英検1級二次面接【模擬第9集・無料】｜独自25トピック・スピーチ5本・追質問15問と全解答

英検1級二次面接・独自模擬第9集です。5枚のトピックカード（全25テーマ）、2分スピーチの模範英語5本と段落別日本語訳、追質問15問の全模範英語回答と解説を無料で掲載しました。病院周辺の騒音、研究データ、地方交通、夜間生態系、世代間学習を扱います。

英検協会の現行1級二次試験は英語で約10分、5トピックから1題を選び、準備1分、2分スピーチ、質問応答の構成です。公式試験内容。以下の内容は慶英会が新規制作した非公式トピックで、公式過去問・出題予測ではありません。

二次面接の新作模擬第10集：独自25テーマ・5枚のカード、模範2分スピーチ5本と和訳、追質問15問の全回答を公開。第9集とは異なる社会問題で初見スピーチを練習できます。

練習順序｜準備1分→スピーチ2分→追質問

• 5題のうち立場を明確に言い、異なる理由3つを挙げられるものを選ぶ。
• 1分の間に導入・理由・結論の順序を整理する。
• 2分間話し、その後に模範英文と段落の論理を比べる。
• 追質問はYes/NoやWhichに直接答えてから根拠と留保を示す。
• 模範を丸暗記せず、初見の別テーマでも組み立てられるようにする。

模擬カード1｜地域の音環境・病院と学校

TOPIC 1：Should cities take stronger measures to reduce traffic noise near hospitals and schools?

TOPIC 2：Is a quiet urban environment a significant public benefit?

TOPIC 3：Should noise standards be adjusted to local conditions?

TOPIC 4：Can better city design reduce health-related inequalities?

TOPIC 5：Should residents participate in decisions about nighttime transport routes?

このカードの模範英文はTOPIC 1の一例です。先に自分で1分準備・2分スピーチを行ってください。

模擬カード2｜大学の研究データと利用許可

TOPIC 1：Should universities make more research data accessible to independent reviewers?

TOPIC 2：Can open research improve trust without violating privacy?

TOPIC 3：Should researchers publish methods before collecting data?

TOPIC 4：Is independent replication essential to reliable science?

TOPIC 5：Should governments fund the long-term maintenance of public research databases?

このカードの模範英文はTOPIC 1の一例です。先に自分で1分準備・2分スピーチを行ってください。

模擬カード3｜地方の公共交通と費用負担

TOPIC 1：Should governments subsidize transport routes with low passenger numbers?

TOPIC 2：Is transport access a public good even when individual routes lose money?

TOPIC 3：Should daily fare caps be introduced for frequent passengers?

TOPIC 4：Are flexible community buses better than fixed routes in rural areas?

TOPIC 5：Should transport planning give greater weight to people who cannot currently travel?

このカードの模範英文はTOPIC 1の一例です。先に自分で1分準備・2分スピーチを行ってください。

模擬カード4｜夜間の生態系と都市の照明

TOPIC 1：Should cities reduce unnecessary artificial light near natural habitats?

TOPIC 2：Can protecting dark skies be compatible with public safety?

TOPIC 3：Should urban environmental policies be evaluated over several seasons?

TOPIC 4：Are adaptive streetlights preferable to uniform lighting?

TOPIC 5：Should residents participate in decisions about lighting near their homes?

このカードの模範英文はTOPIC 1の一例です。先に自分で1分準備・2分スピーチを行ってください。

模擬カード5｜異世代間の学びと地域の学校

TOPIC 1：Should schools develop mentoring partnerships with older community members?

TOPIC 2：Can voluntary community projects improve educational opportunities?

TOPIC 3：Should students learn practical skills from people outside formal schools?

TOPIC 4：Is safeguarding essential in community-based education?

TOPIC 5：Should successful education be judged by what students learn rather than event counts?

このカードの模範英文はTOPIC 1の一例です。先に自分で1分準備・2分スピーチを行ってください。

模範スピーチ5本・段落ごとの全文和訳

カード1｜Should cities take stronger measures to reduce traffic noise near hospitals and schools?

模範スピーチ209語：発話速度によって2分の長さは異なるため声に出して調整してください。

Introduction：Cities should take stronger measures to reduce unnecessary traffic noise near hospitals and schools. Transport is essential, but noise can interfere with activities that require concentration or rest. I support carefully targeted policies for three reasons: learning conditions, patient comfort, and more effective urban planning.

段落の日本語訳：都市は病院や学校付近の不要な交通騒音を減らすべきだ。交通は必要だが静けさは学習、患者の休養、計画の質に関わる。

Reason 1：First, students need environments in which teachers can be heard clearly. Heavy traffic outside classrooms may make lessons harder to follow, particularly when windows must remain open. Appropriate barriers, better road surfaces, or adjusted routes could improve conditions, although their effects should be tested rather than assumed.

段落の日本語訳：第一に学校では教師の声が聞き取れることが重要で、道路の騒音が授業を妨げる場合がある。防音壁や路面、ルートの調整を試験して選ぶ。

Reason 2：Second, hospitals need suitable spaces for treatment and recovery. Some noise is unavoidable, but unnecessary disturbances can make it more difficult for patients to rest. Authorities should work with hospitals to identify the locations and times at which improvements would matter most.

段落の日本語訳：第二に病院では休息が必要。全騒音の除去は不可能だが、病院と協力し重要な場所・時間帯を特定する。

Reason 3：Third, a clear noise policy can encourage planners to consider different transport options together. Quieter vehicles, sensible speed limits, and infrastructure maintenance may sometimes be preferable to expensive new construction.

段落の日本語訳：第三に静音車両、合理的な速度、保守など複数の交通施策を合わせて検討できる。

Conclusion：There are trade-offs. Restricting a route could shift traffic into residential streets, and changes must preserve access for emergency vehicles. Cities should measure sound levels, travel effects, and user experiences before expanding a policy. The goal is better public spaces without creating new burdens elsewhere.

段落の日本語訳：路線を変えると別の住宅地に騒音が移る可能性もあり、救急車の通行も守る必要がある。測定と比較に基づく対策を支持する。

カード2｜Should universities make more research data accessible to independent reviewers?

模範スピーチ196語：発話速度によって2分の長さは異なるため声に出して調整してください。

Introduction：Universities should make research evidence more accessible to independent examination when privacy and legitimate rights allow it. Openness can strengthen knowledge, but simply releasing every file would be irresponsible. I support controlled research access for three reasons: reliability, efficient use of resources, and public confidence.

段落の日本語訳：大学は個人情報や正当な権利を守れる範囲で、研究証拠を独立検証しやすくすべきだ。全ファイルの無制限公開とは違う。信頼性、資源効率、公共の信頼が理由。

Reason 1：First, other researchers need enough information to assess important findings. Clear methods, definitions, and appropriate data can reveal whether a conclusion depends on a particular assumption. Independent scrutiny can help identify mistakes before weak claims influence public policy.

段落の日本語訳：第一に方法・定義・適切なデータを確認できれば、仮定が結論へ及ぼす影響を検証でき、弱い証拠で政策を決める危険を減らせる。

Reason 2：Second, well-maintained records can prevent unnecessary duplication. Research teams may build on reliable earlier work instead of repeating data collection without reason. However, databases require documentation and continuing maintenance; the number of uploaded files is not a useful measure of quality by itself.

段落の日本語訳：第二に良い記録があれば他者が前の研究を利用できる。ただし目録の説明と継続保守が必要でファイルの量だけでは価値を測れない。

Reason 3：Third, responsible openness can support confidence in scientific institutions. People are more likely to understand changing recommendations when researchers explain what is established and what remains uncertain.

段落の日本語訳：第三に何が確定し何が未確定か説明することは、科学的な助言が変わる理由を人々が理解する助けになる。

Conclusion：The central limitation is privacy. Medical, employment, and personal interview records may contain sensitive information. Universities should use anonymization, controlled access, and independent oversight where appropriate. In my view, the goal is verifiable evidence with adequate safeguards, not unrestricted distribution at any cost.

段落の日本語訳：医療や雇用、面接データは機密性が高いため匿名化・限定アクセス・独立した監督が必要。無制限公開でなく検証可能な証拠を目指す。

カード3｜Should governments subsidize transport routes with low passenger numbers?

模範スピーチ204語：発話速度によって2分の長さは異なるため声に出して調整してください。

Introduction：Governments should sometimes support public transport routes that cannot cover their operating costs through fares alone. This does not mean every route should receive unlimited funding. Carefully chosen services may provide significant benefits by improving access, reducing isolation, and supporting regional economies.

段落の日本語訳：運賃だけでは運営費を賄えない公共交通路線でも、政府が一部支援すべき場合がある。ただし無制限の赤字補填ではなく、アクセス、孤立の軽減、地域経済への便益を評価する。

Reason 1：First, residents need ways to reach essential destinations. People without cars may struggle to attend medical appointments, education, or work when buses are infrequent. Existing passenger numbers can underestimate demand because people who cannot use a route do not appear in its records.

段落の日本語訳：第一に車を持たない人の通院、教育、仕事への移動。既存乗客数には利用できなかった人が含まれず需要を過小評価する。

Reason 2：Second, reliable transport can help communities remain connected. A service may support local businesses or allow older residents to maintain relationships, even when the direct fare revenue is limited. These potential benefits should be assessed rather than assumed.

段落の日本語訳：第二に人と地域のつながり。店の利用や高齢者の交流を支える可能性があるが、効果は測定する必要がある。

Reason 3：Third, several transport options can provide resilience. Flexible minibuses, coordinated community services, and connections to regional trains may sometimes meet needs more efficiently than a conventional large bus operating on a rigid timetable.

段落の日本語訳：第三に小型バス、地域輸送、鉄道との乗継ぎなど複数手段を組み合わせれば、従来の大型バスより適切な場合もある。

Conclusion：Nevertheless, subsidies require careful scrutiny. Officials should examine costs, unmet demand, actual use, and realistic alternatives. Spending indefinitely on a route that serves almost nobody without investigating improvements would be irresponsible. I favor targeted public support with transparent performance reviews and opportunities for residents to explain their needs.

段落の日本語訳：費用、未充足需要、実際の利用、代替方法を比較し透明な継続評価を行う支援を支持する。

カード4｜Should cities reduce unnecessary artificial light near natural habitats?

模範スピーチ202語：発話速度によって2分の長さは異なるため声に出して調整してください。

Introduction：Cities should reduce unnecessary artificial lighting near sensitive natural habitats while preserving illumination that residents need for safety. Nighttime lighting is useful, but poorly directed light can waste energy and disturb some species. I support carefully planned changes for three reasons: ecological protection, energy efficiency, and better living conditions.

段落の日本語訳：自然環境に近い場所の不要な夜間照明は減らすべきだが、人の安全に必要な照明は守るべきだ。生態系、省エネルギー、生活環境の三理由がある。

Reason 1：First, many animals depend on natural patterns of light and darkness. Artificial light may alter movement or feeding behavior, although effects differ by species and location. Authorities should use local evidence and measure conditions over time rather than assume the same impact everywhere.

段落の日本語訳：第一に夜行性の動物は明暗の周期に依存することがあり、人工光が移動や採餌へ影響し得る。ただし種・地域差を調べる。

Reason 2：Second, directing light only where it is needed can reduce unnecessary electricity use. Well-designed shielding and appropriate controls may be more effective than simply turning off every streetlight. Practical visibility at junctions and walking routes must remain a priority.

段落の日本語訳：第二に光を必要な場所へ集中させれば余計な電力を減らせる。すべて消灯するのでなく遮光や制御を考え、交差点や歩道の視認性を保つ。

Reason 3：Third, residents may benefit from less light entering bedrooms or private outdoor spaces. Suitable fixture placement can improve comfort without reducing the quality of essential public lighting.

段落の日本語訳：第三に寝室へ差し込む光を減らすなど住民の快適さを高められる。

Conclusion：There are risks. Poorly implemented changes could make it harder to see obstacles or travel safely after dark. Cities should consult residents, test alternatives, and compare energy use, visibility, and relevant environmental indicators. The goal should be appropriate lighting, not darkness at any cost.

段落の日本語訳：不適切な変更は夜道の安全を損なうため、住民参加と試行、電力、視認性、環境指標で判断する。

カード5｜Should schools develop mentoring partnerships with older community members?

模範スピーチ206語：発話速度によって2分の長さは異なるため声に出して調整してください。

Introduction：Schools should provide opportunities for students to learn from community members with different experiences. Formal teachers remain essential, but voluntary partnerships can enrich education when they are well organized. I support these programs for three reasons: practical knowledge, communication, and stronger community connections.

段落の日本語訳：学校は異なる経験を持つ地域の人から学ぶ機会を設けるべきだ。専門教員は不可欠だが、適切な地域協力は実務的な知識、コミュニケーション、地域のつながりを増やせる。

Reason 1：First, experienced residents may share skills that complement classroom lessons. Local crafts, historical observations, or environmental work can help students see how knowledge is applied. Schools should prepare clear learning goals so that activities become more than entertainment.

段落の日本語訳：第一に地域の工芸・歴史・環境などの経験は授業で学んだ知識の応用を示せる。活動を娯楽だけにしない学習目標が必要。

Reason 2：Second, working with unfamiliar people develops communication. Students may need to ask careful questions, listen respectfully, and explain their own ideas. These skills are useful beyond examinations. However, teachers should supervise activities and ensure that every student can participate fairly.

段落の日本語訳：第二に初対面の人へ質問し、聞き、意見を説明する練習となる。ただし監督して公平な参加を保証する。

Reason 3：Third, partnerships can encourage residents to support education and exchange knowledge across generations. Older participants may also learn from students, particularly about new tools and changing social experiences. Such relationships should remain voluntary rather than create excessive obligations.

段落の日本語訳：第三に世代間の知識交換ができ、年長者も生徒から新技術や社会の変化を学べる。参加は任意で過度な負担にしない。

Conclusion：Safety and quality are essential. Background checks where appropriate, privacy rules, and trained supervision should be maintained. Schools should evaluate what students actually understood, not just how many events took place. I favor carefully designed partnerships that complement professional teaching and provide meaningful learning for everyone involved.

段落の日本語訳：安全確認、個人情報、資格のある監督を守り、イベント件数でなく実際の理解を測る。

追質問15問の全英語回答・日本語解説

カード1：地域の音環境・病院と学校

Q1：Could reducing noise around hospitals make commuting slower?

模範A1：It could if restrictions are poorly planned. Cities should compare noise reductions with travel times and preserve reliable routes for emergency services rather than assume that every restriction is harmless.

解説：騒音低減と交通の負担を比較する。

Q2：Should all neighborhoods have identical noise limits?

模範A2：Basic protections matter, but local conditions differ. Evidence about exposure, schools, hospitals, and residential areas should guide measures without creating arbitrary unfairness.

解説：地域差と公平性を両立。

Q3：How can officials determine whether a project worked?

模範A3：They should measure actual sound levels and examine access, traffic shifts, and experiences of affected residents. Installing barriers alone does not prove that exposure declined.

解説：設置台数ではなく実測を見る。

カード2：大学の研究データと利用許可

Q4：Should all individual participant records be uploaded publicly?

模範A4：No. Records can contain identifying and sensitive information. Carefully controlled access or appropriately anonymized data may support examination without violating privacy.

解説：全面公開と検証可能性を区別。

Q5：Does a larger database automatically improve research quality?

模範A5：No. Clear definitions, correct records, maintenance, and appropriate checks matter more than raw file counts.

解説：量と信頼性の違い。

Q6：How can universities respond when new analysis contradicts an earlier result?

模範A6：They should examine the methods and evidence, explain possible reasons for the difference, and revise conclusions when justified. Correction is part of responsible research.

解説：誤りの説明・訂正を重視。

カード3：地方の公共交通と費用負担

Q7：Should taxpayers fund a service that very few people use?

模範A7：Not automatically. Authorities should investigate unmet needs and alternatives, then compare benefits with operating costs. Some low-use routes have important value, but evidence is necessary.

解説：支援と無制限補助は異なる。

Q8：Why are passenger counts sometimes misleading?

模範A8：They omit people who would travel if appropriate services existed. Surveys of nonusers can reveal barriers not visible in current ridership data.

解説：非利用者の需要を調べる。

Q9：Could flexible minibuses replace every fixed route?

模範A9：No. They may suit some low-density areas but need reliable booking and coordination. Busy routes may be better served by regular services.

解説：地域条件によって方式を選ぶ。

カード4：夜間の生態系と都市の照明

Q10：Could darker streets create safety risks?

模範A10：Yes, if lighting is reduced without careful planning. Essential walking and transport areas must retain adequate visibility, and changes should be tested.

解説：必要な照明を維持する。

Q11：Does artificial light affect every species identically?

模範A11：No. Responses vary by species, habitat, and the characteristics of the light. Local observations are important.

解説：全種へ一般化しない。

Q12：What would count as a successful lighting policy?

模範A12：It should maintain safety while reducing unnecessary energy use or environmental disturbance, with results evaluated using appropriate measurements.

解説：安全と環境・費用をともに測る。

カード5：異世代間の学びと地域の学校

Q13：Could community mentoring replace professional teachers?

模範A13：No. It should complement qualified teaching rather than substitute for formal instruction or professional guidance.

解説：補助的な役割を明確化。

Q14：How can schools protect students during such projects?

模範A14：They should set clear rules, provide suitable supervision, consider relevant safeguarding checks, and obtain appropriate consent for activities.

解説：安全対策と同意が必要。

Q15：How should learning be measured?

模範A15：Students could explain what they learned and apply it to new problems. The number of meetings alone would not establish educational benefit.

解説：出席数と学習成果を区別。

追質問で失点しやすい5つの原因

• 質問に直接答えず別の話題を長く説明してしまう。
• 3理由が同じ便益の言い換えになっている。
• 立場が途中で逆転したのに変更を説明できない。
• 実在しない数値や研究成果を断定してしまう。
• 発音と話速ばかり意識し、論理が不明確になる。

1週間で25題を使う方法

1〜5日目に各カードを1枚ずつ初見で解き、1分準備・2分スピーチ・追質問3問を実施します。6日目は使っていない20題から5題選び、初見で立場と理由を考えます。7日目には追質問15問をモデルなしで答え、内容・構成・語彙・文法・発音を点検します。

よくある質問

1級二次面接は5題から選ぶのですか？

はい。公式形式では5つのトピックから1つを選びます。

話す語数に固定の規定はありますか？

スピーチは2分であり、固定の語数を達成することより明確に論じることが大切です。

模範と異なる立場でもよいですか？

質問に直接答え、適切な理由を一貫して説明すれば異なる立場も成立します。

今回の25題は公式過去問ですか？

いいえ。慶英会の独自教材であり、本番の出題を予測するものではありません。

準備時間は何分ですか？

公式形式は1分で、その後2分スピーチがあります。

関連する英検1級教材

• 二次面接第8集
• Writing第11セット
• Reading第12セット
• 英検1級教材一覧

慶英会の英語学習相談

社会的テーマの立場・3理由が思い付かない、追質問への回答がずれる場合は、慶英会の学習相談・最大1か月無料体験で英語と論理を分けて練習できます。

公式情報：英検協会・1級の二次試験形式、英検1級公式過去問・面接サンプル。2026年10月29日確認。25題・英文・訳文は慶英会独自制作です。

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