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・慶英会独自第45集。5枚のTOPICカード（計25題）、模範スピーチ5本、追質問35問と全英語回答・日本語解説を無料公開します。猛暑時の労働者保護、科学論文の公開、図書館での機器貸出し、家族介護と働き方、歩道の配送ロボットを扱います。
英検1級二次試験は5題から1つを選び、メモを取らず1分準備した後に2分スピーチし質疑応答を行う形式です（英検協会公式の面接試験内容）。本記事の問題は慶英会の独自作成で、公式過去問ではありません。
次の無料教材：二次面接第46集｜独自25題・模範スピーチ5本・追質問35問。初見で問題を解いてから、正答の根拠と誤答の理由を確認してください。
実際の面接形式に合わせた演習
- 各カードの5題から1題を選ぶ。
- メモを取らず1分で立場・理由・反論への対応を組み立てる。
- 模範を読む前に2分間スピーチする。
- 追質問には直接の答え、理由、具体例の順で応じる。
- 暗記だけでなく別のテーマにも論証を応用する。
独自TOPICカードA｜猛暑時の屋外労働者と安全基準
次の5題から1つを選びます。模範英文は最初の題への回答例です。
- 1. Should employers face stronger responsibilities during extreme heat?
- 2. Can flexible working hours reduce heat-related injuries?
- 3. Should governments set national heat-risk guidance for workplaces?
- 4. Are voluntary safety standards enough for outdoor occupations?
- 5. Should consumers accept slower delivery when workers face dangerous weather?
2分スピーチ想定の模範英文（203語）
Employers should provide practical protection for workers who must perform physically demanding tasks during extreme heat. Such measures should reflect the risks of each job rather than assume that one temperature limit is sufficient in every situation.
First, prevention can reduce avoidable harm. Access to water, appropriate rest periods and shifts away from the hottest hours may help many employees. Yet emergency maintenance sometimes cannot be postponed, so employers also need clear procedures for higher-risk situations.
Second, workers should be able to report symptoms without fear of punishment. A written policy has little value if supervisors pressure employees to continue unsafe work. Training and accessible communication are essential.
Third, businesses can use reliable information to improve decisions. Temperature, humidity, clothing and physical effort all influence risk, and actual conditions may differ from a regional forecast. Companies should examine incidents, near misses and whether protective measures are usable on site.
Critics point out that extra safeguards can raise costs or delay essential work. That concern justifies proportionate planning and adequate staffing, rather than leaving serious dangers unaddressed.
In conclusion, occupational heat protection should focus on verified safety and reliable operations. The number of training posters or alerts is not proof that employees are protected.
追質問7問・英語回答｜カードA
Q1. Should work stop at one fixed temperature?
Answer: Not automatically. Humidity, clothing, physical effort and the task itself also affect risk.
日本語解説：条件別の判断。
Q2. Are extra breaks enough?
Answer: They can help, but drinking water, scheduling, training and emergency procedures also matter.
日本語解説：複数の対策。
Q3. Can emergencies justify exceptions?
Answer: Some essential tasks cannot wait, but additional protective arrangements should be planned.
日本語解説：緊急時の手順。
Q4. Who is responsible for safety?
Answer: Employers and supervisors should have clear duties while workers can report concerns safely.
日本語解説：責任の明確化。
Q5. How can success be assessed?
Answer: Examine incidents, near misses, actual exposure and employees’ experiences.
日本語解説：実績の測定。
Q6. Would safeguards be expensive?
Answer: They may add costs, but these should be compared with disruption and injuries.
日本語解説：費用対効果。
Q7. When should rules change?
Answer: New evidence, failures in practice and changes in working conditions justify review.
日本語解説：継続改善。
独自TOPICカードB｜公費研究と論文への自由なアクセス
次の5題から1つを選びます。模範英文は最初の題への回答例です。
- 1. Should publicly funded scientific publications be freely available?
- 2. Does open access automatically make scientific research trustworthy?
- 3. Should governments fund the preservation of research data?
- 4. Are publication charges fair to younger researchers?
- 5. Should journals display correction histories more clearly?
2分スピーチ想定の模範英文（199語）
Publicly funded research should generally be available to people who can benefit from it, subject to appropriate safeguards. Scientific information can help educators, independent researchers and businesses, but publication and preservation require resources.
First, broader access can increase the value of public investment. A useful study may have applications beyond the institution where it was conducted, and subscription charges can limit opportunities for independent examination. Clear summaries and searchable records may help readers find relevant evidence.
Second, transparency supports scrutiny. Researchers should explain their methods, assumptions and important corrections. Still, an article being free to read does not make its conclusions automatically correct. Good review and reproducible methods remain necessary.
Third, funding arrangements must be equitable. Some open-access models charge authors instead of readers, and substantial fees can disadvantage researchers without strong institutional support. Shared facilities and proportionate funding could reduce this burden.
Critics warn that editing, hosting and long-term digital storage cost money. That is a legitimate concern. Governments should compare different sustainable models instead of assuming that access can become free of operating expenses.
In conclusion, research policies should prioritize reliable and discoverable knowledge that remains usable over time. Publication counts alone do not establish scientific value.
追質問7問・英語回答｜カードB
Q8. Does open access ensure accuracy?
Answer: No. Methods, review and corrections still determine whether findings are credible.
日本語解説：公開と品質を区別。
Q9. Who should pay publishing costs?
Answer: Funders, institutions and publishing arrangements can share justified expenses.
日本語解説：費用負担。
Q10. Can author fees create inequality?
Answer: Yes. Researchers with limited funding may face barriers.
日本語解説：研究資金の格差。
Q11. Must all personal data be released?
Answer: No. Privacy and security may require controlled access.
日本語解説：情報保護。
Q12. Why show correction histories?
Answer: They make important changes traceable to readers.
日本語解説：訂正の透明性。
Q13. How can non-specialists benefit?
Answer: Understandable summaries and clear definitions help them evaluate relevance and limitations.
日本語解説：利用しやすさ。
Q14. What indicates success?
Answer: Reliable evidence, lawful access and long-term availability relative to cost.
日本語解説：研究の実用性。
独自TOPICカードC｜公共図書館での機器・道具の貸出し
次の5題から1つを選びます。模範英文は最初の題への回答例です。
- 1. Should public libraries lend equipment as well as books?
- 2. Can instrument-lending services improve science education?
- 3. Should libraries collect deposits for expensive tools?
- 4. Are safety lessons appropriate activities for public libraries?
- 5. Should libraries prioritize actual use over the size of their catalogues?
2分スピーチ想定の模範英文（206語）
Public libraries should consider lending carefully selected practical equipment when the service supports education and can be operated safely. Books remain important, but access to tools may help people develop skills without buying devices needed only occasionally.
First, shared equipment can broaden opportunities. A student might borrow a simple telescope or environmental sensor for a supervised project. Residents who cannot afford specialist devices could then investigate questions using practical measurements rather than relying exclusively on descriptions.
Second, responsible lending can teach safety and judgment. Libraries should provide useful instructions and check the condition of returned items. Certain tools involve electrical or mechanical hazards and may require training, supervision or referral to another facility.
Third, well-designed sharing may reduce unnecessary purchases. However, the number of items listed on a website does not prove that money or materials have been saved. Managers should track completed loans, actual learning, losses, repairs and staff time.
Critics argue that equipment programs could divert resources from reading and literacy services. Their concern is reasonable. Small trials with clear budgets can identify where lending provides enough additional value.
In conclusion, libraries should expand beyond traditional collections only when access, safe use and educational outcomes justify the ongoing cost. Popularity alone is not sufficient.
追質問7問・英語回答｜カードC
Q15. Should every tool be available without restrictions?
Answer: No. Safety, maintenance and the user’s training should guide access.
日本語解説：危険度に応じた制限。
Q16. Could deposits exclude some residents?
Answer: Yes. Affordable alternatives may be needed.
日本語解説：料金と公平性。
Q17. Who handles broken equipment?
Answer: Libraries need clear return checks and repair responsibilities.
日本語解説：保守の手順。
Q18. Does borrowing prove learning?
Answer: No. Practical outcomes and feedback are more informative.
日本語解説：成果の指標。
Q19. Can this replace school laboratories?
Answer: Not entirely, because some instruments need controlled supervision.
日本語解説：補完的な位置づけ。
Q20. How can costs be controlled?
Answer: Start with a small collection and compare actual use with maintenance expenses.
日本語解説：小さく検証。
Q21. When should the scheme expand?
Answer: Only after safe demand and educational benefits have been demonstrated.
日本語解説：拡大基準。
独自TOPICカードD｜家族介護と就業時間の柔軟化
次の5題から1つを選びます。模範英文は最初の題への回答例です。
- 1. Should employers provide more flexibility for staff with caregiving responsibilities?
- 2. Can paid caregiving leave benefit long-term productivity?
- 3. Are remote jobs suitable for all caregivers?
- 4. Should workplaces reward outcomes rather than constant availability?
- 5. Should governments support people who provide unpaid family care?
2分スピーチ想定の模範英文（203語）
Employers should offer reasonable flexibility for workers with family-care responsibilities when the requirements of their jobs allow it. Clear arrangements can support employees without making essential operations unreliable.
First, predictable flexibility helps people coordinate appointments and support services. Someone who can exchange shifts or adjust starting times may continue working effectively rather than taking frequent unexpected absences. Not every role can be performed remotely, so organizations need more than one possible arrangement.
Second, transparent policies improve fairness. When decisions depend entirely on individual managers, workers in comparable situations may receive inconsistent treatment. Clear criteria, confidential discussions and realistic schedules can reduce uncertainty for both employees and colleagues.
Third, retention can benefit employers. Experienced workers possess knowledge that may be costly to replace. Useful support may limit unnecessary turnover, although firms should evaluate the actual effects on productivity, staffing and service quality instead of promising automatic savings.
Critics argue that flexible arrangements could increase workloads for other employees. This is a legitimate objection. Managers should plan coverage, communicate responsibilities and review whether the system distributes tasks fairly.
In conclusion, caregiving flexibility is most effective when it preserves dignity and dependable work through clear, measurable arrangements rather than relying on informal favors or unlimited exceptions.
追質問7問・英語回答｜カードD
Q22. Can every job be done remotely?
Answer: No. Shift changes and other options may be more suitable for jobs requiring presence.
日本語解説：職種の違い。
Q23. Could colleagues face extra work?
Answer: Yes, unless staffing and responsibilities are planned carefully.
日本語解説：負担の公平性。
Q24. Should private health details be disclosed?
Answer: Only information reasonably needed for the arrangement should be handled securely.
日本語解説：機微情報。
Q25. What outcomes should employers examine?
Answer: Quality, retention, coverage and employee experience.
日本語解説：実績の評価。
Q26. Can short leave solve long-term care needs?
Answer: Not always. Predictable ongoing schedules may also be necessary.
日本語解説：継続した支援。
Q27. Are small companies disadvantaged?
Answer: Limited staffing can make adjustments harder, so proportionate solutions matter.
日本語解説：固定費と運用。
Q28. What makes flexibility sustainable?
Answer: Clear eligibility, workable coverage and periodic evaluation.
日本語解説：制度化。
独自TOPICカードE｜配送ロボットと歩道のアクセシビリティ
次の5題から1つを選びます。模範英文は最初の題への回答例です。
- 1. Should cities permit autonomous delivery robots on sidewalks?
- 2. Can robots reduce emissions from local deliveries?
- 3. Should pedestrians always have priority over delivery devices?
- 4. Who is responsible when a delivery robot becomes stuck?
- 5. Should cities require pilot tests before broad deployment?
2分スピーチ想定の模範英文（207語）
Cities should permit limited trials of small delivery robots where public safety and accessibility can be protected. Automated deliveries may be convenient, but sidewalks are shared spaces primarily intended for people.
First, robots might reduce certain short vehicle journeys, particularly when they replace trips that would otherwise require a motor vehicle. Yet the overall environmental effect depends on manufacturing, electricity use, maintenance and whether the service creates new deliveries.
Second, clear movement rules are necessary. A robot that blocks a narrow crossing, ramp or bus stop can create disproportionate problems for someone using a wheelchair or walking with children. Route planning should therefore consider the real width and use of public paths, not only digital maps.
Third, operators must remain accountable. Equipment may lose connectivity or stop unexpectedly, and someone must be responsible for monitoring, safe removal and incident reports. Camera data collected for navigation also require proportionate privacy safeguards.
Critics reasonably argue that new services may reduce delivery costs and improve access for some residents. Those potential advantages deserve testing, but they do not justify unconditional operation in every neighborhood.
In conclusion, successful deployment depends on real safety, practical access and measurable service value. The number of robots placed on the street should not define success.
追質問7問・英語回答｜カードE
Q29. Should pedestrians have priority?
Answer: Yes. Robot operation must not make sidewalks unsafe or inaccessible.
日本語解説：歩道の本来用途。
Q30. Can robots always reduce traffic?
Answer: No. They must actually replace relevant journeys for that benefit to occur.
日本語解説：代替効果の実測。
Q31. What about crowded routes?
Answer: Speed limits, restricted areas or other routes may be needed.
日本語解説：地点ごとの規制。
Q32. Who handles failures?
Answer: The operator should be accountable for monitoring and removing failed devices.
日本語解説：責任の所在。
Q33. Should robots keep all camera recordings?
Answer: No. Privacy needs clear and limited retention rules.
日本語解説：データ最小化。
Q34. How can accessibility be evaluated?
Answer: Real trials should involve pedestrians with different mobility needs.
日本語解説：現場の検証。
Q35. When should deployment expand?
Answer: After reliable safety and measurable benefits are established at manageable cost.
日本語解説：拡大条件。
追質問の答えを組み立てる便利な表現
- That is a reasonable objection, but it does not necessarily invalidate the main objective.
- I would support the policy, provided that its practical effects are evaluated.
- I would avoid a definite numerical claim without reliable evidence.
- The distinction is between the benefit we expect and the outcome already observed.
- A limited trial could identify unintended consequences before expansion.
セルフチェック
- 冒頭で立場を明確に示した。
- 異なる理由を2つ以上説明した。
- 反対意見や条件に対応した。
- 単語・文法・発音が意味伝達を妨げなかった。
- メモなし1分準備と2分発話を行った。
FAQ
英検1級面接は何題から選びますか？
本番は5題から1題を選びます。この教材では5題カードを5組用意しました。
準備時間にメモは取れますか？
本番では取れません。頭の中で論点の順序を組み立てる練習が必要です。
模範と反対の意見でもよいですか？
はい。論旨が明瞭で根拠に一貫性があり、質疑に直接応じられることが重要です。
関連教材
公式情報
すべてのトピック・英文・質問・解答は慶英会独自制作の非公式教材です。実際の出題を予告するものではありません。
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