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級二次面接は、難しい単語を並べることより、1分間で立場と理由を整理し、2分間のスピーチを組み立て、追質問に根拠を持って応答する力が重要です。慶英会の独自第30集では5枚のオリジナルTOPICカード（合計25題）、2分スピーチ想定の模範5本、追質問35問と35の英語回答例・日本語解説を無料公開しました。
英検1級の二次試験は個人面接で、提示される5題から1題を選び、1分考えて2分スピーチを行い、関連するQ&Aに答える形式です。面接全体の時間は約10分です（日本英語検定協会｜英検1級試験内容）。本記事のカード・テーマ・解答はすべて慶英会独自作成で、協会の実際の出題カードではありません。
二次面接・練習手順
- 最初に模範文を見ず、各カードの5題から1つだけ選ぶ。実際の試験のように60秒で立場、理由3つ、想定反論を整理する。
- 2分間で声に出してスピーチする。本文が長すぎる・短すぎる場合は伝える内容と発話速度を調整し、単純な丸暗記にしない。
- 追質問7問のうち、最初は質問のみ見て20〜40秒で回答する。直接の答え→理由→具体例または限定条件を意識。
- 模範回答と照合し、誤った断定・質問への無回答・理由の重複を点検。別テーマへ応用する。
1分準備の共通メモ型
立場：I believe that … / I would support … under certain conditions. 理由：First … / Second … / Finally … 留保：It is important to consider … 結論：For these reasons … . 理由は3つに限定しなくても構いませんが、本教材では主張の重複を避けるため3視点で練習します。
オリジナルTOPICカードA｜科学・研究への公共投資
次の5題から1題を選びます。本教材の模範スピーチは1番の題材です。
- 1. Should publicly funded scientific research be made freely accessible?
- 2. Do scientific prizes do more good than harm?
- 3. Should governments invest more in deep-sea exploration?
- 4. Can citizen science reliably influence public policy?
- 5. Are universities too dependent on short-term research results?
カードA・1番のスピーチ準備例
立場：原則として公開に賛成。ただし個人情報・安全保障上の合理的な制限は必要。
- 1. 納税者・社会への説明責任
- 2. 独立検証・研究の再現性
- 3. 小規模な研究機関の参加機会
反対意見への対応：個人情報・危険な技術情報は適切に制限
模範2分スピーチ（約207語）
Research financed by the public should generally be accessible to the public. Although some findings require safeguards, open access is a reasonable default because it serves three important purposes.
First, it respects public accountability. Taxpayers support research because they expect society to benefit, not simply because they wish to subsidize a small group of institutions. Allowing teachers, local organizations and independent researchers to read the results makes the return on public investment easier to evaluate.
Second, wider access encourages scrutiny. A published conclusion becomes more convincing when other specialists can examine its assumptions and attempt to reproduce the work. Openness does not guarantee accuracy, but restricting access can make errors harder to detect.
Third, it broadens participation. Researchers at smaller universities or in less wealthy communities may have valuable questions but limited subscription budgets. Access to reliable findings could help them develop more informed projects and contribute to debate.
Opponents argue that research organizations need revenue to maintain journals and that certain data could be misused. These concerns are legitimate. However, institutions can fund editorial quality separately while withholding personal records or security-sensitive details.
Therefore, publicly financed research should usually be available without a paywall, accompanied by clear methods, responsible safeguards and continued investment in quality control.
カードAの追質問7問｜英語模範回答と日本語の着眼点
Q1. What if opening research results increases misinformation?
Answer: Access alone is insufficient. Publicly funded studies should include plain-language explanations of limitations, data quality and uncertainty. Schools and journalists also need support in distinguishing findings from exaggerated claims.
解説：公開と理解は別。限界・不確実性の説明を付ける。
Q2. Could free access damage academic publishers?
Answer: It could disrupt existing revenue models, so the transition should be gradual. Universities could pay for transparent editorial services rather than require every reader to purchase access.
解説：既存の費用を無視せず支払構造を転換する。
Q3. Should private companies also release their research?
Answer: Not necessarily under the same rules. They may have legitimate commercial interests. However, safety-related findings and publicly funded components can justify stronger disclosure obligations.
解説：公費と民間投資を区別する。
Q4. Who should decide whether information is too sensitive to release?
Answer: An independent review body should apply narrowly defined criteria and explain its decisions. Otherwise, vague security claims could become an excuse for unnecessary secrecy.
解説：独立審査と狭い例外を提案。
Q5. What if a study is too technical for ordinary citizens?
Answer: The complete paper should remain available, while separate summaries explain its findings and uncertainty. Simplification should not replace access to the original evidence.
解説：原資料と平易な説明を併用。
Q6. Would openness necessarily make research more accurate?
Answer: No. It provides more opportunities to detect errors, but incentives, methodology and independent replication still matter. Openness is a tool for scrutiny rather than proof of quality.
解説：必ず改善と断定しない。
Q7. Which fields should receive priority?
Answer: I would prioritize research addressing substantial public needs, such as environmental monitoring and education. Nonetheless, a balanced budget must also support basic research whose future applications are not yet clear.
解説：優先例を挙げつつ基礎研究を排除しない。
オリジナルTOPICカードB｜雇用・再教育・労働市場
次の5題から1題を選びます。本教材の模範スピーチは1番の題材です。
- 1. Should large employers be required to support workers’ retraining?
- 2. Will flexible careers become more common than lifelong employment?
- 3. Should governments subsidize shorter working weeks?
- 4. Is a university degree becoming less important for employment?
- 5. Should companies be legally required to disclose salary ranges?
カードB・1番のスピーチ準備例
立場：大企業には合理的な再教育支援を求める。ただし一律の訓練内容を義務付けない。
- 1. 技術変化の費用を分担
- 2. 失業と地域への波及を緩和
- 3. 企業内の技能移転を促進
反対意見への対応：費用負担は規模・収益・業界特性で調整
模範2分スピーチ（約218語）
Large employers should bear part of the responsibility for helping workers adapt to major changes in required skills. This does not mean that every company must provide identical courses, but a reasonable obligation can be justified for three reasons.
First, employers often benefit when new technology raises productivity. If workers are expected to adjust to that technology, it is fair for companies to share some of the transition costs. Training budgets and paid learning time can make adaptation more realistic.
Second, retraining may reduce the social damage of sudden job displacement. Experienced workers have valuable knowledge that should not be discarded simply because one routine task has been automated. Helping them move into related roles can protect household stability and local communities.
Third, well-designed programs can benefit firms themselves. Employees who understand both existing operations and new systems may identify practical improvements that external recruits overlook. Training should therefore be linked to actual opportunities rather than certificates with no workplace value.
Critics worry that mandatory expenditure could harm firms with small profit margins. That concern is serious. Requirements should be proportional, and companies should be allowed to demonstrate equivalent support through mentoring or accredited external courses.
In short, larger employers should help finance meaningful retraining, with flexible implementation and independent evaluation of whether workers actually gain useful opportunities.
カードBの追質問7問｜英語模範回答と日本語の着眼点
Q8. Should employees pay part of the cost?
Answer: That depends on who benefits. When training is essential for the employer’s new systems, the employer should pay most of the cost. Optional personal qualifications could involve shared contributions.
解説：便益の帰属で負担分担。
Q9. Would this make businesses less competitive?
Answer: Poorly designed mandates could. Proportional requirements, tax incentives and recognition of existing training would limit the burden while preserving the goal of workforce adaptation.
解説：副作用を認め、比例設計を提案。
Q10. Can older workers realistically learn new technology?
Answer: Age alone does not determine learning ability. Training should begin with practical tasks, offer sufficient time and recognize workers’ existing expertise rather than assume everyone starts from zero.
解説：年齢による決めつけを避ける。
Q11. Who should evaluate training programs?
Answer: Independent evaluators could examine sustained employment, relevant skills and employee feedback. Counting course attendance alone would miss whether participants actually benefited.
解説：参加数ではなく結果指標。
Q12. What if a worker wants to change industries entirely?
Answer: Portable qualifications and external partnerships could help. Employers need not guarantee a new job, but they can support workers in transferring adaptable skills beyond the firm.
解説：転職に使える技能へ接続。
Q13. Should small firms face the same rule?
Answer: No. Fixed compliance costs affect small businesses more strongly. They may need pooled training schemes or public support rather than obligations identical to those of major employers.
解説：規模差を明示。
Q14. Could automation create more jobs than it eliminates?
Answer: It might create new occupations, but the timing and required skills may differ from those of displaced workers. That mismatch is precisely why targeted retraining remains important.
解説：雇用総量と個人の移行は別。
オリジナルTOPICカードC｜文化・言語・共同体
次の5題から1題を選びます。本教材の模範スピーチは1番の題材です。
- 1. Is preserving endangered languages a public responsibility?
- 2. Should museums return culturally significant objects to their places of origin?
- 3. Are international cultural festivals effective at reducing prejudice?
- 4. Should schools require students to study local history?
- 5. Is government support for traditional performing arts justified?
カードC・1番のスピーチ準備例
立場：危機にある言語の保存は公共責任を含む。ただし話者の意思を優先。
- 1. 世代を超える文化的記憶
- 2. 地域社会の主体性と尊厳
- 3. 教育・研究の多様な知識
反対意見への対応：当事者が望まない一方的な保存は避ける
模範2分スピーチ（約225語）
Preserving endangered languages should be recognized as a public responsibility, although the people who speak those languages must guide the process. I support carefully designed public assistance for three reasons.
First, language carries cultural memory. Stories, local expressions and ways of describing the environment can become difficult to interpret when a language is no longer spoken. Recording them does not replace a living community, but it can preserve important knowledge for future generations.
Second, linguistic support can strengthen cultural dignity. When schools and public institutions treat a minority language as worthy of respect, younger speakers may feel less pressure to abandon it. The aim should be to expand choice, not to force children to use a particular language.
Third, preservation can improve education and scholarship. Community-led archives and bilingual materials may provide opportunities to study history, oral literature and relationships between language and society. The resulting materials should remain accessible under conditions agreed upon by the speakers.
Critics may argue that limited funds should be used for widely spoken languages or essential services. Those priorities matter, and preservation efforts should be proportionate. Yet modest support for teacher training or community recording projects need not displace core public services.
Ultimately, governments should assist communities that wish to sustain their languages, while respecting consent, ownership of recordings and the right of individuals to choose how they communicate.
カードCの追質問7問｜英語模範回答と日本語の着眼点
Q15. What if young people prefer the majority language?
Answer: Their preference should be respected. Public support should create opportunities for learning rather than impose a cultural duty. Voluntary classes and accessible recordings can keep options open.
解説：保存を強制と混同しない。
Q16. Should governments fund languages spoken by very few people?
Answer: Possibly, because cultural value is not measured by the number of speakers alone. The scale of funding should reflect community priorities and practical feasibility.
解説：話者数だけで価値を決めない。
Q17. Could technology replace human teachers?
Answer: Technology can preserve recordings and provide learning tools, but it cannot fully replace the relationships, context and feedback that fluent speakers offer.
解説：保存と生きた継承の差。
Q18. Who owns a language recording?
Answer: Consent and agreed rights should be established before recording. Communities may reasonably restrict sacred or personal material, even when a public institution funds the project.
解説：同意・文化的権利を確認。
Q19. Is it better to teach an international language instead?
Answer: International languages can widen opportunities, but the choice need not be exclusive. Bilingual education can combine wider communication with local cultural continuity.
解説：二者択一を避ける。
Q20. How would you measure success?
Answer: I would look at voluntary participation, the availability of teachers and materials, and whether community members find the program useful. Raw download counts alone are insufficient.
解説：利用価値を指標に。
Q21. Can preservation become politically divisive?
Answer: Yes, especially if outsiders define a community’s identity. Transparent decisions and leadership by speakers can reduce the risk of turning language policy into symbolic competition.
解説：当事者主導と透明性。
オリジナルTOPICカードD｜デジタル化と公共サービス
次の5題から1題を選びます。本教材の模範スピーチは1番の題材です。
- 1. Should essential public services always retain offline options?
- 2. Is cybersecurity more important than convenience for public institutions?
- 3. Should digital identity systems be voluntary?
- 4. Will artificial intelligence improve access to public information?
- 5. Should governments invest in low-tech backups for critical infrastructure?
カードD・1番のスピーチ準備例
立場：重要な公共サービスに対面・電話・紙などの代替経路を残す。
- 1. 通信・端末に依存しないアクセス
- 2. 災害・障害時の継続性
- 3. 利用者が訂正や説明を求める余地
反対意見への対応：並行運用の費用は対象サービスの重要度で調整
模範2分スピーチ（約215語）
Essential public services should retain meaningful non-digital options, even as online systems become faster and more convenient. In my view, this principle is justified by three concerns.
First, equal access cannot be taken for granted. Some residents lack reliable internet connections, suitable devices or the confidence to use complex websites. Requiring online applications for fundamental services can exclude people for reasons unrelated to their eligibility.
Second, digital systems sometimes fail. A network outage, cyberattack or software error should not make it impossible to request urgent assistance. Paper procedures, telephone support and trained staff can provide resilience, provided they are tested rather than maintained only on paper.
Third, alternative channels can make accountability more practical. Applicants may need to correct a record or explain circumstances that do not fit standard online forms. A human review route can prevent rigid procedures from turning minor errors into serious obstacles.
Maintaining every channel for every service would be expensive, and critics rightly question unnecessary duplication. The solution is to prioritize essential functions and design clear fallback procedures, not to abandon digital tools. Many routine transactions can remain online by default.
Therefore, governments should modernize public services while guaranteeing accessible backup channels for high-stakes applications. Efficiency is most valuable when it remains reliable and available to those who need help.
カードDの追質問7問｜英語模範回答と日本語の着眼点
Q22. Would keeping offline services waste taxpayers’ money?
Answer: It involves costs, but failures in essential services also create expenses and hardship. Governments should focus backup capacity on high-stakes functions and measure actual use.
解説：費用対効果を比較。
Q23. Should banks be subject to similar rules?
Answer: For basic financial access, reasonable alternatives may be justified. However, the exact obligation should reflect security, costs and the availability of other accessible services.
解説：分野に応じ規制強度を変える。
Q24. Can digital education solve the problem?
Answer: Training helps, but it does not remove outages, disabilities or a lack of devices. Education should complement rather than replace accessible service channels.
解説：教育だけで技術的障害は解消しない。
Q25. What about rural communities?
Answer: Telephone support and periodic mobile service desks could be useful where permanent offices are impractical. The right design depends on distance, demand and reliable communication.
解説：地方の運用案を示す。
Q26. Could offline options increase fraud?
Answer: Some risks differ by channel. Identity checks, audit trails and staff training should apply to both physical and digital processes rather than assuming either is inherently safe.
解説：一方的に安全と言わない。
Q27. What qualifies as an essential service?
Answer: I would include access to urgent health support, core public benefits and emergency information. Non-essential conveniences need not all have identical fallback systems.
解説：重要度に基づく境界設定。
Q28. How could governments test resilience?
Answer: They should rehearse outages, track how quickly services recover and invite users with different needs to test fallback procedures. A written contingency plan alone is insufficient.
解説：運用訓練・実測を重視。
オリジナルTOPICカードE｜都市・公共空間・環境
次の5題から1題を選びます。本教材の模範スピーチは1番の題材です。
- 1. Should cities convert underused parking lots into public green spaces?
- 2. Do city centers need stricter limits on private cars?
- 3. Should urban redevelopment prioritize existing residents?
- 4. Are public parks more important than new shopping facilities?
- 5. Should large cities impose stronger rules on outdoor advertising?
カードE・1番のスピーチ準備例
立場：利用率の低い駐車場は条件を見て緑地への転換を優先。物流や障害者アクセスには代替策。
- 1. 暑さ・雨水・環境負荷への対応
- 2. 健康と共同体の交流
- 3. 長期的な都市の用途柔軟性
反対意見への対応：物流・事業者・移動制約者の代替アクセス
模範2分スピーチ（約216語）
Cities should consider converting underused parking lots into public green spaces, particularly in districts with little shade or few places to gather. Such conversions are not appropriate everywhere, but they can offer three substantial benefits.
First, green areas can make neighborhoods more comfortable. Trees and permeable surfaces may reduce local heat exposure and help absorb rainfall. These effects depend on design and maintenance, so planners should assess conditions rather than promise that every project will prevent flooding.
Second, parks provide shared spaces. Children, older residents and people who cannot afford commercial entertainment can use them for recreation and informal interaction. A well-maintained public area can contribute to community life without requiring admission fees.
Third, converting land gradually allows cities to reconsider how space is allocated. Parking demand can change as transport systems and working patterns evolve. A pilot project can test whether a particular site serves residents better as greenery, parking or a combination of the two.
Opponents reasonably worry about accessibility for people with disabilities, delivery vehicles and nearby businesses. City officials should study actual parking use and provide practical alternatives before removing spaces.
In conclusion, underused lots are promising candidates for carefully tested green-space projects. Decisions should balance environmental quality, community needs and mobility instead of treating all parking as either essential or wasteful.
カードEの追質問7問｜英語模範回答と日本語の着眼点
Q29. Could removing parking spaces harm local shops?
Answer: It could, especially where customers have few transport alternatives. Cities should analyze demand and phase changes gradually, preserving short-term access for essential deliveries.
解説：商業上のダウンサイドを認める。
Q30. What if new parks are expensive to maintain?
Answer: Maintenance budgets should be included from the beginning. A simple, well-managed space may be more valuable than an elaborate park that deteriorates rapidly.
解説：建設費と維持費を分ける。
Q31. Are trees always the best choice?
Answer: Not necessarily. Local climate, soil conditions and accessibility determine the design. Shade structures, seating and permeable surfaces may complement planting.
解説：設計上の条件を示す。
Q32. Should cities force private owners to sell land?
Answer: Compulsory purchase would require strong legal justification. Incentives, voluntary leases or public-private partnerships should be considered first.
解説：権利と代替策を尊重。
Q33. How would you evaluate a pilot?
Answer: I would measure use across different groups, maintenance costs, local temperature conditions and mobility effects. Visitor counts alone would not establish overall benefit.
解説：複数指標で評価。
Q34. What if the area faces a severe housing shortage?
Answer: Housing may deserve priority on some sites. Urban planning should compare alternatives and avoid assuming that every vacant area ought to become a park.
解説：住宅との機会費用を考慮。
Q35. Can green spaces reduce social inequality?
Answer: They may improve access to free recreation, but design and location matter. If investment raises rents and displaces residents, the intended benefit could be undermined.
解説：恩恵と立退きリスクの両面。
追質問で詰まったときの回答テンプレート
- 条件付きで賛成：I would support that measure, provided that its costs and side effects are independently assessed.
- 証拠を持っていないとき：I do not have reliable statistics on that point, so I would avoid a firm numerical claim. However, the underlying concern is …
- 反例を指摘されたら：That is a valid exception. My argument concerns the general rule, and it should allow for cases in which …
- 質問を確認する：If I understand your question correctly, you are asking whether … . In that case, I would …
- 立場を補足する：My position is not that every institution must follow the same policy, but that each should meet a clear minimum standard.
自分で採点する5項目
- 問いに答えているか：Yes/Noやどちらかの立場が分かる。
- 論理がつながるか：理由と具体例の間に説明がある。
- 反論を極端に描いていないか：相手の懸念の妥当な部分を認める。
- 断定の強さが適切か：may / could / generally / under certain conditionsを必要に応じて使う。
- 伝わる英語か：発音・強勢・文法が内容を妨げない。速度より明瞭さを優先。
よくある質問
英検1級二次面接では何題からスピーチを選びますか？
協会の公表形式では、提示された5題から1題を選びます。本記事はこの形式を参考にした慶英会独自の5題カード5組です。
スピーチの考慮時間と発話時間は？
公式には考慮時間1分、スピーチ2分です。文章の長さだけで発話時間は決まらないため、実際に音読して調整してください。
反対意見を聞かれたら立場を変えるべきですか？
無理に変える必要はありません。反例を認めたうえで条件や例外を説明し、もとの主張の範囲を明確にすると応答が自然になります。
次の英検1級教材と学習相談
試験形式の参照先
すべてのTOPIC・英文・スピーチ・追質問・解答は慶英会の創作教材です。公式問題、公式評価の再現、合格保証を意味しません。
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