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
結論：英検1級の二次面接で「統計は？」「具体例は？」「その根拠は？」と聞かれても、知らない数字や研究結果を作る必要はありません。①確認できない事実は認める→②因果や論点の仕組みを説明する→③必要な比較・検証条件を示す順で答える練習が重要です。慶英会は10テーマ・独自Q&A30問と、根拠のない断定を直す24問を全模範回答付きで公開します。
英検1級の二次試験は英語面接で、1分間の考慮時間、2分間のスピーチと関連Q&Aを含みます。英検協会の1級試験内容で公式形式を確認してください。以下は慶英会の独自想定質問です。面接委員から統計を尋ねられることを保証・予測するものではありません。実際の追質問は受験者のスピーチ内容などによって異なります。
面接で数字を知らないときも具体策へ：代案を質問されたときの独自10テーマ30問。根拠を捏造せず現実的な実施方法を話す練習です。
データを知らないときに使える4段階の英語回答
- 事実と推定を分ける：I don’t have a reliable figure, so I would not give an exact percentage.
- 争点を明確にする：The key issue is whether the policy improves access for people who need it.
- 架空例と明示する：Consider a hypothetical resident who cannot access a digital form.
- 検証の方法を示す：I would compare outcomes with realistic alternatives and monitor unintended effects.
I don’t know.だけで長く黙ってしまう必要はありません。ただし、実際に数字を知っているふりをすることも避けます。不明な点が本当に設問の核心なら、その不確実性を正直に認めたうえで、政策判断に必要な評価項目や現実的な例を示してください。
英検1級二次面接・独自30問｜模範英語回答と和文解説
1｜デジタル格差・公共サービス
練習用のスピーチ主張：Should governments preserve non-digital ways to access essential services?
Q1. What percentage of citizens cannot use digital services?
Model answer: I don’t have a reliable current figure, so I would not give a percentage. My concern is that people without suitable devices, connectivity, or digital skills may be excluded. Governments should measure whether users can actually complete essential tasks.
日本語の解説：数値を作らず、対象者と評価方法を説明。
Q2. Can you give a specific example?
Model answer: Consider a resident who needs to renew an important document but cannot complete an online identity check. That is a hypothetical example, but it shows why alternative assistance could matter.
日本語の解説：仮定のケースであることを明示。
Q3. Doesn’t keeping physical offices waste money?
Model answer: It can increase costs, and those costs should be compared with the value of access for vulnerable users. I would favor a balanced system if it provides essential services more reliably than either approach alone.
日本語の解説：反論を認め、比較基準を示す。
2｜生成AIと学校教育
練習用のスピーチ主張：Should schools teach students to evaluate AI-generated answers?
Q4. Is there evidence that AI always makes students less independent?
Model answer: I would not claim that AI always reduces independence. The effect likely depends on how it is used. Schools should compare tasks that encourage explanation with tasks that simply reward copying answers.
日本語の解説：alwaysを否定し利用法に分解。
Q5. What does responsible use look like in practice?
Model answer: A student might ask an AI system for an explanation and then check the claim against a textbook or another reliable source. This is an illustrative classroom situation, not evidence of a measured improvement.
日本語の解説：架空例を実証データと混同しない。
Q6. Would you ban AI tools from classrooms?
Model answer: Not automatically. I would distinguish assessments where independent work is essential from activities where assisted practice is appropriate. Clear rules and evaluation matter more than an unconditional ban.
日本語の解説：条件別に結論を整理。
3｜公共交通・運賃補助
練習用のスピーチ主張：Should cities subsidize public transport?
Q7. How many commuters would stop driving if buses were cheaper?
Model answer: I cannot give an accurate number without local travel data. Lower fares might encourage some changes, but reliability and route coverage also influence behavior. I would test ridership and travel patterns before making a prediction.
日本語の解説：不明な数量を断定せず、必要なデータを示す。
Q8. Can you explain the policy using an example?
Model answer: Imagine a worker whose shift ends after the final bus departs. A cheaper fare would not solve that person’s problem; a later service might. The example shows why access involves more than price.
日本語の解説：仮想事例から評価軸を説明。
Q9. Could subsidized fares harm service quality?
Model answer: Yes, if the funding model reduces resources for maintenance and drivers. The policy would need stable financing and performance checks. Subsidies should improve access without weakening the service itself.
日本語の解説：副作用を認めたうえで条件を示す。
4｜住宅・都市計画
練習用のスピーチ主張：Should governments support affordable housing?
Q10. What is the exact number of households facing housing insecurity?
Model answer: That varies by location and definition, and I don’t have verified local figures. I would focus on whether people can obtain safe housing without unreasonable financial burdens and then examine local evidence.
日本語の解説：定義と地域条件を明示。
Q11. Give me an example of a policy trade-off.
Model answer: Suppose a city builds new homes but removes a park that residents rely on. The proposal may increase housing supply while reducing access to green space. Planners would need to consider both outcomes.
日本語の解説：架空例を用いてトレードオフを示す。
Q12. Can rent controls solve the problem entirely?
Model answer: I would not assume they can. Such rules may protect some tenants, but their effects depend on design, housing supply, and enforcement. I would compare them with measures that expand suitable housing.
日本語の解説：全面解決と一部改善を区別。
5｜予防医療・公衆衛生政策
練習用のスピーチ主張：Should governments invest in preventive health programs?
Q13. How much money could prevention save?
Model answer: The amount would depend on the program, population, and time period. I would avoid inventing a figure. Decision-makers should evaluate health outcomes alongside implementation costs and any delayed benefits.
日本語の解説：特定金額を作らず費用便益の軸を説明。
Q14. Could you give a simple example?
Model answer: Imagine a community that offers accessible information and routine preventive services. Some problems might be detected earlier, although the actual effects would need proper evaluation. This is a hypothetical example, not a claim about a particular study.
日本語の解説：医療効果を断定しない仮定のケース。
Q15. Is prevention always better than treatment?
Model answer: No. People also need timely treatment when illnesses occur. Public policy should allocate resources according to evidence, need, and the consequences of delayed care.
日本語の解説：二者択一の誤りを回避。
6｜気候政策・費用の負担
練習用のスピーチ主張：Should climate policies account for household costs?
Q16. What percentage of emissions will a particular policy eliminate?
Model answer: I cannot estimate a credible percentage without knowing the policy and a baseline. I would evaluate the likely reduction and compare it with costs and effects on different households.
日本語の解説：削減率は基準値と制度条件に依存。
Q17. Can you illustrate an unfair outcome?
Model answer: Imagine a household that needs a car for work because public transport is unavailable. A sudden cost increase may affect that household more than a resident with many alternatives. The scenario illustrates a distributional concern.
日本語の解説：対象別負担を仮想例で説明。
Q18. Does considering costs mean delaying all climate action?
Model answer: No. It means designing measures that are effective and sustainable. Support for affected households can sometimes make long-term implementation more realistic.
日本語の解説：気候目標否定と制度設計を区別。
7｜再生可能エネルギー・電力網
練習用のスピーチ主張：Should countries increase renewable electricity?
Q19. How fast can renewable power completely replace conventional generation?
Model answer: I would not give a universal timetable. The answer depends on infrastructure, storage, demand, and the generation mix. Expansion should be planned alongside reliable supply and grid investment.
日本語の解説：期限を捏造せず構造的条件を述べる。
Q20. Give an example of a practical limitation.
Model answer: Suppose a region generates substantial electricity at midday but has higher demand after sunset. Without suitable storage, transmission, or other sources, supply may not match demand.
日本語の解説：架空例で発電量と供給可能性を分離。
Q21. Should governments abandon renewable investment until every issue is solved?
Model answer: No. They can expand projects while testing reliability and improving infrastructure. The relevant question is how to manage constraints, not whether uncertainty makes investment impossible.
日本語の解説：課題があることと全面中止は別。
8｜文化遺産・保存
練習用のスピーチ主張：Should public money support cultural preservation?
Q22. Exactly how many people benefit from a museum or archive?
Model answer: I cannot provide an exact number without usage and outcome data. Visitor counts are helpful, but educational value and access for future generations may not be captured by attendance alone.
日本語の解説：来場者数だけを価値尺度にしない。
Q23. Can you give an example of a benefit?
Model answer: Imagine a local archive that preserves documents used by students and researchers. Even if only a small group consults the records each year, some information could be difficult to recover if destroyed.
日本語の解説：少人数利用でも不可逆性が重要な例。
Q24. Should every old building be preserved?
Model answer: Not necessarily. Cultural significance, safety, maintenance costs, and available alternatives should all be considered. Public support needs transparent priorities.
日本語の解説：あらゆる建物の保存を義務にしない。
9｜働き方・在宅勤務
練習用のスピーチ主張：Should employers allow more remote work?
Q25. What percentage of employees become more productive at home?
Model answer: I don’t have a reliable general figure, and productivity depends on tasks and working conditions. Organizations should measure work quality and collaboration rather than rely on one universal percentage.
日本語の解説：職種・条件に依存する点を確認。
Q26. Can you give an example of an occupation where remote work may be unsuitable?
Model answer: Emergency services and jobs requiring physical equipment often need staff on site. Flexible scheduling may still be possible even when full remote work is not.
日本語の解説：在宅不可と柔軟性不可は同義ではない。
Q27. Would an office-free company automatically be more efficient?
Model answer: No. Rent savings could be offset by coordination difficulties or other costs. The comparison should include output, training, communication, and employee needs.
日本語の解説：家賃削減だけでは効率を判定できない。
10｜情報の信頼性・メディアリテラシー
練習用のスピーチ主張：Should schools require media-literacy lessons?
Q28. How many students believe false news?
Model answer: That depends on the study, definition, and sample. I would not give a figure I cannot verify. The broader concern is whether students can examine sources and distinguish evidence from assertion.
日本語の解説：出典不明の割合を作らない。
Q29. Can you describe a simple classroom exercise?
Model answer: A teacher could present two fictional claims about the same issue and ask students to compare sources, evidence, and missing context. Their reasoning could be assessed without requiring agreement with one opinion.
日本語の解説：教育用の架空例を示し意見誘導を避ける。
Q30. Would these lessons eliminate misinformation?
Model answer: No. They cannot guarantee that outcome, but they may strengthen students’ ability to assess claims. Schools should test whether learners can apply the skill in unfamiliar situations.
日本語の解説：ゼロ化を保証せず技能の評価へ。
事実を作らずに答えるための独自24修正問題
以下の発言は、不明な統計・根拠のない断定・相関と因果の混同などを含みます。具体的な数字を作らず、意味を正確に限定する英文に直してください。
修正問題1：According to a study, 90 percent of people support this.
修正問題2：All experts agree on this issue.
修正問題3：This policy will definitely save billions.
修正問題4：Research proves that every student benefits.
修正問題5：I read something online, so it must be true.
修正問題6：A study I can’t name demonstrates success.
修正問題7：Everyone knows the technology is harmful.
修正問題8：Nobody disagrees with my argument.
修正問題9：One person did well, proving the system works.
修正問題10：A service has more users, proving higher quality.
修正問題11：The new policy caused the change because the change followed it.
修正問題12：I can tell you the exact percentage, although I am not sure.
修正問題13：The pilot succeeded in every city.
修正問題14：There are no risks whatsoever.
修正問題15：The system is fair because it is inexpensive.
修正問題16：This proves my opinion, even though I invented the scenario.
修正問題17：All figures show that I am right.
修正問題18：The average improved, so every person benefited.
修正問題19：I do not know the answer, so the policy has no value.
修正問題20：It may work, therefore it certainly will.
修正問題21：My guess is an official statistic.
修正問題22：The law must require it everywhere.
修正問題23：All historical examples show the same pattern.
修正問題24：Because I am unsure, I must agree with the question.
24問の全模範修正と根拠
解答1：I do not have a verified figure; the level of support would need to be measured. 修正理由：出典不明の90％を撤回。
解答2：There may be broad agreement on some findings, but I cannot claim that every expert agrees. 修正理由：allという全面断定は慎重に。
解答3：The policy may reduce some costs, but savings require a credible estimate. 修正理由：金額を創作しない。
解答4：The benefits may differ among students and require evaluation. 修正理由：標本から全員へ外挿しない。
解答5：I would check the source and supporting evidence before relying on the claim. 修正理由：検索結果の存在は証拠でない。
解答6：I would avoid citing a study whose details I cannot verify and explain the relevant mechanism instead. 修正理由：出典を確認できない研究名は出さない。
解答7：Potential harms should be assessed with evidence and attention to how the technology is used. 修正理由：『常識』で実証を代用しない。
解答8：Some people may disagree, and their concerns deserve examination. 修正理由：異論の存在を不当に否定しない。
解答9：One example may illustrate a possibility but cannot establish general effectiveness. 修正理由：個人的事例と一般的実証を分ける。
解答10：Usage may have increased, but quality requires separate evidence. 修正理由：利用量と品質は別指標。
解答11：The timing is suggestive but does not by itself establish causation. 修正理由：前後関係だけで因果証明しない。
解答12：I cannot give a reliable percentage without checking the source. 修正理由：不確かな数字を明確な数字として出さない。
解答13：The pilot’s results may not apply equally across cities with different conditions. 修正理由：一般化に留保を置く。
解答14：Every policy has possible costs or risks that should be evaluated. 修正理由：リスクゼロを保証しない。
解答15：Affordability matters, but fairness also depends on who can actually use the service. 修正理由：安さと公平さは別。
解答16：A hypothetical scenario illustrates how the mechanism might operate; it does not prove the outcome. 修正理由：想定例の証拠力を正しく限定。
解答17：I would need to identify relevant figures and assess whether they support the claim. 修正理由：数量情報の具体的な検証が必要。
解答18：An improved average does not demonstrate that every individual benefited. 修正理由：平均と個々の分布を区別。
解答19：I do not know the exact result, but I can explain what evidence would be needed to evaluate the policy. 修正理由：不明な情報と論点放棄は別。
解答20：The policy may work if the relevant conditions are met; testing would reduce uncertainty. 修正理由：可能性と確実性を分ける。
解答21：That is only an assumption, not an official statistic. 修正理由：推測と正式統計の区別。
解答22：I would need to verify the relevant law and jurisdiction before making that claim. 修正理由：法制度の適用範囲は確認が必要。
解答23：Historical cases may differ, so I would examine which comparisons are appropriate. 修正理由：比較対象の条件を保つ。
解答24：I can acknowledge uncertainty while still giving a reasoned, conditional answer. 修正理由：不確実性の表明と迎合を分ける。
完成Q&Aの演習｜追加質問に段階的に答える
模擬面接1｜公共交通の改善
Original TOPIC: Should public transport be subsidized?
Sample speech outline: I favor targeted fare support because transport access affects people’s opportunities. However, lower fares alone may be insufficient where routes are unreliable. The policy should be evaluated by actual access and long-term financial sustainability.
Follow-up 1: How much will a discount increase ridership?
Model reply: I cannot give a reliable estimate without local data. I would compare ridership before and after a trial and examine other changes in service.
Follow-up 2: Can you give an example?
Model reply: Suppose a worker finishes after the last bus. Even free fares would not make that trip possible, so scheduling is also important.
Follow-up 3: Would you still support the policy if revenue fell?
Model reply: Only if financing remained sustainable and the wider benefits justified the cost. Otherwise, I would revise the design.
模擬面接2｜学校での情報評価
Original TOPIC: Should media literacy be compulsory at school?
Sample speech outline: I support teaching media literacy because students need to assess sources, evidence, and misleading comparisons. The goal should be independent judgment, not agreement with a particular opinion. Schools could integrate this skill into existing subjects.
Follow-up 1: What is your evidence that it helps?
Model reply: I would not claim a precise improvement without a suitable study. Schools could assess whether students can identify weaknesses in unfamiliar claims.
Follow-up 2: Can you illustrate the skill?
Model reply: For example, students could compare two fictional reports using different denominators and explain which conclusion is justified.
Follow-up 3: Could this reduce time for other subjects?
Model reply: Yes, which is why integration into existing lessons may be preferable to adding an entirely new course.
7日間の練習順
- 1日目：Q1〜6。数字がない場合に、アクセスや学習成果の評価を説明。
- 2日目：Q7〜12。政策の便益と副作用を同時に説明。
- 3日目：Q13〜18。公衆衛生や環境の数字を作らず論じる。
- 4日目：Q19〜24。技術・文化の例を仮定と事実に分ける。
- 5日目：Q25〜30。働き方と情報の信頼性を評価する。
- 6日目：修正問題24問を解き直して、どこが過大断定か説明。
- 7日目：模擬面接2題を録音し、数字を捏造せず論点を明確に話せたか点検。
FAQ｜英検1級の二次面接で知識不足が心配
統計を正確に覚えていないと合格できませんか？
公式の評価対象は英語のスピーキング能力です。専門的な知識が話題理解に役立つことはありますが、実在しない数値を述べて補うべきではありません。質問に直接答え、明確な理由と適切な具体例を使って論理的に説明しましょう。
I don’t know.と答えたら即座に不合格ですか？
その一言だけで合否を断定することはできません。知らない点を正直に伝える場合でも、答えられる部分、条件、必要な情報を示して対話を続ける練習が有効です。
架空の例を使ってよいですか？
教育用の説明としてhypothetical example（仮定の例）を提示することと、存在しない統計や調査を実在するものとして話すことは違います。前者は考え方を具体化するために使えます。
関連する慶英会の無料教材とお問い合わせ
英語での即答練習やスピーチの理由づけに不安がある場合は、慶英会の最大1か月無料体験・学習相談をご利用ください。
参考にした主な公式情報
本記事の社会問題・質問・回答・説明用事例は慶英会が独自に作成した教材です。実在する制度・研究結果を保証するものではなく、英検協会の公式質問や評価例ではありません。
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