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・無料模擬第19集です。慶英会独自のトピックカード5枚・25トピック、模範スピーチ5本、カード別追質問15問と追加20問の全35問の英文模範回答を掲載します。家電の修理、金融リテラシー、室内環境、研究の透明性、自然保全を題材に2分で考えを伝える教材です。公式過去問ではありません。
英検協会の公式1級出題概要では二次試験で5トピックから1つ選び、1分の考慮時間、2分スピーチ、続くQ&Aがあります。考慮時間中はメモを取らない練習をし、結論→異なる理由→反論の一部を認める→結論、の構成を意識しましょう。
1分準備・2分スピーチの進め方
- 1分の準備では5トピックを見て、説明できる具体的理由のある1題を選ぶ。
- 賛否の立場、理由2〜3点、想定反論、実施条件を頭の中で整理する。
- 本番の公式問題のような正解が一つある訳ではないため、自分の立場と理由の一貫性を重視。
- 追質問は相手の問いに直接答え、その後に理由や必要条件を述べる。
模擬カード1｜修理できる家電と消費者の権利
次の5題から1題を選び、メモなしの1分準備後に2分で話してみましょう。
- 1. Should manufacturers make household appliances easier to repair?
- 2. Should consumers have stronger rights to obtain replacement parts?
- 3. Should governments require manufacturers to publish repair information?
- 4. Can repairing older products reduce environmental waste?
- 5. Should safety restrictions limit repairs by untrained consumers?
模範スピーチ1（219語）
Governments should encourage manufacturers to make household appliances easier to repair, while ensuring that repairs remain safe and economically sensible.
First, repairability can give consumers more choice. When a small component fails, replacing an entire machine may be unnecessarily expensive. Access to suitable parts and clear information could allow some products to remain useful longer. However, not every repair should be performed without training, especially when electricity or other safety risks are involved.
Second, better design may reduce unnecessary waste. Products that can be maintained and updated may remain in service rather than being discarded immediately. Yet the environmental benefit is not automatic. An inefficient older appliance could consume more energy, and transporting replacement parts also has costs. Policymakers should therefore examine the full lifecycle rather than count repairs alone.
Third, repair options may encourage fair competition. Independent technicians could offer services where manufacturers currently control access to parts and documentation. Clear technical standards would help customers compare options and understand limitations.
Critics argue that keeping spare parts available and providing repair information can increase manufacturers’ expenses. This concern is reasonable. Requirements should be proportionate to product risks and practical demand, rather than identical for every device.
Overall, repairability deserves support as one component of responsible consumption. Successful policy should be assessed through safety, affordability, and verified product lifetimes.
日本語で整理する理由と反論：修理可能な設計を促進するが安全・経済性を条件とする。①一部故障で新品を買わずに済む消費者の選択、②不要な廃棄の抑制、③修理業者間の競争。反論：部品の在庫費と危険な素人修理。対応：部品の種類・リスクに応じた安全基準。修理件数だけで環境便益を証明しない。
カード1の追質問3問
Q1. Should every consumer be allowed to repair every electrical device?
A1. No. Some repairs require trained technicians and safety checks. Greater access should not mean ignoring electrical hazards. — 修理の自由と安全を両立。
Q2. Would more completed repairs automatically reduce emissions?
A2. No. Energy use, replacement parts, and product lifetimes should be measured before claiming environmental savings. — 環境便益には追加指標が必要。
Q3. How could independent repair shops benefit consumers?
A3. They could expand service options and competition, provided they meet appropriate technical and safety standards. — 競争と品質保証。
模擬カード2｜公立学校の金融・情報リテラシー
次の5題から1題を選び、メモなしの1分準備後に2分で話してみましょう。
- 1. Should schools teach students how to evaluate financial claims?
- 2. Should digital literacy be integrated into ordinary school subjects?
- 3. Should teenagers receive more practical education about contracts?
- 4. Can schools reduce the harm of misleading online advertising?
- 5. Should teachers prioritize evidence evaluation over memorizing facts?
模範スピーチ2（213語）
Schools should provide practical education on evaluating financial and online claims, without replacing the broader academic curriculum.
First, students encounter information that can influence real decisions. Advertising, subscription offers, and social media posts may contain persuasive language that is not supported by reliable evidence. Learning to identify assumptions, compare sources, and recognize uncertainty can help young people make more informed choices.
Second, basic financial reasoning can prevent avoidable misunderstandings. Students should understand concepts such as recurring payments, interest, and contractual obligations before they face complicated products as adults. The objective should be critical thinking, not recommending particular investments or encouraging unnecessary risk.
Third, these skills can strengthen learning across subjects. In history, science, and mathematics, students must distinguish claims from evidence and recognize how numbers can be presented misleadingly. Practical examples can make academic concepts more relevant.
Critics argue that schools already have crowded timetables and that teachers may lack specialized training. That is a valid concern. Rather than create a large standalone subject in every school, authorities could integrate manageable activities into existing lessons and provide reliable teacher resources.
In conclusion, financial and digital literacy deserve a place in education when they promote independent judgment. Success should be measured through demonstrated understanding and responsible decisions, not merely the number of lessons delivered.
日本語で整理する理由と反論：金融・ネット上の主張を検証する教育を支持。①広告・SNSの根拠確認、②契約・継続課金・利息の基礎理解、③数学・歴史・科学への応用。反論：授業時間と専門教員の不足。対応：既存教科に短い演習を組み込む。特定の投資を推奨する教育ではない。
カード2の追質問3問
Q4. Should schools recommend specific financial products?
A4. No. The goal should be understanding risks and evidence, not promoting particular investments. — 特定商品の勧誘と区別。
Q5. How could teachers evaluate improvement?
A5. They could ask students to identify unsupported claims, explain recurring costs, and compare sources. — 授業時数でなく実際の理解を測る。
Q6. Is memorizing definitions sufficient for digital literacy?
A6. No. Students also need practice applying concepts to unfamiliar claims. — 未知の事例への応用。
慶英会 塾長｜慶應義塾大学卒・英検1級
塾長の経歴・指導方針
中高一貫校の英語・定期テスト・英検の学習状況を整理し、必要な復習の優先順位を考えたい方は、無料体験・学習相談のご案内をご確認ください。最大1か月完全無料体験の対象・回数・担当講師は、お申し込み時にご案内します。
友だち追加後、学年・教材・困っていることと「学習相談希望（ブログ・記事中盤）」をお送りください。LINEを開くだけでは受付は完了しません。LINEを利用できない方はメールでの学習相談も可能です。料金・無料体験の期間と条件はコース・料金・無料体験のご案内でご確認ください。
模擬カード3｜公的施設の室内空気と健康的な環境
次の5題から1題を選び、メモなしの1分準備後に2分で話してみましょう。
- 1. Should governments publish indoor air-quality information for public buildings?
- 2. Should schools invest more in ventilation systems?
- 3. Can building renovations improve public health without increasing costs?
- 4. Should air-quality policies prioritize vulnerable groups?
- 5. Should public facilities monitor long-term maintenance rather than installation counts?
模範スピーチ3（209語）
Public institutions should pay more attention to indoor air quality, particularly in schools and buildings used by vulnerable residents.
First, people spend substantial portions of their day indoors. Ventilation and building maintenance can affect comfort and the conditions in which students or employees work. However, a single sensor reading does not establish that a building is healthy or unhealthy. Measurements should be interpreted with appropriate methods and context.
Second, clear monitoring can support better decisions. When facilities record ventilation performance, equipment problems, and maintenance needs, managers can prioritize practical improvements rather than rely on impressions alone. Data should be checked for accuracy, and technical information should be explained in understandable language.
Third, responsible investment may improve fairness. Older buildings or facilities serving residents with special needs can face different challenges. Governments should examine where assistance is most useful instead of requiring identical equipment for every building.
Critics worry that monitoring and upgrades can be expensive. This is a legitimate concern. Authorities should compare options such as maintenance, operational adjustments, and new equipment while evaluating actual conditions over time.
In conclusion, indoor air quality deserves careful public attention. Effective policy should combine reliable evidence, feasible maintenance, and fair access to suitable spaces rather than celebrating the number of sensors installed.
日本語で整理する理由と反論：学校や公共建物の室内環境を重視する。①室内で過ごす時間の長さ、②正確な測定と維持管理に基づく改善、③老朽施設や配慮が必要な人への公平な支援。反論：設備や監視の費用。対応：保守・運用改善・新機器を比較。センサー数だけでは成果を評価しない。
カード3の追質問3問
Q7. Does one high sensor reading prove a public building is unsafe?
A7. No. Measurements require proper calibration, context, and appropriate follow-up assessment. — 単一測定値の限界。
Q8. Should every building receive identical equipment?
A8. Not automatically. Needs, technical conditions, and available resources differ. — 施設条件の差。
Q9. How can officials assess the success of an upgrade?
A9. They should monitor verified conditions, performance over time, maintenance, and users’ practical needs. — 設置数より実際の環境。
模擬カード4｜研究資料の公開と個人情報保護
次の5題から1題を選び、メモなしの1分準備後に2分で話してみましょう。
- 1. Should publicly funded research share more data with independent reviewers?
- 2. Should the public have access to understandable summaries of scientific findings?
- 3. Can privacy restrictions be compatible with transparent research?
- 4. Should scientists report unsuccessful experiments?
- 5. Should universities explain conflicts of interest more clearly?
模範スピーチ4（207語）
Publicly funded research should generally be more transparent, but data sharing must be designed to protect sensitive information.
First, transparency supports accountability. Researchers and taxpayers should be able to understand how conclusions were reached. Publishing methods, assumptions, and appropriately prepared data can help independent specialists identify mistakes. Nevertheless, publication alone does not guarantee that a study is accurate.
Second, responsible openness can improve scientific progress. Other teams may be able to reproduce an analysis, examine a different explanation, or learn from unsuccessful experiments. Clear records can reduce unnecessary duplication and make uncertainty easier to discuss.
Third, public explanations can strengthen trust. People often encounter scientific claims without knowing whether they come from preliminary observations or repeated studies. Institutions should explain what is established, what remains uncertain, and why limitations matter.
Critics point out that removing names does not always make medical or personal records impossible to identify. I agree. Detailed dates or rare characteristics can create risks when information is combined with other sources. Controlled access and independent review may be more appropriate than unrestricted public release.
In conclusion, the best policy is neither complete secrecy nor automatic publication of everything. Research institutions should seek meaningful verification while respecting the people whose information makes the work possible.
日本語で整理する理由と反論：公的研究の透明性を支持するが個人情報の保護を前提とする。①説明責任、②再現性・失敗の共有による科学的進展、③暫定結果と確実な結果の区別。反論：匿名化しても再識別の危険。対応：必要な研究者への制限付き公開・独立審査。全面公開と全面秘匿の二者択一にしない。
カード4の追質問3問
Q10. Would public data always be safe after names were removed?
A10. No. Combined records and rare characteristics may allow re-identification, so safeguards matter. — 匿名化の限界。
Q11. Can transparency replace careful methodology?
A11. No. It helps scrutiny, but reliable sampling and measurements are still essential. — 公開と研究の品質は別。
Q12. Should negative experimental results be discussed?
A12. Often yes, when accurately reported, because they can help other researchers avoid repeating mistakes. — 失敗も情報価値がある。
模擬カード5｜地域の自然回復と市民参加
次の5題から1題を選び、メモなしの1分準備後に2分で話してみましょう。
- 1. Should cities invest more in restoring small urban wetlands?
- 2. Can community volunteers contribute to ecological monitoring?
- 3. Should public conservation projects protect access for residents with disabilities?
- 4. Are biodiversity targets more important than the number of trees planted?
- 5. Should environmental projects be evaluated over several years?
模範スピーチ5（213語）
Cities should invest selectively in restoring natural habitats, while making sure that environmental goals are supported by credible evidence and practical maintenance.
First, healthy habitats may provide benefits beyond their immediate appearance. Wetlands and green spaces can offer opportunities for wildlife and education. However, planting vegetation or announcing a larger protected area does not automatically mean that biodiversity has improved. Researchers should measure meaningful ecological conditions over time.
Second, restoration can engage local communities. Residents may contribute observations and help identify areas requiring investigation. Such participation can strengthen understanding, but the number of volunteer reports alone is not proof of environmental change. Experts should check uncertain records and explain sampling limitations.
Third, public projects must balance different needs. Walking routes, accessibility, long-term maintenance, and safety can matter alongside conservation. If an area becomes difficult to use for residents with limited mobility, officials should examine suitable alternatives rather than ignore those concerns.
Critics argue that conservation projects can use public money without delivering immediate results. That concern is reasonable. Governments should set clear goals, review progress independently, and adapt projects when measurements reveal problems.
Overall, habitat restoration deserves support where it is realistic and accountable. Success should be judged by ecological outcomes, community access, and sustainable maintenance rather than the number of plants installed.
日本語で整理する理由と反論：地域の湿地などの再生は選択的に支持する。①野生生物と学習機会、②市民観察と科学教育、③安全・アクセシビリティとの両立。反論：費用のわりに結果が見えにくい。対応：具体的な目標と独立評価、維持費を含む条件付け。植樹本数と生物多様性の実改善は違う。
カード5の追質問3問
Q13. Would a larger number of planted trees prove ecological success?
A13. No. Survival, habitat quality, and ecological responses should be monitored. — 本数と生態的成果を区別。
Q14. Can volunteers replace professional ecological assessment?
A14. No. They can provide valuable observations, but expert verification remains important. — 市民科学の補完性。
Q15. How can conservation projects remain accessible?
A15. Planners can consult different users and provide suitable routes without undermining the site’s ecological goals. — 安全と利用の両立。
追加追質問20問（Q16〜Q35）
答えを見る前に2〜3文で回答します。分からない事実を創作するのではなく、検証や判断に必要な条件を述べることも適切です。
Q16. How could residents challenge a wrong automated recommendation?
Q17. Could automation improve efficiency without proving fairness?
Q18. Should suppliers decide public policy alone?
Q19. What makes an explanation useful to ordinary residents?
Q20. Would memorizing financial terms make someone financially literate?
Q21. Should financial literacy classes promote particular investments?
Q22. How might schools reduce new curriculum burdens?
Q23. Could online advertising ever be useful?
Q24. Can one air-quality reading define a building’s condition?
Q25. Should every school install the same ventilation system?
Q26. What if an air-quality program is expensive?
Q27. How would you improve public understanding of measurements?
Q28. Would publishing every research dataset guarantee trust?
Q29. Can sensitive datasets ever be shared for research?
Q30. What is the value of unsuccessful experiments?
Q31. Should a study’s preliminary findings guide national policy immediately?
Q32. Could a popular restoration project still have ecological problems?
Q33. Should every volunteer report be treated as verified data?
Q34. How can small habitats be evaluated fairly?
Q35. Can an urban habitat serve both wildlife and residents?
追加20問の英語模範回答・日本語解説
A16. Agencies should offer understandable explanations, record correction, and human review. — 異議申し立ての手段。
A17. Yes. Fairness needs independent measurement across different groups. — 公平性の検証。
A18. No. Public authorities must retain accountability and independent oversight. — 行政の責任。
A19. It should identify the decision, evidence, limitations, and route for correction. — 説明の具体性。
A20. Not by itself. Students must apply those terms to unfamiliar contracts and claims. — 応用力。
A21. No. They should emphasize evidence, costs, uncertainty, and independent judgment. — 勧誘の排除。
A22. They could integrate focused exercises into existing subjects and support teachers. — 教科への統合。
A23. Yes, but students should distinguish verified details from persuasive claims. — 有用性と誤情報の区別。
A24. No. Repeated, calibrated measurements and context are needed. — 単発測定の限界。
A25. No. Buildings differ in layout, needs, and technical constraints. — 一律導入を避ける。
A26. Managers should compare maintenance and operational changes with new equipment. — 代替策の比較。
A27. Present clear definitions, uncertainty, and what actions the figures support. — 分かりやすい説明。
A28. No. Data quality and privacy safeguards remain essential. — 公開量だけで信頼は得られない。
A29. Sometimes, under controlled access and justified purposes. — 管理されたアクセス。
A30. They can reveal limitations and prevent the repetition of unproductive approaches. — 失敗からの学習。
A31. They may inform discussion, but strong claims require appropriate independent evidence. — 暫定結果の扱い。
A32. Yes. Public support does not establish habitat health or maintenance quality. — 人気と生態成果の差。
A33. No. Reports may require standardized methods and expert review. — データ検証。
A34. Measure relevant ecological conditions and long-term maintenance, not just area or plant counts. — 長期評価。
A35. Often yes, if access routes and conservation needs are designed together. — 両立可能性。
追質問で失点しないための確認
- Should なら自分の立場、Why なら理由、How なら手段を最初に明確に答える。
- 一般化し過ぎる every, always, never を根拠なく使わない。
- 反論を軽視せず、費用・安全・公平などの制約に条件付きで答える。
- 発音・文法・構成・聞き取りを別々に見直し、模範英文の丸暗記だけにしない。
7日間の実践練習
- Day1：カード1でメモなし1分準備・2分スピーチを録音。
- Day2：カード2で立場と理由を変えて練習。
- Day3：カード3で話し、追質問15問のうち前半を回答。
- Day4：カード4で話し、追質問残りを回答。
- Day5：カード5で話し、追加20問から10問を無作為に選んで回答。
- Day6：追加の残り10問を回答し、自分の文法・論理を修正。
- Day7：未使用の題材を選び、初日からの改善を確認。
FAQ
英検1級の二次面接は必ず3理由が必要ですか？
英作文の理由3つの指示と二次面接の要件は区別してください。ここでの理由2〜3点は慶英会の練習上のモデルで、協会がスピーチの理由数を必須指定しているという意味ではありません。
模範英文と反対の立場でもよいですか？
はい。自分の立場を明確にし、その理由と反論への対応が整合していれば別の議論も成立します。
次に使う英検1級の無料教材
新しい続編模擬教材：二次面接第20集｜独自25トピック・模範スピーチ5本・追質問35問。未使用テーマの初見スピーチを終えてから模範例と比較してください。すべて慶英会の非公式独自教材です。
慶英会の個別指導ではスピーチの理由づけと追質問への対応を演習します。最大1か月無料体験・学習相談はこちら。
出題形式の参考：日本英語検定協会・英検1級の公式形式。カード、模範スピーチ、追質問、模範回答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。
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