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42集。5題から1題を選ぶ形式を参考に、5題×5組のTOPIC25題・模範スピーチ5本・追質問35問と全英語回答・日本語解説を無料収録しました。学校のスマートフォン、宇宙ごみの責任、水道料金と公平性、週4日勤務、海洋プラスチックという社会性の高い5分野を扱います。
英検1級の二次面接は5つのトピックから1つを選び、1分間の考慮時間の後に2分スピーチ、続いて質疑応答を行います。本番の考慮時間中はメモを取れません。（英検協会｜1級公式面接形式）。本記事のTOPIC・回答はすべて慶英会独自の非公式教材です。
次の無料教材：二次面接第43集｜独自25題・スピーチ5本・追質問35問。初見で演習し、解答の根拠と間違えた理由まで確認してください。
1分で準備し2分話す練習法
- TOPICカードの5題から明確に立場を取れ、独立した理由を2〜3つ示せる1題を選ぶ。
- 準備の1分で結論・理由・重要な反論への対応を頭の中で組み立てる。
- 模範を見ず2分間スピーチし、論理の流れと時間を計測する。
- 追質問はまず直接答え、理由と条件を短く付け加える。
- 模範を暗記せず、異なるテーマでも自分の言葉で説明できるか確認する。
TOPICカードA｜学校でのスマートフォンと学習への集中
次の5つから1つを選んで話してください。模範スピーチは最初のTOPICの解答例です。
- 1. Should schools restrict personal smartphones during lessons?
- 2. Can technology improve concentration in the classroom?
- 3. Should digital literacy be taught through supervised device use?
- 4. Are parents justified in demanding immediate contact with students?
- 5. Should schools evaluate device rules through learning outcomes rather than compliance counts?
模範スピーチ（208語）
Schools should restrict unnecessary smartphone use during lessons, while preserving practical access to technology when it supports learning or safety. The central question is not whether phones are inherently good or bad, but how students can concentrate and develop responsible digital habits.
First, constant notifications may interrupt attention. Students who repeatedly switch between lessons and unrelated messages can find it difficult to follow a sustained explanation. Clear expectations about when devices may be used can protect focused learning time.
Second, carefully supervised technology can still offer educational value. Dictionaries, accessibility tools and simulations may help students engage with difficult material. A blanket prohibition could deprive some learners of support they genuinely need, so exceptions should be transparent and based on educational requirements.
Third, rules can create opportunities to teach judgment. Students should understand why some digital activities are distracting and how to evaluate online information, rather than merely obey a restriction they do not understand.
Critics worry that families need a reliable way to contact children during emergencies. Schools should maintain accessible emergency communication channels and explain them before implementing new rules.
Overall, sensible restrictions should be tested for effects on learning, inclusion and well-being. The number of confiscated phones is not a meaningful measure of educational success.
関連追質問7問と英語模範回答｜カードA
Q1. Would a complete ban be simpler?
Answer: It might be administratively simpler, but it can create unnecessary barriers for students using legitimate learning or accessibility tools.
日本語解説：必要な例外。
Q2. Should pupils learn digital self-control?
Answer: Yes. Clear rules can be paired with lessons on notifications, source verification and responsible device use.
日本語解説：習慣と理解。
Q3. How can parents reach students in emergencies?
Answer: Schools should provide reliable, well-publicized emergency contact procedures instead of requiring constant personal messaging.
日本語解説：連絡経路の整備。
Q4. Could restrictions improve grades automatically?
Answer: No. Any benefit depends on teaching quality, student needs and how the policy is implemented.
日本語解説：効果を断定しない。
Q5. What about students with disabilities?
Answer: Necessary assistive devices should remain available under transparent arrangements.
日本語解説：アクセシビリティ。
Q6. Who should help design the policy?
Answer: Teachers, students and parents can identify practical problems, while schools retain responsibility for safety and learning.
日本語解説：関係者の意見。
Q7. What would justify revising the rule?
Answer: Reliable evidence of exclusion, limited learning benefits or serious communication failures would warrant reconsideration.
日本語解説：見直し条件。
TOPICカードB｜宇宙ごみと衛星運用の国際協力
次の5つから1つを選んで話してください。模範スピーチは最初のTOPICの解答例です。
- 1. Should satellite operators face stronger responsibilities for space debris?
- 2. Can international rules protect access to space for future generations?
- 3. Should governments require end-of-life plans for satellites?
- 4. Does commercial competition increase the risk of orbital congestion?
- 5. Should public funding support tracking and removal of dangerous debris?
模範スピーチ（202語）
Satellite operators should be required to plan responsibly for equipment at the end of its useful life. Satellites support communication, navigation and scientific research, but unmanaged objects can create risks for other spacecraft and for future activities.
First, crowded orbits raise collective safety concerns. A defunct satellite or fragment can threaten active equipment, and one operator’s decisions may impose costs on others. Clear design and disposal requirements can help account for these shared risks.
Second, better information can support coordination. Operators should exchange relevant tracking data and follow agreed procedures when potential collisions are identified. However, the quality of observations varies, so warnings need uncertainty estimates and clear responsibility for responding.
Third, consistent rules can encourage longer-term planning. A company that budgets only for launch may overlook the resources needed for safe disposal and monitoring. Requiring realistic end-of-life plans can make those costs visible earlier.
Critics argue that strict rules could disadvantage smaller operators and slow useful innovation. This concern supports proportionate standards and international cooperation, not unrestricted abandonment of obsolete equipment.
In conclusion, sustainable access to space depends on accountability throughout a satellite’s life. Success should be measured through safer operations and verified compliance rather than the number of satellites launched.
関連追質問7問と英語模範回答｜カードB
Q8. Can every collision risk be eliminated?
Answer: No. Tracking is imperfect, so operators need careful procedures that acknowledge uncertainty.
日本語解説：不確実性を残す。
Q9. Who should pay for debris management?
Answer: Operators should account for costs they create, while shared infrastructure may justify coordinated public support.
日本語解説：費用負担の原則。
Q10. Should small operators face identical requirements?
Answer: Core safety duties matter, but compliance methods can be proportionate to risk and capacity.
日本語解説：比例的な制度。
Q11. Would better tracking solve everything?
Answer: It improves information, but safe design, operation and disposal are also necessary.
日本語解説：追跡と行動。
Q12. Why cooperate internationally?
Answer: Orbital risks cross national boundaries, and inconsistent rules can shift harm to others.
日本語解説：国境を越える外部性。
Q13. Can old satellites be reused?
Answer: Sometimes equipment can operate longer, but extensions should rest on verified safety and reliability.
日本語解説：寿命延長の条件。
Q14. How would you evaluate progress?
Answer: By reliable disposal procedures, reduced unmanaged risks and transparent safety reporting.
日本語解説：成果指標。
TOPICカードC｜生活必需水の料金と節水インセンティブ
次の5つから1つを選んで話してください。模範スピーチは最初のTOPICの解答例です。
- 1. Should cities charge higher prices for unusually high household water consumption?
- 2. Can tiered water tariffs protect low-income residents?
- 3. Should water utilities invest more in repairing leaks than expanding reservoirs?
- 4. Do consumers receive enough information about water scarcity?
- 5. Should public water pricing consider households with medical needs?
模範スピーチ（198語）
Cities should consider tiered water prices that protect essential household use while discouraging unusually high and avoidable consumption. However, pricing must account for fairness, infrastructure costs and differences between households.
First, accessible basic water service is essential. People need safe water for drinking, hygiene and health, so a policy that imposes high prices on ordinary necessities could create serious hardship. A reasonable basic allowance or targeted support can protect residents with limited incomes.
Second, higher charges for excessive consumption may encourage conservation. Yet a high meter reading does not necessarily mean waste. Larger families, medical equipment and hidden leaks can affect use, so utilities should provide clear information and a workable process for correcting exceptional cases.
Third, water prices should support reliable infrastructure. Repairing leaks and maintaining treatment facilities can reduce losses that households cannot control. Residents deserve to know how revenues are used and whether investments improve service.
Critics argue that complex tariffs can confuse customers and require additional administration. This concern supports simple explanations, transparent thresholds and regular evaluation rather than a universal flat rate.
In conclusion, fair pricing can help manage scarce water when essential access, local conditions and verified conservation outcomes are considered together.
関連追質問7問と英語模範回答｜カードC
Q15. Should every large household pay more?
Answer: Not automatically. Family size and legitimate needs should be considered when setting thresholds or exceptions.
日本語解説：世帯事情。
Q16. Could price increases harm poor residents?
Answer: Yes. Essential-use protection and targeted support are important safeguards.
日本語解説：最低限の利用確保。
Q17. How should hidden leaks be treated?
Answer: Utilities should offer warnings, repair guidance and fair procedures for disputed charges.
日本語解説：漏水の救済。
Q18. Are prices enough to conserve water?
Answer: No. Infrastructure repairs, information and efficient equipment also matter.
日本語解説：料金以外の手段。
Q19. What information should utilities publish?
Answer: Understandable pricing, service reliability, maintenance plans and how costs are allocated.
日本語解説：透明な費用。
Q20. Would one national tariff work everywhere?
Answer: Probably not well, because water supply conditions and costs vary by region.
日本語解説：地域差。
Q21. How would success be measured?
Answer: By reliable essential access, reduced avoidable use and financially sustainable operations.
日本語解説：複合的評価。
TOPICカードD｜週4日勤務と成果を基準とした組織運営
次の5つから1つを選んで話してください。模範スピーチは最初のTOPICの解答例です。
- 1. Should more employers experiment with four-day working weeks?
- 2. Can shorter workweeks maintain productivity?
- 3. Should performance be measured by outputs rather than hours worked?
- 4. Are flexible schedules equally suitable for every occupation?
- 5. Should governments encourage evidence-based trials of reduced working time?
模範スピーチ（199語）
More employers should experiment with four-day working weeks where work can be reorganized safely, but shorter schedules should not be treated as a universal solution. Different occupations have different service requirements, and the effects must be measured.
First, reducing unnecessary meetings and interruptions may help workers concentrate on meaningful tasks. Some organizations could maintain output with fewer hours by improving processes rather than simply expecting employees to work faster.
Second, predictable time away from work may support recovery and family responsibilities. However, a policy that compresses the same workload into fewer days could increase fatigue if staffing and expectations are not adjusted.
Third, small trials can reveal operational differences. Office teams may have more flexibility than emergency services or facilities requiring continuous coverage. Employers should examine completed work, customer response, errors and employee well-being rather than celebrate an attractive schedule alone.
Critics point to higher staffing costs and uneven access between roles. Those risks deserve careful planning, including transparent eligibility and arrangements that protect essential services.
In conclusion, four-day schedules may offer benefits when supported by better work design. Decisions should reflect verified productivity, fair treatment and sustainable costs rather than an assumption that one timetable suits every workplace.
関連追質問7問と英語模範回答｜カードD
Q22. Would every employee work fewer total hours?
Answer: Not necessarily. Some policies compress longer days, so the exact design must be stated clearly.
日本語解説：制度の定義。
Q23. Can productivity be guaranteed?
Answer: No. Outcomes depend on tasks, staffing and process improvements.
日本語解説：因果の確認。
Q24. How would hospitals maintain coverage?
Answer: They need staffing plans and appropriate schedules, not simply the same rule as office teams.
日本語解説：職種差への配慮。
Q25. What if stress increases?
Answer: That would suggest workloads were compressed unsustainably and the policy should be revised.
日本語解説：負荷の検証。
Q26. Should salary remain unchanged?
Answer: That depends on the trial’s objectives, contracts and productivity assumptions, which should be transparent.
日本語解説：条件の明確化。
Q27. How should success be measured?
Answer: Compare output, errors, service continuity, employee experience and full staffing costs.
日本語解説：成果の測定。
Q28. Would the policy help everyone equally?
Answer: Not automatically. Fair access and alternatives across roles should be examined.
日本語解説：公平性の評価。
TOPICカードE｜廃棄漁具と海洋プラスチックの管理
次の5つから1つを選んで話してください。模範スピーチは最初のTOPICの解答例です。
- 1. Should fishing industries take greater responsibility for abandoned equipment?
- 2. Can tracking systems reduce the loss of fishing gear?
- 3. Should governments help small fishers recover lost nets?
- 4. Are voluntary environmental commitments sufficient in marine conservation?
- 5. Should marine plastic policies focus more on prevention than cleanup?
模範スピーチ（213語）
Fishing industries should take greater responsibility for preventing and recovering abandoned equipment, while public policies recognize the circumstances of smaller operators. Lost nets and other gear can continue affecting marine ecosystems, yet the most effective solutions may differ between fisheries.
First, clear recording and recovery procedures can reduce avoidable losses. Operators may benefit from equipment identification and practical reporting systems when gear is damaged or lost during storms. However, tracking records do not automatically recover objects from the sea.
Second, responsible arrangements can distribute costs more fairly. Retrieval may require specialized boats and pose safety risks. Small fishing businesses may struggle to fund extensive operations alone, particularly when losses result from extreme weather. Shared recovery services or targeted assistance can support compliance.
Third, prevention can complement cleanup. Better handling, repair and storage may reduce future losses, while research can identify locations where abandoned gear creates particular ecological risks. The effectiveness of measures should be checked through recovered equipment, reduced new losses and environmental observations.
Critics worry that detailed rules may increase paperwork and discourage livelihoods. Proportionate requirements and consultation can help avoid unnecessary burdens while maintaining real responsibilities.
In conclusion, marine plastic policy should focus on preventing avoidable damage and responding effectively when equipment is lost, rather than simply counting public cleanup events.
関連追質問7問と英語模範回答｜カードE
Q29. Can tracking recover all lost nets?
Answer: No. It can help locate or identify equipment, but retrieval and prevention still require action.
日本語解説：情報と回収の違い。
Q30. Should fishers pay every recovery cost?
Answer: Responsibilities should be proportionate, with shared support where costs and risks exceed individual capacity.
日本語解説：費用の配分。
Q31. What if gear is lost during a storm?
Answer: Clear reporting and safe recovery procedures are needed, with recognition of uncontrollable conditions.
日本語解説：不可抗力への対応。
Q32. Can cleanup replace prevention?
Answer: No. Reducing new losses may provide lasting benefits alongside targeted retrieval.
日本語解説：予防と回収の補完。
Q33. How should success be measured?
Answer: Track actual losses, successful recovery and ecological effects over time.
日本語解説：実績の確認。
Q34. Should rules be identical for all fisheries?
Answer: Not necessarily. Gear types, operating scales and local conditions vary.
日本語解説：制度の比例性。
Q35. What would justify adjusting a program?
Answer: Verified low effectiveness, excessive cost or unintended harm to safety and livelihoods.
日本語解説：見直し条件。
どんなトピックでも使える5表現
- I would generally support this proposal, provided that its costs and side effects are reviewed.
- That is a reasonable concern, but it does not necessarily invalidate the underlying goal.
- I do not have verified figures on that point, so I would avoid a definite numerical claim.
- We should distinguish the benefits we expect from those that have actually been demonstrated.
- A limited trial would allow the policy to be adjusted before universal implementation.
面接練習の自己チェック
- 賛否・立場を冒頭に明示したか。
- 理由が単なる言い換えではなく、複数の独立した論点になっているか。
- 反対意見を誇張して否定していないか。
- 語彙・文法・発音が理解を妨げていないか。
- 本番に合わせてメモなし1分で準備し2分で発話したか。
よくある質問
英検1級二次面接は何題から選びますか？
本番では5題から1題を選びます。この教材では5題のTOPICカードを5組用意しています。
本番の考慮時間にメモを取れますか？
取れません。最終段階ではメモなしで立場と根拠を構成する練習を行います。
模範と異なる立場を取っても大丈夫ですか？
大丈夫です。主張の一貫性、根拠の明瞭さ、質問に直接応じることが大切です。
関連する無料教材
参考公式情報
すべてのTOPIC・スピーチ・追質問・英語回答・日本語解説は慶英会独自制作の非公式教材です。公式過去問の再現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