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43集。公式の5つのトピックから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・全英語回答と日本語解説を無料収録。科学データの再現性、沿岸地域の移転、年齢確認と情報保護、大学入試の公平性、建築材料の再利用を扱います。
英検1級の二次試験では、5題から1題を選び、1分の考慮時間後に2分のスピーチを行い、関連質問に答えます。本番の考慮時間にメモは取れません。（日本英語検定協会｜1級試験内容）。この教材のすべてのTOPICは慶英会オリジナルです。
続きの無料教材：二次面接第44集｜独自25題・スピーチ5本・追質問35問。初見で解いた後、正答根拠と誤答の理由まで確認してください。
1分で論旨を作る練習方法
- カードの5題から、自分の立場と二つ以上の異なる根拠を説明できる1題を選ぶ。
- 1分の準備時間に結論・根拠・反対意見への対応を頭の中で整理する。
- 模範を見ずに2分間話し、論理の流れと時間を実測する。
- 追質問はまず直接答え、理由と例外条件を示す。
- 模範を丸暗記するのではなく、異なる題でも自分の言葉で論証する。
TOPICカードA｜科学データの再現性と公開方法
次の5題から1題を選び、1分準備して2分話します。模範はカードの第1題に対する解答例です。
- 1. Should publicly funded scientists be required to share enough information for their findings to be replicated?
- 2. Are independent replication studies as valuable as original discoveries?
- 3. Should journals publish correction histories more prominently?
- 4. Does open data necessarily increase public trust in science?
- 5. Should universities reward careful documentation as well as publication counts?
模範スピーチ（207語）
Publicly funded researchers should normally provide enough information for independent teams to evaluate and reproduce important findings, while protecting confidential and sensitive records. Scientific knowledge becomes more reliable when methods can be examined rather than accepted solely on reputation.
First, clear documentation helps identify mistakes. If researchers describe equipment settings, sample selection and changes to their analysis, other teams can see whether a conclusion depends on an unusual assumption. A successful replication strengthens confidence, while a failed attempt may reveal conditions that require further investigation.
Second, transparency reduces unnecessary duplication. Future projects can learn from documented difficulties instead of repeating preventable errors. Yet simply uploading a large dataset does not guarantee value if its files lack clear definitions or version histories.
Third, responsible access arrangements can preserve privacy. Medical records and culturally sensitive information may need restricted procedures rather than unrestricted publication. Independent reviewers can sometimes examine such material under agreed safeguards.
Critics argue that preparing documentation consumes time and may disadvantage smaller laboratories. That concern supports common templates, proportionate requirements and funding for data stewardship.
In conclusion, scientific transparency should focus on reproducibility and trustworthy evidence. Researchers should be evaluated on the quality and usefulness of their methods, not only the number of articles or downloads.
追質問7問・英語モデル回答｜カードA
Q1. Should every research record be open to anyone?
Answer: No. Privacy, safety and legitimate cultural restrictions may require controlled access instead of universal publication.
日本語解説：公開範囲を区別する。
Q2. Does replication always mean obtaining identical numbers?
Answer: No. Results should be compatible within justified uncertainty, while differences in methods and conditions are examined.
日本語解説：再現性と誤差。
Q3. Would documentation slow research?
Answer: It can require effort, but it may prevent expensive errors and make future work more efficient.
日本語解説：初期費用と将来便益。
Q4. What if the original data cannot be shared?
Answer: Researchers should explain the restrictions and consider secure, authorized review or reproducible summaries where appropriate.
日本語解説：機密下での検証。
Q5. Can a correction improve trust?
Answer: Transparent correction may demonstrate responsibility, provided the reasons and effects are explained clearly.
日本語解説：訂正履歴の価値。
Q6. Should replication studies receive funding?
Answer: Yes, when they address consequential findings and use rigorous methods rather than simply repeating work without purpose.
日本語解説：検証の社会価値。
Q7. How should success be measured?
Answer: By reliable independent assessment, traceable data and better decisions based on evidence.
日本語解説：実証可能性を重視。
TOPICカードB｜沿岸の防潮堤と計画的な移転
次の5題から1題を選び、1分準備して2分話します。模範はカードの第1題に対する解答例です。
- 1. Should coastal towns consider voluntary relocation instead of building ever-higher sea walls?
- 2. Can governments fairly compensate residents who move away from flood-prone areas?
- 3. Should community history influence climate adaptation decisions?
- 4. Are nature-based coastal protections sufficient without engineered defenses?
- 5. Should infrastructure funding reflect the long-term risks of sea-level rise?
模範スピーチ（215語）
Coastal communities should consider voluntary relocation alongside physical flood defenses when long-term risks become difficult to manage. No single approach suits every settlement, and public authorities should avoid promising that either higher walls or relocation can eliminate all danger.
First, protective structures have practical limits. A sea wall may reduce some kinds of flooding, but maintenance, erosion and unusually severe events still matter. A community that repeatedly repairs expensive defenses may need to compare those costs with alternative uses of public funds.
Second, relocation can involve significant human losses even when financial compensation is offered. Residents may depend on local jobs, family networks and culturally important places. Authorities should consult affected people, provide credible information and avoid treating neighborhoods as interchangeable units on a map.
Third, careful planning can protect fairness. A voluntary program needs transparent eligibility, realistic housing alternatives and support for people with limited mobility or savings. If only wealthier households can move easily, risks may become concentrated among those left behind.
Critics reasonably fear that relocation discussions could discourage investment in communities before a decision is made. Governments should therefore maintain essential services and communicate uncertainty honestly.
In conclusion, responsible coastal adaptation requires comparing safety, livelihoods and long-term costs. Residents must have meaningful opportunities to shape the choices that affect their homes.
追質問7問・英語モデル回答｜カードB
Q8. Should governments force every resident to leave?
Answer: Not automatically. Risks and legal responsibilities differ, and voluntary options with informed participation deserve serious consideration.
日本語解説：任意性と状況の違い。
Q9. Can sea walls be useful?
Answer: Yes. They may reduce certain risks, but their limits and maintenance needs must be acknowledged.
日本語解説：防潮堤の効用と限界。
Q10. How should relocation costs be calculated?
Answer: Housing, travel, livelihoods, community services and long-term infrastructure costs should be examined.
日本語解説：金銭以外の損失。
Q11. What about historic sites?
Answer: Authorities can consider documentation, suitable protection and community preferences, while acknowledging physical limits.
日本語解説：歴史資産を扱う。
Q12. Could relocation increase inequality?
Answer: Yes, if residents with fewer resources cannot find safe alternatives. Support must address this risk.
日本語解説：公平な支援。
Q13. When should authorities review their strategy?
Answer: After new risk measurements, serious damage or changes in the cost and feasibility of protection.
日本語解説：更新条件。
Q14. What should determine the final decision?
Answer: Verified safety, viable alternatives, public costs and the preferences of affected communities.
日本語解説：判断の統合。
TOPICカードC｜オンライン年齢確認とプライバシー
次の5題から1題を選び、1分準備して2分話します。模範はカードの第1題に対する解答例です。
- 1. Should websites offering age-restricted services verify users’ ages more rigorously?
- 2. Can age assurance protect young people without collecting excessive personal information?
- 3. Should schools teach privacy risks associated with online identity checks?
- 4. Are parents able to control every digital risk faced by teenagers?
- 5. Should technology companies offer alternatives to facial recognition for age checks?
模範スピーチ（203語）
Online services that are restricted by age should use proportionate methods to check eligibility, while avoiding unnecessary collection of personal information. Protecting children is important, but a system that demands extensive identity records can create new privacy and security risks.
First, age checks may help limit access to services designed for adults. However, different methods have different levels of accuracy, and no procedure should be described as infallible. Companies need to examine failures as well as successful checks.
Second, privacy should influence system design from the beginning. Services may need to establish that a user meets a minimum age without retaining a copy of an entire identity document. Data minimization and clear retention rules can reduce the consequences of a breach.
Third, accessible alternatives matter. Some users cannot complete face-based verification, lack particular devices or have limited access to official documents. Reasonable review and appeal procedures can prevent legitimate people from being excluded without explanation.
Critics argue that careful checks may increase costs or inconvenience. Those effects should be compared with the risks the service seeks to prevent, using independent evaluation.
In conclusion, responsible age assurance should combine child protection, practical accessibility and privacy. Success is not merely the number of identities collected.
追質問7問・英語モデル回答｜カードC
Q15. Would facial recognition be necessary for every service?
Answer: No. Appropriate methods depend on risk, and alternatives may protect privacy more effectively.
日本語解説：方法を一律化しない。
Q16. Can age checks be perfectly accurate?
Answer: No. False acceptance and false rejection should be measured and addressed.
日本語解説：誤判定を考慮。
Q17. Why retain less personal data?
Answer: Collecting less sensitive information can limit exposure if systems are compromised.
日本語解説：情報漏えいへの備え。
Q18. What if someone has no official ID?
Answer: Accessible alternative verification and review procedures may be necessary.
日本語解説：利用者の例外。
Q19. Should parents bear all responsibility?
Answer: Families have a role, but service design and clear information are also important.
日本語解説：責任の分担。
Q20. Could compliance burden small companies?
Answer: Yes. Shared standards and proportionate requirements may reduce fixed costs.
日本語解説：比例的な費用。
Q21. What should an evaluation consider?
Answer: Protection outcomes, privacy risks, mistaken decisions, accessibility and ongoing costs.
日本語解説：複数のKPI。
TOPICカードD｜大学入学選抜と多面的な評価
次の5題から1題を選び、1分準備して2分話します。模範はカードの第1題に対する解答例です。
- 1. Should universities use more than standardized tests when selecting applicants?
- 2. Can interviews improve the fairness of university admissions?
- 3. Should academic writing be evaluated through supervised tasks?
- 4. Do recommendation letters favor applicants with stronger social networks?
- 5. Should universities publish clearer evidence about the reliability of admission methods?
模範スピーチ（208語）
Universities should consider more than standardized tests when selecting students, but any additional method must be designed carefully to avoid introducing new forms of unfairness. A test score provides useful evidence, yet it cannot capture every quality relevant to university study.
First, writing tasks and subject-specific activities may reveal how applicants reason and communicate. These skills matter in fields that require sustained analysis. However, assessment criteria should be clear, and work prepared with extensive outside assistance may not reflect an applicant’s independent ability.
Second, multiple forms of evidence can reduce reliance on one performance under particular conditions. At the same time, interviews and recommendations may reward confidence or personal connections rather than academic potential. Trained evaluators and consistent rubrics are therefore important.
Third, transparency can strengthen trust. Universities should explain what they assess, how applicants may request reasonable adjustments and how different components contribute to decisions. Independent review of outcomes can help detect unintended disadvantages.
Critics argue that complicated selection systems cost more and can become difficult to understand. This is a legitimate concern. Universities should retain only methods that add credible information beyond simpler assessments.
In conclusion, a fair admissions process should balance academic evidence, accessibility and administrative cost. More components do not automatically mean better decisions.
追質問7問・英語モデル回答｜カードD
Q22. Should entrance exams be abolished?
Answer: Not necessarily. They can provide useful comparable evidence when designed and interpreted responsibly.
日本語解説：試験も一つの証拠。
Q23. Are interviews always fair?
Answer: No. Interviewer expectations and inconsistent questions can introduce bias.
日本語解説：評価の標準化。
Q24. Why supervise some writing tasks?
Answer: Supervision can help establish what an applicant can produce independently.
日本語解説：本人の能力の確認。
Q25. Could recommendations disadvantage some students?
Answer: Yes. Opportunities for influential references may vary across schools and families.
日本語解説：背景の格差。
Q26. What are reasonable adjustments?
Answer: They are appropriate changes that allow applicants with relevant needs to demonstrate ability fairly.
日本語解説：合理的配慮。
Q27. How should a university test its selection methods?
Answer: Compare outcomes and reliability over time while considering access, resources and possible bias.
日本語解説：評価の検証。
Q28. What is the key principle?
Answer: Use methods that provide meaningful evidence and do not impose unjustified barriers.
日本語解説：情報価値を重視。
TOPICカードE｜建設資材の解体・再利用と長期的な安全
次の5題から1題を選び、1分準備して2分話します。模範はカードの第1題に対する解答例です。
- 1. Should governments encourage reuse of building materials during demolition?
- 2. Can material passports improve the circular economy?
- 3. Should construction projects report waste and reuse outcomes?
- 4. Are reused materials always environmentally preferable to new ones?
- 5. Should building codes better accommodate tested recycled components?
模範スピーチ（207語）
Governments should encourage safe reuse of building materials, but environmental benefits should be verified rather than assumed from a reused label. Buildings contain valuable resources, yet their components differ in condition and suitability for future use.
First, selective dismantling may preserve doors, steel and other materials that would otherwise be discarded. This can reduce demand for some new products, but additional labor, cleaning and transport must be considered. Reuse is not automatically the better option when a component is badly damaged.
Second, reliable records can improve decisions. Information about a material’s origin, past exposure and inspection results can help engineers assess whether it meets relevant requirements. A digital material passport is useful only when entries are accurate and updated.
Third, clearer procedures may support a market for recovered components. Contractors need predictable standards and access to specialist testing. Smaller firms may require shared facilities rather than complicated reporting systems that create excessive fixed costs.
Critics rightly raise concerns about structural safety and liability. Reused materials should meet appropriate standards, and authorities must not waive critical checks simply to achieve recycling targets.
In conclusion, circular construction should focus on safe, durable use and measurable lifecycle benefits. The number of salvaged items is less important than their verified performance.
追質問7問・英語モデル回答｜カードE
Q29. Can every recovered component be reused structurally?
Answer: No. Suitability depends on condition, testing and the requirements of the new application.
日本語解説：用途別の安全性。
Q30. What is a material passport?
Answer: It is a record of relevant origin, specifications, use and inspection information for a component.
日本語解説：履歴の追跡。
Q31. Could dismantling increase costs?
Answer: Yes. Careful removal and testing can require labor and equipment.
日本語解説：処理費の検討。
Q32. Why consider transport emissions?
Answer: Moving and processing materials can offset some expected environmental benefits.
日本語解説：ライフサイクル全体。
Q33. Should safety standards be relaxed?
Answer: Critical safety requirements should remain, though testing methods can reflect different material histories.
日本語解説：安全を優先。
Q34. How can small contractors participate?
Answer: Common testing facilities and clear rules may lower barriers without removing responsibility.
日本語解説：共同設備。
Q35. What outcome proves success?
Answer: Safe and durable use with verified cost and environmental advantages.
日本語解説：再利用の実効性。
質疑応答で使える表現
- That is a reasonable concern, but it does not necessarily invalidate the main argument.
- I would support the proposal, provided that its costs and outcomes were independently reviewed.
- The evidence is not strong enough to justify an unconditional conclusion.
- The important difference is between expected benefits and those actually demonstrated.
- A limited trial would allow the policy to be revised before broader adoption.
自己採点の観点
- 冒頭でTOPICへの直接回答を述べた。
- 理由が重複せず、それぞれ具体的な仕組みを説明できた。
- 実績のない数値や断定を作らず条件を示した。
- 語彙・文法・発音が意味伝達を妨げなかった。
- メモなし1分で構成し、2分話す練習を行った。
よくある質問
英検1級二次試験は何題から選びますか？
英検協会公式では5つの題から1つを選びます。この教材では5枚のオリジナルカードで25題練習できます。
準備中にメモは取れますか？
本番では取れません。練習も最後はメモなしで主張と理由を考えましょう。
模範答案と逆の立場でもよいですか？
可能です。重要なのは明確な立場、一貫した根拠、反論への適切な対応です。
関連無料教材
参考にした公式情報
本記事のTOPIC、模範スピーチ、追質問と回答は慶英会が独自制作した非公式教材です。英検協会の過去問ではなく、出題予告でもありません。
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