Day7：未使用のトピックで再び模擬面接を実施する。
FAQ
理由は必ず3つ必要ですか？
理由3つは本教材で論点の重複を防ぐために採用した練習方法で、公式の必須個数だと主張するものではありません。実際には限られた時間内で一貫した意見と説明ができることが重要です。
模範スピーチの立場と異なる意見でもよいですか？
はい。ここに掲載した賛否は唯一の正解ではありません。理由・例・条件が整合している別の立場も十分に成り立ちます。
考慮時間中にメモは取れますか？
公式の英検1級では1分間の考慮時間にメモは取れません。公式の二次試験の案内をご確認ください。
続けて解く英検1級の無料教材
新しい続編の無料教材：英検1級二次面接第16集（25テーマ・35追質問）。初見の問題を解いた後、元の教材と正答根拠を比較して理解度を確認しましょう。すべて慶英会独自の非公式問題です。
慶英会では、英検1級のスピーチの構成と追質問への対応を個別に確認できます。最大1か月無料体験・学習相談をご利用ください。
試験形式の参考：日本英語検定協会「英検1級の試験内容」。本文のトピックカード・スピーチ・追加質問・模範回答は慶英会の独自制作です。
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