英検1級二次面接【模擬第4集・無料】｜独自25トピック・2分スピーチ5本・追質問15問と全模範回答

英検1級二次面接の独自模擬第4集です。5枚のトピックカード・合計25テーマ、2分スピーチの模範英文5本、追質問15問と全模範英語回答・日本語解説を収録しました。大学上級程度の社会的トピックを、資料なしで論理的に話す練習に使えます。

1級二次面接の公式形式は英語面接約10分で、5つのTOPICから1つを選び、考慮時間1分、スピーチ2分、関連するQ&A約4分です。試験中のメモ・録音は禁止されています（英検協会の公式二次試験案内）。本記事の問題・模範英文は慶英会の独自作成で、公式過去問ではありません。

二次面接の新しい初見テーマ：模擬第5集・5カード25トピック、模範スピーチ5本と全訳、追質問15問を公開。既存の第4集と異なる文化・介護・食品ロス・科学・教育分野を練習できます。

1分準備→2分スピーチ→Q&Aの練習手順

• 5つから、自分の立場と異なる理由が2〜3つ考えられるTOPICを選ぶ。
• 1分ではメモを書かず、結論→理由1→理由2→理由3→結論の順に内容を組み立てる。
• 2分間声に出して話し、自宅で録音して内容や発話時間を確認する。
• 追質問はYes/No、Which、Why、Howなど、最初に質問の要求へ直接答える。
• 模範例の意見や言い方を暗記するより、初見テーマにも再利用できる論理構成を学ぶ。

模擬カード1｜文化・記録と公共の知識

TOPIC 1：Should governments provide greater financial support for local archives?

TOPIC 2：Is digital access to cultural materials more important than expanding museum buildings?

TOPIC 3：Should historical research be made accessible to people outside universities?

TOPIC 4：Can public libraries remain valuable in a digital society?

TOPIC 5：Should cultural institutions prioritize preserving original artifacts over large online collections?

このカードの模範スピーチ：TOPIC 1。先に自分で1分準備と2分スピーチを行ってください。

模擬カード2｜交通・エネルギー・社会的負担

TOPIC 1：Should cities subsidize cleaner public transport?

TOPIC 2：Are environmental investments worthwhile even when their initial costs are high?

TOPIC 3：Should private vehicles be restricted in crowded city centers?

TOPIC 4：Should governments evaluate infrastructure over its entire life cycle?

TOPIC 5：Is affordable public transport more important than expanding road capacity?

このカードの模範スピーチ：TOPIC 1。先に自分で1分準備と2分スピーチを行ってください。

模擬カード3｜労働・地域経済

TOPIC 1：Should employers offer flexible working hours whenever possible?

TOPIC 2：Can remote work support smaller towns in the long term?

TOPIC 3：Should governments support retraining throughout working life?

TOPIC 4：Are local businesses important to community resilience?

TOPIC 5：Should public policy prioritize job quality over the number of jobs created?

このカードの模範スピーチ：TOPIC 1。先に自分で1分準備と2分スピーチを行ってください。

模擬カード4｜研究・科学への信頼

TOPIC 1：Should universities reward studies that replicate earlier research?

TOPIC 2：Is transparency in research more valuable than publication speed?

TOPIC 3：Should scientific institutions report unsuccessful experiments?

TOPIC 4：Can public funding for research be justified without immediate commercial benefits?

TOPIC 5：Should scientists communicate uncertainty more explicitly to the public?

このカードの模範スピーチ：TOPIC 1。先に自分で1分準備と2分スピーチを行ってください。

模擬カード5｜自治体・公共サービスと市民参加

TOPIC 1：Should governments maintain in-person access to public services?

TOPIC 2：Is citizen participation essential to effective local policy?

TOPIC 3：Should public agencies publish how they respond to complaints?

TOPIC 4：Can digital services be considered successful without measuring accessibility?

TOPIC 5：Should public decisions be evaluated by outcomes rather than activity counts?

このカードの模範スピーチ：TOPIC 1。先に自分で1分準備と2分スピーチを行ってください。

2分スピーチ模範英文5本・日本語解説

模範1｜Should governments provide greater financial support for local archives?

模範英文（203語）：Local archives deserve stronger public support because they preserve evidence that communities need to understand their past and make informed decisions. I do not believe every archive should automatically receive unlimited funding. However, targeted investment can create lasting value in three ways: preservation, access, and public accountability. First, historical records can deteriorate or disappear when storage conditions are poor. Conservation specialists and reliable digital copies can help protect important material. Yet digitization should complement the preservation of significant originals, because physical objects may contain information that images cannot fully reproduce. Second, archives support education. Students, researchers, and residents can examine documents directly rather than relying only on simplified descriptions. Online catalogs, accessible explanations, and assistance for people with disabilities can make this opportunity available beyond major cities. Third, well-maintained public records help people understand how institutions made decisions. They may reveal changes in policies and allow earlier interpretations to be reconsidered. This is valuable even when the findings are inconvenient. Of course, copyright and privacy require careful treatment. Governments should also measure whether the public can actually find and use the collections. In conclusion, sustainable funding for preservation and meaningful access is a better investment than simply maximizing the number of files uploaded.

論旨の日本語訳・構成：地域の公文書館に条件付きで公的支援を増やす。①資料の劣化・紛失を防ぐ長期保存、②学生・研究者・住民の学習アクセス、③過去の意思決定を検証できる説明責任が理由。ただし著作権・個人情報の保護が必要で、ファイル数だけで効果を測らない。

模範英文の語数は一例です。実際の2分間は話速や間の取り方によって変わるため、声に出して時間を測りましょう。

模範2｜Should cities subsidize cleaner public transport?

模範英文（207語）：Cities should invest in cleaner and more reliable public transport, provided that projects are evaluated carefully. Such investment can benefit residents beyond those who ride buses or trains every day. My position rests on three reasons: public health, access to opportunities, and long-term resilience. First, cleaner vehicles and dependable services may reduce exposure to pollution and noise. People living near busy roads often have limited control over these conditions. However, environmental benefits should be measured across the energy supply chain, not assumed from a new vehicle’s appearance alone. Second, accessible public transport helps people reach jobs, education, and healthcare. Reliable services can be particularly important to residents who cannot afford cars or who have mobility difficulties. Improvements should therefore consider routes and operating hours, not just the number of vehicles purchased. Third, a diverse transport network can make a city more resilient. When a road closes or fuel prices change, residents benefit from practical alternatives. This reduces dependence on a single way of traveling. The main difficulty is cost. Governments should compare maintenance, equipment, energy, and expected usage over time. Spending heavily on underused projects would undermine public confidence. I support targeted investment where reliable evidence shows that the benefits are likely to justify the long-term costs.

論旨の日本語訳・構成：清潔で信頼できる公共交通への投資に条件付きで賛成。①大気汚染・騒音への曝露を減らす可能性、②自動車を持てない人の仕事・医療・教育へのアクセス、③交通手段の多様化による都市の強靭性が理由。ただし電源由来の排出・維持費・利用者数などで評価する。

模範英文の語数は一例です。実際の2分間は話速や間の取り方によって変わるため、声に出して時間を測りましょう。

模範3｜Should employers offer flexible working hours whenever possible?

模範英文（218語）：Employers should offer greater flexibility in working hours when the responsibilities of the job allow it. Fixed schedules are necessary in some occupations, but they are not the only way to ensure productive work. I support flexibility because it can improve access to employment, help retain skilled workers, and make some tasks more efficient. First, employees have different responsibilities outside work. Parents, caregivers, and people with long commutes may perform well when they can adjust starting or finishing times. This can expand employment opportunities without reducing professional standards. Second, flexibility may help organizations retain experienced staff. Recruiting and training replacements can be costly. However, the financial benefit should be tested rather than assumed for every company. Third, certain kinds of work require sustained concentration more than constant presence during identical hours. Giving employees control over part of their schedule can help them organize demanding tasks. Managers still need clear expectations and time for collaboration. There is also a fairness issue. Hospital workers, transport employees, and retail staff cannot always choose their hours freely. Employers should explain operational differences and offer other forms of support, such as predictable shifts and reasonable leave, where flexibility is limited. In conclusion, flexible scheduling should be an option supported by clear performance standards, not a universal requirement imposed regardless of the work involved.

論旨の日本語訳・構成：職務が許す範囲で柔軟な勤務時間を支援。①育児・介護・遠距離通勤などの事情を持つ人の就業機会、②熟練者の定着、③集中を要する仕事の生産性が理由。医療・交通・小売など柔軟化しにくい職種には予測可能なシフト等の代替策を考える。

模範英文の語数は一例です。実際の2分間は話速や間の取り方によって変わるため、声に出して時間を測りましょう。

模範4｜Should universities reward studies that replicate earlier research?

模範英文（208語）：Scientific institutions should make a greater effort to report unsuccessful experiments as well as successful ones. Research advances through evidence, and a result that contradicts an initial expectation can still be valuable. I support fuller reporting for three reasons: reducing waste, improving reliability, and strengthening public trust. First, sharing unsuccessful results can prevent other researchers from repeating avoidable mistakes. If a method consistently fails under certain conditions, that information may guide future projects. Of course, reports must describe the methods carefully so that readers understand what was actually tested. Second, selective reporting can distort our understanding of evidence. When only positive findings are visible, an intervention may appear more reliable than it really is. Publishing meaningful negative results can help researchers evaluate whether a claim holds across different settings. Third, openness about limitations can strengthen trust. Scientific knowledge changes as evidence accumulates. A willingness to revise conclusions should be viewed as responsible practice, not an automatic admission of incompetence. However, institutions should not reward the mere quantity of reports. Poorly designed experiments do not become useful simply because their results are published. Quality standards, privacy protection, and appropriate review remain necessary. For these reasons, I favor research evaluation that recognizes careful methods and honest reporting, including well-documented failures.

論旨の日本語訳・構成：成功しなかった研究も、方法が適切なら報告すべき。①他の研究者の無駄な反復を減らす、②肯定的結果だけの選択的公表による偏りを防ぐ、③誤りと制限を公開して科学への信頼を育てる。報告の量だけを褒めるのではなく研究の質・個人情報・適切な審査を保つ。

模範英文の語数は一例です。実際の2分間は話速や間の取り方によって変わるため、声に出して時間を測りましょう。

模範5｜Should governments maintain in-person access to public services?

模範英文（217語）：Governments should maintain practical in-person assistance for essential public services even when many procedures become digital. Online systems can save time and provide convenience, but making them the only option may exclude some residents. My argument has three parts: accessibility, error correction, and public trust. First, not everyone has a suitable device, reliable internet access, or sufficient digital confidence. Older residents and people with disabilities may require different forms of help. A service cannot be considered fully accessible merely because successful online users report shorter waiting times. Second, staffed assistance can help resolve unusual problems. Automated forms work well for routine applications, but a person may need to explain an uncommon situation or correct inaccurate records. Clear opportunities for human review can prevent minor technical errors from becoming serious barriers. Third, maintaining several channels can strengthen public confidence and resilience. When a website is unavailable or information is confusing, telephone and in-person services provide alternatives. This does not mean that every office must remain open indefinitely at the same scale. Costs should be assessed carefully. Governments can adjust staffing, opening hours, and appointment systems according to actual demand. They should measure unsuccessful attempts as well as successful transactions. I therefore support digital efficiency together with reasonable human assistance, rather than treating one channel as sufficient for everyone.

論旨の日本語訳・構成：行政のデジタル化が進んでも重要なサービスには対面支援を残す。①端末・通信・デジタル能力の差に配慮、②例外的な手続きや記録誤りを人が修正できる、③システム障害時も利用手段を確保できるため。全窓口を従来の規模で固定せず、未完了手続きも含めた需要と費用で運営を調整する。

模範英文の語数は一例です。実際の2分間は話速や間の取り方によって変わるため、声に出して時間を測りましょう。

独自追質問15問・全模範英語回答

カード1の追質問

Q1：Why should taxpayers fund archives that relatively few people visit?

A1：Their value is not limited to daily visitor numbers. Archives preserve evidence for future generations and can support education, legal understanding, and public accountability. Funding should still be evaluated for accessibility and actual public benefit.

日本語解説：来館数と資産価値を分ける。

Q2：Would online collections make original objects unnecessary?

A2：No. Digital images improve access but can omit texture, materials, and other physical features. Important originals should be preserved where possible, with digital copies supporting rather than replacing conservation.

日本語解説：デジタルと原本の補完関係。

Q3：Should all historical records be published without restrictions?

A3：Not automatically. Privacy, copyright, and legitimate confidentiality rules must be respected. Institutions can provide useful catalogs and controlled access while protecting sensitive information.

日本語解説：透明性と権利保護を両立。

カード2の追質問

Q4：How should cities decide which transport routes receive funding?

A4：They should assess unmet travel needs, accessibility, expected ridership, costs, and alternatives. The best choice may not be the route with the largest current number of passengers, because underserved residents can be absent from existing usage data.

日本語解説：現利用者だけでは未充足需要を測れない。

Q5：Can cleaner buses eliminate transportation emissions?

A5：No. They may reduce certain local emissions, but the overall effect depends on energy production, manufacturing, and how services are operated. Policies should compare life-cycle impacts rather than promise zero emissions.

日本語解説：局所排出と全体排出を区別。

Q6：Would subsidies unfairly benefit particular groups?

A6：They could if designed poorly. Transparent eligibility rules and regular assessment are important. Governments should consider both who benefits and whether reliable service can be maintained for the public.

日本語解説：公平性と財政持続性を評価。

カード3の追質問

Q7：Do flexible schedules always increase productivity?

A7：No. Their effects depend on the work, management, and communication systems. Companies should test arrangements and measure outcomes rather than assume that every employee or occupation benefits equally.

日本語解説：一律の生産性向上とは断定しない。

Q8：How can teamwork be maintained when employees have different hours?

A8：Organizations can establish shared meeting periods, clear deadlines, and reasonable response expectations while allowing flexibility elsewhere. These arrangements should be reviewed if coordination suffers.

日本語解説：共同作業時間と役割を明確化。

Q9：Is it unfair to workers who cannot change their schedules?

A9：That is a genuine concern. Employers should explain why different jobs have different requirements and consider alternative support, including predictable schedules, leave, and career development.

日本語解説：適用できない仕事への配慮。

カード4の追質問

Q10：Could reporting unsuccessful experiments discourage innovation?

A10：It might if results were used to punish researchers unfairly. Institutions should distinguish careful experiments with unexpected outcomes from poorly designed work. Recognizing rigorous methods can support rather than suppress innovation.

日本語解説：失敗と不適切な研究を区別。

Q11：Does a failed experiment prove that a theory is wrong?

A11：Not always. Results may depend on the sample, conditions, and methods. Scientists need to examine whether the evidence genuinely contradicts the theory or merely shows a limitation.

日本語解説：否定的結果を万能な反証としない。

Q12：Should researchers publish every individual record used in a study?

A12：No. Transparency should respect privacy, consent, and other legitimate restrictions. Researchers can share methods and appropriately anonymized or controlled data while protecting sensitive information.

日本語解説：公開と保護を両立。

カード5の追質問

Q13：Would keeping in-person services make digital reform too expensive?

A13：It could increase costs, so governments should adjust opening hours and staffing according to actual needs. A mixed system can preserve essential access while allowing routine transactions to become more efficient.

日本語解説：人員配置と開所時間を需要に応じ調整。

Q14：How should public agencies measure accessibility?

A14：They should count not only completed applications but also failed attempts, waiting times, available alternatives, and the experiences of people who cannot use digital channels.

日本語解説：成功した手続き以外も測定。

Q15：Could telephone support replace face-to-face assistance entirely?

A15：It may work for many questions, but some situations involve identity documents, accessibility requirements, or complex explanations that benefit from in-person help. The appropriate channels depend on the service.

日本語解説：行政手続きの性質で支援手段を選ぶ。

二次面接で失点しやすい5つの理由

• 反対意見を認めた途端に自分の立場を撤回してしまう。
• 一つの理由を言葉だけ替えて3回繰り返し、独立した理由になっていない。
• Whyと聞かれたのに実施手順だけを述べ、なぜそう考えるか答えていない。
• 条件付きの事実を確実な成果と断言し、実在しない統計を挙げてしまう。
• 話す速さだけを意識し、質問への直接的な回答や構成が曖昧になる。

7日間の取り組み方

1〜5日目は各カード1枚を初見で解き、話してから模範と比較。6日目は25テーマから別のTOPICを5題選び、冒頭と3理由を即興で作る。7日目は追質問15問を解答なしで再回答し、録音して論点・発音・文法を確認します。

よくある質問

英検1級のトピックカードには何題ありますか？

公式の二次試験では5つのトピックから1つを選びます。この教材は独自に5枚・25トピックを収録しています。

準備中にメモを取れますか？

試験本番の考慮時間は1分で、メモは禁止されています。自宅練習でも頭の中で構成を作る練習が役立ちます。

2分スピーチは必ず何語必要ですか？

公式は2分間のスピーチです。語数を機械的に達成するより、主張と理由を明確に話すことを優先します。

模範スピーチと違う賛否は不正解ですか？

自分で一貫した立場と根拠を説明できれば、異なる考え方も成立します。模範例は一つの練習例です。

今回の25TOPICは公式過去問ですか？

いいえ。慶英会独自の非公式教材であり、本番での出題を保証しません。

英検1級の次の無料教材

• 二次面接・模擬第3集
• Writing模試・第6セット
• Reading35問・第7セット
• 英検1級無料教材一覧

慶英会の個別指導・無料体験

英検1級二次面接のテーマを見ても理由が出ない、追質問で意見がずれる場合は、内容の作り方から改善することが重要です。慶英会の学習相談・最大1か月無料体験からご相談いただけます。

主な公式参考情報：英検協会・1級二次試験の形式と流れ、公式1級過去問・面接サンプル。最終確認：2026年10月29日。25トピック、スピーチ5本、追質問15問は慶英会独自の非公式教材です。

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。

公式LINEで無料体験・学習相談Webフォームで無料体験・学習相談料金・無料体験の条件を確認する

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