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44集。公式の5TOPICから1題を選ぶ形式を参考に、独自TOPICカード5組・25題、模範スピーチ5本、追質問35問と英語回答・日本語解説を掲載します。採用AI、サンゴ礁観光、社会人教育、建築物改修、ペット同伴の防災を扱います。
英検1級の二次面接は、5つのトピックから1題を選び、1分間考えた後2分スピーチし、質疑応答を行います。本番の考慮時間にメモは取れません。（英検協会｜1級二次試験の公式形式）。本ページのTOPIC・英文回答は慶英会が独自制作した非公式教材です。
次の無料教材：二次面接第45集｜独自25題・模範スピーチ5本・追質問35問。初見で問題を解いた後、正答の根拠と誤答理由を確認してください。
1分準備・2分スピーチの取り組み方
- カードの5題から立場と異なる2〜3個の理由を示せる題を選ぶ。
- 1分間で結論・具体的な根拠・反論への対応を頭の中で組み立てる。
- 模範を読まずに2分間話し、発話時間と説明の明確さを確認する。
- 追質問は直接答える→理由→具体例・条件で短く対応する。
- 言い回しを丸暗記せず、別のトピックにも応用して練習する。
独自TOPICカードA｜採用に使うAIと応募者の説明を受ける権利
次の5題から1つを選びます。掲載するスピーチは第1題に対する一例です。
- 1. Should employers be required to explain the use of automated tools in recruitment?
- 2. Can AI-assisted screening make hiring fairer?
- 3. Should applicants be allowed to appeal automated rejection decisions?
- 4. Do companies rely too heavily on standardized recruitment tests?
- 5. Should independent audits of hiring algorithms become common?
2分間スピーチ想定の模範英文（205語）
Employers should explain when automated systems materially influence hiring decisions, especially where applicants have limited opportunities to challenge errors. Technology can reduce routine administration, but an efficient screening process is not automatically fair.
First, recruitment tools may learn patterns from historical data that reflect earlier hiring practices. A system could treat a particular career interruption as unfavorable without considering the applicant’s actual skills. Human reviewers need to understand the basis for recommendations and examine potential unfair outcomes.
Second, clear communication supports accountability. Candidates should know which parts of the process are automated and how they can correct inaccurate records. An appeal does not need to guarantee a different result, but it should offer a meaningful review of relevant evidence.
Third, independent evaluation may improve confidence in the process. Employers should examine performance across relevant groups and compare hiring outcomes with the job requirements. The number of applications processed is not a sufficient measure of quality.
Critics argue that disclosure can reveal commercial methods and increase costs. Those concerns justify proportionate explanations and protected expert assessments, rather than complete secrecy.
In conclusion, recruitment technology should be assessed by its contribution to accurate, fair and accountable decisions, not merely by the speed at which it rejects applicants.
追質問7問・英語回答と日本語解説｜カードA
Q1. Should companies publish every algorithmic detail?
Answer: Not necessarily. They can explain meaningful criteria and permit protected independent assessment of sensitive elements.
日本語解説：説明と機密の両立。
Q2. Can human reviewers also be biased?
Answer: Yes. Human involvement must be accompanied by clear standards and evidence-based checks.
日本語解説：人の判断も検証。
Q3. What information should rejected applicants receive?
Answer: Understandable reasons and a practical route to correct relevant errors, within reasonable legal and privacy limits.
日本語解説：実行可能な異議申立て。
Q4. Would audits impose high costs?
Answer: They may. Reviews can be proportionate to the importance and scale of decisions.
日本語解説：審査の規模を調整。
Q5. Can automated systems help employers?
Answer: Yes. They may organize information, but usefulness must be demonstrated rather than assumed.
日本語解説：補助としての効用。
Q6. How should fairness be evaluated?
Answer: Compare justified criteria and outcomes while accounting for job relevance and possible confounders.
日本語解説：条件を揃えた比較。
Q7. When should a system be suspended?
Answer: When serious errors or unjustified patterns persist without adequate remedies.
日本語解説：停止基準。
独自TOPICカードB｜サンゴ礁観光と保全の両立
次の5題から1つを選びます。掲載するスピーチは第1題に対する一例です。
- 1. Should marine parks limit visitor numbers around fragile coral reefs?
- 2. Can tourism fees support reef conservation?
- 3. Should tour operators receive stricter environmental training?
- 4. Are voluntary visitor guidelines enough to protect marine ecosystems?
- 5. Should local fishers help manage marine tourism zones?
2分間スピーチ想定の模範英文（216語）
Marine parks should consider visitor limits around vulnerable coral reefs where reliable evidence indicates that tourism is contributing to damage. Tourism can support local livelihoods and environmental education, but unrestricted access may undermine the ecosystems people come to appreciate.
First, large visitor numbers can increase pressure on sensitive sites. Improper anchoring or contact with living coral may cause harm, although the scale of impact depends on activities and local conditions. Park managers should observe actual damage rather than rely only on visitor totals.
Second, well-designed fees can help finance monitoring and trained guides. However, revenue should be managed transparently, and charging high prices must not become the only tool for determining who may visit. Educational access and community needs deserve consideration.
Third, participation by local operators and fishers can improve practical rules. These groups understand seasonal conditions and the effects of changing routes. Consultation may reveal alternatives such as designated moorings, temporary closures or different activity zones.
Critics worry that restrictions will reduce tourism income. That concern is legitimate, especially in communities dependent on visitors. Limited trials and independent ecological monitoring can help identify proportionate responses.
In conclusion, tourism policy should protect the long-term value of coral ecosystems while supporting viable local livelihoods. Success is healthier habitats and responsible access, not the highest possible ticket revenue.
追質問7問・英語回答と日本語解説｜カードB
Q8. Will visitor caps always improve reefs?
Answer: Not automatically. Effects depend on actual activities, enforcement and broader environmental conditions.
日本語解説：効果の断定を避ける。
Q9. How should local businesses be involved?
Answer: They can help design workable routes, training and monitoring while following shared conservation standards.
日本語解説：事業者の協力。
Q10. Should tourism fees be mandatory?
Answer: Fees may be reasonable when tied to verified conservation costs and transparent use of revenue.
日本語解説：費用使途の明確化。
Q11. Could educational visits receive exceptions?
Answer: Possibly, under consistent rules that still protect sensitive habitats.
日本語解説：公平な例外。
Q12. What if reef damage continues?
Answer: Managers should examine other pressures and adjust the policy rather than assume visitor limits are sufficient.
日本語解説：他要因の検証。
Q13. Can fishers have a role?
Answer: Yes. Their knowledge of seasonal conditions and coastal access can be valuable.
日本語解説：地域の知見。
Q14. What best indicates success?
Answer: Reliable ecological improvement and sustainable local access over time.
日本語解説：長期の環境成果。
独自TOPICカードC｜社会人教育と公共オンライン講座
次の5題から1つを選びます。掲載するスピーチは第1題に対する一例です。
- 1. Should governments subsidize lifelong learning for adults?
- 2. Can public online courses reduce educational inequality?
- 3. Should employers recognize skills earned outside universities?
- 4. Are short professional certificates a substitute for degrees?
- 5. Should adult education be evaluated through practical skills rather than enrollments?
2分間スピーチ想定の模範英文（209語）
Governments should support accessible lifelong learning where it helps adults acquire useful skills, but funding should focus on outcomes rather than the sheer number of online enrollments. Technological and economic changes create genuine educational needs, yet not every advertised course delivers lasting value.
First, adults often face barriers that younger full-time students do not. Employment schedules, caring responsibilities and transport costs can make conventional classroom attendance difficult. Flexible online lessons and local support centers may broaden access, particularly when materials can be used on different devices.
Second, practical assessment can strengthen the value of learning. A certificate based only on watching videos may reveal little about competence. Courses should include meaningful exercises, feedback and opportunities to demonstrate how knowledge applies to realistic tasks.
Third, public support can address gaps in opportunity. Some workers receive extensive employer training, while others must find resources independently. Targeted assistance may improve fairness, provided that eligibility and quality standards are clear.
Critics argue that subsidized courses can be expensive and completion rates may be low. Governments should therefore compare actual skills, sustained participation and employment-relevant outcomes against costs, rather than rely on registration figures alone.
In conclusion, lifelong learning deserves support when it builds usable knowledge and preserves adult independence through accessible, accountable education.
追質問7問・英語回答と日本語解説｜カードC
Q15. Should every course be free?
Answer: Not necessarily. Targeted support can help people facing financial or practical barriers.
日本語解説：支援対象を選ぶ。
Q16. Is online learning equally accessible to everyone?
Answer: No. Devices, internet access and digital skills differ, so alternatives and assistance may be needed.
日本語解説：デジタル格差。
Q17. Are certificates sufficient proof of ability?
Answer: Only if assessment genuinely measures skills, rather than attendance or downloads.
日本語解説：技能を直接評価。
Q18. How should employers respond to non-degree learning?
Answer: They can evaluate demonstrated competence under consistent standards.
日本語解説：資格名でなく能力。
Q19. Can courses replace all workplace experience?
Answer: No. Many tasks require supervised practice and feedback.
日本語解説：現場の経験。
Q20. How can governments control costs?
Answer: Use transparent criteria, comparative evaluation and phased expansion.
日本語解説：費用対効果。
Q21. What would make a program successful?
Answer: Verified skill development and durable opportunities relative to public expenditure.
日本語解説：教育成果の実証。
独自TOPICカードD｜既存建物の断熱改修と解体再建
次の5題から1つを選びます。掲載するスピーチは第1題に対する一例です。
- 1. Should cities prioritize renovating old buildings over replacing them?
- 2. Can building insulation programs reduce energy inequality?
- 3. Should landlords be required to improve inefficient rental housing?
- 4. Is embodied carbon important in construction policy?
- 5. Should governments disclose lifetime costs for public building projects?
2分間スピーチ想定の模範英文（212語）
Cities should normally consider renovating existing buildings before approving expensive replacements, but the best decision depends on structural safety, lifetime cost and the usefulness of the building. New construction is sometimes necessary, so renovation should not become an inflexible rule.
First, upgrading insulation and equipment may improve comfort while retaining useful structures. Where a building remains sound, careful repairs can avoid some of the materials and disruption associated with demolition. However, expected energy savings should be measured rather than assumed from an attractive product label.
Second, renovation can protect access to established community facilities. Residents may rely on a local library or sports center and face difficulties if it closes for a long construction period. Project plans should account for temporary services and users with different mobility needs.
Third, lifecycle assessment can improve public spending. Authorities should compare construction, maintenance, energy use, adaptation and eventual replacement. A project with a lower initial cost may create higher expenses over decades.
Critics reasonably note that severely deteriorated structures can be difficult or unsafe to adapt. Independent engineering review should identify such exceptions before public funds are committed.
In conclusion, responsible construction policy should prioritize safe, useful and durable facilities, supported by transparent comparisons rather than assumptions that either renovation or replacement is always superior.
追質問7問・英語回答と日本語解説｜カードD
Q22. Is renovation always more environmentally friendly?
Answer: No. Materials, safety, energy use and expected service life all affect the balance.
日本語解説：全期間で評価。
Q23. Could retrofit work disrupt residents?
Answer: Yes. Temporary access and clear schedules need planning.
日本語解説：利用者の代替手段。
Q24. What if structural problems are severe?
Answer: Replacement may be more appropriate after credible engineering assessment.
日本語解説：安全上の例外。
Q25. Should every public building use the same insulation?
Answer: No. Climate, design and ventilation requirements differ.
日本語解説：建物条件に合わせる。
Q26. How should savings be verified?
Answer: Compare suitable periods while accounting for weather and occupancy.
日本語解説：比較条件を揃える。
Q27. What is embodied carbon?
Answer: It refers to emissions associated with materials and construction processes across relevant stages.
日本語解説：製造・建設時の排出。
Q28. What should determine the investment?
Answer: Verified safety, useful access, full cost and environmental performance.
日本語解説：複合的な意思決定。
独自TOPICカードE｜災害避難所とペット同伴者への配慮
次の5題から1つを選びます。掲載するスピーチは第1題に対する一例です。
- 1. Should emergency shelters have clearer arrangements for residents with pets?
- 2. Can pet-friendly evacuation planning improve disaster preparedness?
- 3. Should local authorities train volunteers in managing animals during emergencies?
- 4. Are separate spaces necessary in shared evacuation facilities?
- 5. Should evacuation drills include residents with different household needs?
2分間スピーチ想定の模範英文（213語）
Emergency shelters should prepare clear arrangements for residents who evacuate with animals, while protecting people who have allergies, disabilities or other needs. The issue is not simply whether pets should be admitted everywhere, but how different residents can reach safety without avoidable confusion.
First, people may hesitate to leave their homes if they do not know what will happen to their animals. Advance information about permitted arrangements, equipment and responsibilities can make evacuation decisions easier. Rules should be communicated before a crisis rather than invented at the shelter entrance.
Second, shared spaces require practical management. Animals may need separate areas, cleaning arrangements and appropriate handling. Authorities must consider noise, hygiene, allergies and the safety of residents who are uncomfortable around animals.
Third, realistic drills can reveal problems before an emergency. Volunteers and shelter managers can test registration, signs, routes and backup facilities. Residents with different mobility requirements should also participate so that plans do not assume identical circumstances.
Critics argue that shelter resources are limited and that not every building can accommodate animals. This concern supports coordinated alternatives and transparent responsibilities rather than promising unlimited capacity.
In conclusion, responsible planning should help people make safe, informed choices while managing practical constraints. Successful evacuation is more important than the number of shelters labeled pet-friendly.
追質問7問・英語回答と日本語解説｜カードE
Q29. Should animals share every sleeping space?
Answer: Not necessarily. Separate arrangements may protect hygiene, allergies and safety.
日本語解説：区画を考える。
Q30. What if a facility cannot accommodate animals?
Answer: Authorities should explain realistic alternatives and how residents can reach them.
日本語解説：代替避難先。
Q31. Do these measures replace human evacuation support?
Answer: No. Human safety and accessible routes remain essential.
日本語解説：人の安全を前提。
Q32. Should owners bring supplies?
Answer: Clear advance guidance on available resources and responsibilities can help preparation.
日本語解説：事前の情報。
Q33. How can shelters assess capacity?
Answer: Review actual space, staffing, sanitation and relevant user needs.
日本語解説：収容能力の実測。
Q34. Why include drills?
Answer: They reveal misunderstandings and operational obstacles before an emergency.
日本語解説：実地での確認。
Q35. What would indicate success?
Answer: Residents reaching safe facilities under workable arrangements, without avoidable risks to others.
日本語解説：実際の安全な避難。
追質問で使える5つの英語表現
- I would support the proposal, provided that its costs and effects are independently assessed.
- That is a fair concern, but it does not necessarily defeat the main objective.
- I would avoid a definite numerical claim without reliable data.
- We should distinguish what the policy intends from what the evidence actually demonstrates.
- A carefully limited trial could help identify unintended consequences before expansion.
自己採点する5つの観点
- TOPICへの直接の答えを最初に述べている。
- 理由を言い換えで重複させず、複数の観点から示している。
- 合理的な反対意見や留保に答えている。
- 語彙・文法・発音が理解を妨げない。
- 1分間のメモなし準備と2分間の発話を実施した。
よくある質問
二次面接は5題から選択しますか？
はい。英検1級では5題から1題を選びます。本記事では練習用に25題を5枚のカードへ分けて収録しています。
メモを取らずに1分で準備する方法は？
立場を決め、根拠を2つ、反論の妥当な部分を1つ思い浮かべて話す順序を固定します。
模範と逆の意見でもよいですか？
構いません。一貫した主張と具体的な根拠、質問への直接の対応が重要です。
関連教材
参考公式情報
本記事のトピック・英文スピーチ・追質問・回答は慶英会独自作成の非公式教材であり、公式過去問や出題予告ではありません。
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