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・慶英会独自第38集。公式の5つのTOPICから1題を選ぶ形式を参考に、オリジナル25題（5題カード×5組）、模範スピーチ5本、追質問35問と35の英語回答・日本語解説を無料公開します。住宅省エネ、職業訓練、生物保全、歴史的建物、国際防災協力を扱います。
英検協会の1級二次面接は、5つの題から1題を選び1分考えて2分スピーチし、その後質問に答えます。本番の考慮時間にはメモを取れません。（英検協会の試験形式）。このページのスピーチ・追質問は慶英会の独自教材です。
続きの無料教材：二次面接第39集｜25題・スピーチ5本・追質問35問。初見で解き、解答根拠・誤答理由まで確認してください。
初見での練習手順
- 5題から理由を2〜3個用意できるテーマを選ぶ。
- 1分で立場・理由・反論への対応を頭の中で整理する。
- 時計を使って2分間話し、説明が伝わるか確認する。
- 追質問は直接の答え・理由・条件を明確に示す。
- 模範を丸暗記せず、別の話題でも論理を組み立てる。
TOPICカードA｜住宅の省エネ改修と公共支援
次の5題から1題を選びます。模範スピーチは第1題に対する解答例です。
- 1. Should governments offer more assistance for improving home insulation?
- 2. Do building energy labels help consumers make better decisions?
- 3. Should cities require minimum energy standards for rented homes?
- 4. Can home renovation reduce inequality?
- 5. Should public subsidies prioritize repairs over new construction?
2分スピーチ想定の模範英文（198語）
Governments should support improvements to home insulation, especially where older housing imposes high energy costs on residents. However, public assistance should be targeted and assessed rather than offered indiscriminately to every property.
First, better insulation may help households maintain safer indoor temperatures while using less energy. This can be particularly valuable for people who struggle to pay for heating or cooling. Yet the benefits depend on building condition, ventilation and how the improvements are installed.
Second, well-designed support can reduce unequal access to efficient housing. Owners with substantial savings may renovate without subsidies, whereas lower-income residents may have few options. Programs could prioritize buildings with serious problems and require clear evidence of work completed.
Third, renovation may preserve useful structures and avoid some waste associated with demolition. Still, severely deteriorated buildings could need extensive repairs. Governments should compare total costs, safety and expected service life before choosing rehabilitation over replacement.
Critics worry that subsidies may raise prices or mainly benefit landlords. Those concerns are legitimate. Transparent eligibility rules and evaluation of actual household benefits are essential.
In conclusion, home insulation support can be worthwhile when it improves comfort, affordability and energy performance without creating poorly targeted long-term obligations.
追質問7問・英語模範回答｜カードA
Q1. Should every homeowner receive the same subsidy?
Answer: No. Assistance should consider building needs, household circumstances and the likely public benefit, rather than rewarding those who could easily pay without support.
日本語解説：対象を絞った補助。
Q2. Can insulation eliminate heating costs?
Answer: No. It may reduce demand, but indoor comfort also depends on ventilation, equipment and climate. Claims of zero energy use would be unrealistic.
日本語解説：効果の範囲を限定。
Q3. What about tenants?
Answer: Policies should ensure that benefits reach occupants, not only property owners. Rent increases and access to information may require safeguards.
日本語解説：借家人の実益。
Q4. Is renovation always environmentally preferable?
Answer: Not automatically. Structural safety, materials and expected building life should be compared with the alternatives.
日本語解説：長期の総効果を比較。
Q5. How should outcomes be measured?
Answer: Compare energy use, indoor conditions, maintenance costs and residents’ experiences, accounting for weather and occupancy.
日本語解説：測定条件を揃える。
Q6. Could subsidies increase contractor prices?
Answer: They could if capacity is limited. Competitive procurement and staged programs can help identify and manage that risk.
日本語解説：供給制約も考慮。
Q7. What would justify stopping support?
Answer: Poor verified benefits, unmanageable costs or serious implementation failures would justify redesigning or ending a particular program.
日本語解説：撤退の条件。
TOPICカードB｜職業訓練と転職市場の変化
次の5題から1題を選びます。模範スピーチは第1題に対する解答例です。
- 1. Should employers fund continuing education for their workers?
- 2. Should professional certificates be recognized across companies?
- 3. Are universities responsible for teaching practical job skills?
- 4. Could automation increase the need for retraining?
- 5. Should governments support workers displaced by industrial change?
2分スピーチ想定の模範英文（196語）
Employers should invest in continuing education, but workers also need qualifications that remain useful beyond one company. A balanced approach can support adaptation when technologies and job requirements change.
First, ongoing training helps employees respond to new tasks. A familiar process may become obsolete, and workers need opportunities to develop the judgment required to use different tools safely. Training should include practical assessment rather than certificates based only on attendance.
Second, transferable skills can improve labor mobility. Workers who leave an employer should not necessarily lose recognition for broadly useful knowledge. Clear learning standards and independent assessments can help other organizations understand what a certificate represents.
Third, employers may benefit through stronger retention and fewer operational mistakes. However, a training budget alone is not evidence of success. Managers should examine whether employees actually use new abilities and whether productivity and safety improve.
Critics argue that companies may underinvest if competitors can recruit trained staff. This concern is real, so industry partnerships and shared training resources may be sensible, particularly for smaller firms.
In conclusion, continuing education should be treated as a long-term investment in skills and adaptable organizations, with portable credentials, fair access and evidence-based evaluation.
追質問7問・英語模範回答｜カードB
Q8. Should all courses be mandatory?
Answer: Only where training is necessary for a role or safety requirement. Employees can benefit from choices that match their responsibilities and career goals.
日本語解説：必須性を見極める。
Q9. Can online courses replace apprenticeships?
Answer: Not always. Online materials help with concepts, but some practical tasks need supervised experience and feedback.
日本語解説：実践と知識を区別。
Q10. How would you evaluate training?
Answer: Use practical demonstrations, subsequent job performance and employee feedback, rather than counting attendance alone.
日本語解説：実務での成果。
Q11. What if employees leave after training?
Answer: That is a possible cost, but mobility also creates broader benefits. Companies can improve retention through good working conditions rather than restrictive credentials.
日本語解説：人材の流動性。
Q12. Are certificates always reliable?
Answer: No. Their value depends on transparent standards and meaningful assessment of competence.
日本語解説：資格の質保証。
Q13. Should governments pay for retraining?
Answer: Targeted support may be justified when workers face major transitions and markets alone provide insufficient opportunities.
日本語解説：対象を明確にする。
Q14. What is the main long-term benefit?
Answer: A workforce able to learn and adapt, rather than one trained only for a particular software version.
日本語解説：変化への適応力。
TOPICカードC｜野生動物の生息地と農業
次の5題から1題を選びます。模範スピーチは第1題に対する解答例です。
- 1. Should governments pay farmers to protect wildlife habitats?
- 2. Can biodiversity targets be achieved without restricting farming?
- 3. Should pesticide rules become stricter?
- 4. Are wildlife corridors valuable in agricultural regions?
- 5. Should nature conservation prioritize species diversity over appearance?
2分スピーチ想定の模範英文（207語）
Governments should consider paying farmers to protect habitats that provide benefits beyond their own land. Such arrangements can support biodiversity, but they must be designed around ecological evidence and fair compensation.
First, farms are part of wider ecosystems. Flowering margins, hedgerows and wetlands may help certain insects, birds and other wildlife survive. Their value depends on species, season and management, so merely planting large numbers of flowers does not guarantee ecological recovery.
Second, conservation measures can impose costs on landowners. Removing a strip from production or changing pesticide practices may reduce income or require more work. If benefits extend to neighboring farms and communities, shared funding can be more reasonable than expecting a few growers to bear all the burden.
Third, voluntary agreements can create opportunities to test different approaches. Researchers could compare habitats and monitor species diversity over several seasons. Farmers should have clear contracts and ways to raise concerns if promised support is inadequate.
Critics correctly warn that public money can be wasted on measures that look attractive but deliver little ecological value. Independent monitoring, transparent criteria and adjustment when evidence changes are essential.
Overall, carefully designed habitat payments can align agricultural livelihoods with conservation, provided that the results and long-term obligations are genuinely evaluated.
追質問7問・英語模範回答｜カードC
Q15. Should every farm receive conservation payments?
Answer: No. Payments should reflect ecological opportunities, the costs of participation and verified management rather than farm size alone.
日本語解説：条件に応じた配分。
Q16. Do more flowers always mean more pollinators?
Answer: No. Different species require suitable plants, nesting places and seasonal conditions, while harmful chemicals can undermine benefits.
日本語解説：生息条件の違い。
Q17. Could habitat measures reduce food production?
Answer: Some may use productive land, so costs and alternative arrangements must be compared before implementation.
日本語解説：農業の生計。
Q18. How should success be measured?
Answer: Monitor species diversity, movement and habitat condition over time, while considering weather and other influences.
日本語解説：継続した比較。
Q19. Should participation be voluntary?
Answer: Voluntary agreements may encourage cooperation, while some serious environmental harms can still require enforceable standards.
日本語解説：任意契約と規制。
Q20. Who should pay for public ecological benefits?
Answer: Shared public funding may be appropriate where benefits extend beyond individual properties, but it needs oversight.
日本語解説：公共財としての性質。
Q21. When should a project be reconsidered?
Answer: If reliable monitoring shows little benefit relative to costs, managers should adjust its design rather than continue automatically.
日本語解説：見直し条件。
TOPICカードD｜歴史的建造物と都市の防災
次の5題から1題を選びます。模範スピーチは第1題に対する解答例です。
- 1. Should cities prioritize protecting historic buildings against natural disasters?
- 2. Can old buildings be adapted without losing their cultural value?
- 3. Should public money support private heritage conservation?
- 4. Are digital archives enough to preserve urban history?
- 5. Should local residents participate in decisions about historic districts?
2分スピーチ想定の模範英文（220語）
Cities should protect historically significant buildings where this can be done safely and at a reasonable cost. Heritage is valuable, but conservation decisions must also consider the needs of current residents and the risks associated with aging structures.
First, old buildings can preserve knowledge about a community’s development. Materials, construction techniques and original uses may reveal aspects of history that a photograph alone cannot fully explain. Losing such structures can remove opportunities for future research and education.
Second, maintenance and safety improvements can sometimes extend a building’s life. Structural reinforcement, careful repairs and accessible routes may allow continued public use. However, an approach suitable for one building may be unsafe or impractical for another because foundations and materials differ.
Third, public consultation can help identify meaningful priorities. Local residents may value familiar places, but they also understand problems involving traffic, emergency access or difficult maintenance. Decisions should be informed by engineering evidence and community experience.
Critics point out that some buildings require extensive expenditure while essential housing and infrastructure also need investment. That concern cannot be dismissed. Governments should compare long-term costs and consider documentation or partial preservation where full restoration is not viable.
In conclusion, thoughtful heritage protection should combine historical significance, structural safety, practical access and responsible spending rather than assume that every old building must remain unchanged.
追質問7問・英語模範回答｜カードD
Q22. Should every historic building be preserved?
Answer: Not automatically. Safety, significance, available resources and alternative forms of documentation should be evaluated.
日本語解説：一律保存ではない。
Q23. Can renovation change historical character?
Answer: Yes. Alterations should be documented and designed with conservation expertise where possible.
日本語解説：変更履歴を保持。
Q24. How can disasters affect priorities?
Answer: Buildings with serious risks may need urgent inspection, but decisions should compare the consequences for surrounding residents.
日本語解説：安全評価と周辺。
Q25. Should tourists decide conservation priorities?
Answer: Visitor interest is one consideration, but local communities and historical evidence also matter.
日本語解説：地域住民の価値。
Q26. What if renovation is unaffordable?
Answer: Partial preservation, records or alternative use may be considered if comprehensive restoration is not viable.
日本語解説：複数の選択肢。
Q27. Can digital copies replace buildings?
Answer: They improve access to information but cannot preserve all material and spatial qualities of the original.
日本語解説：現物の固有価値。
Q28. What makes a policy responsible?
Answer: Transparent criteria, independent safety advice and honest discussion of lifecycle costs.
日本語解説：科学・文化・費用の統合。
TOPICカードE｜国際的な災害情報の共有
次の5題から1題を選びます。模範スピーチは第1題に対する解答例です。
- 1. Should countries share more disaster-monitoring data internationally?
- 2. Can standardized warning systems improve disaster response?
- 3. Should emergency information be available in multiple languages?
- 4. Are satellite observations sufficient for planning evacuations?
- 5. Should governments conduct joint disaster-response exercises?
2分スピーチ想定の模範英文（201語）
Countries should share more reliable disaster-monitoring information, while protecting sensitive details and respecting differences in local conditions. Storms, earthquakes and other hazards do not always remain within national borders, so coordination can provide meaningful benefits.
First, shared observations may improve early warnings. Information from neighboring regions can help specialists recognize developing problems and compare different models. However, a forecast is not a guarantee, and officials should communicate uncertainty rather than present every prediction as certain.
Second, common standards can make cooperation more practical. When agencies describe time, location and measurement methods consistently, data can be combined more reliably. Differences in equipment and terminology should be documented instead of silently ignored.
Third, cooperation can support emergency preparedness. Joint exercises may reveal communication problems, translation errors and gaps in backup procedures before a real crisis. Warnings are useful only when people receive them, understand them and can act safely.
Critics reasonably note that extensive coordination requires funding and can involve sensitive infrastructure information. Agreements should specify which data can be shared and include realistic procedures for rapid updates.
In conclusion, cross-border disaster cooperation deserves support when it strengthens evidence, timely communication and practical response rather than merely expanding the volume of information exchanged.
追質問7問・英語模範回答｜カードE
Q29. Should every infrastructure detail be public?
Answer: No. Useful hazard information can be shared while security-sensitive operational details receive appropriate protection.
日本語解説：公開と保安の両立。
Q30. Can a common warning format prevent all errors?
Answer: No. It can improve consistency, but local interpretation, translation and human checks remain necessary.
日本語解説：統一形式の限界。
Q31. What is the main benefit of shared observations?
Answer: They can improve comparisons and early detection across borders when methods and timing are documented.
日本語解説：国境を超えた観測。
Q32. Why are drills important?
Answer: They expose weaknesses in communication, equipment and roles before an emergency occurs.
日本語解説：事前の実行検証。
Q33. Could international coordination slow decisions?
Answer: It could if responsibilities are unclear. Agreements should define who issues warnings and when.
日本語解説：権限と速度。
Q34. How should information be translated?
Answer: Safety-critical instructions need review by people who understand both the language and the practical situation.
日本語解説：誤訳の防止。
Q35. What is the strongest success measure?
Answer: Reliable warnings that enable safe action, not simply the number of datasets exchanged.
日本語解説：行動可能な情報。
追質問で使える表現
- I support the proposal, provided that its costs and effects are evaluated independently.
- That is a reasonable concern, but it does not necessarily invalidate the broader argument.
- I would avoid a definite numerical claim without reliable figures.
- The distinction is between the benefit we expect and what the evidence actually establishes.
- A limited trial could provide a stronger basis for a permanent decision.
自己採点のポイント
- TOPICの問いへ直接答えている。
- 理由を重複させず異なる角度から述べている。
- 反対意見にも合理的な配慮を示している。
- 英語の語彙・文法・発音は意味理解を妨げない。
- メモなしで1分の準備と2分の発話を行った。
よくある質問
英検1級二次面接は何題から選びますか？
公式では5題から1題を選びます。この記事では独自5題カードを5組用意しました。
面接本番で考慮時間にメモできますか？
できません。協会の案内を確認し、練習でもメモを使わず構成を考える習慣をつけてください。
模範答案と逆の立場でも大丈夫ですか？
可能です。立場の一貫性、根拠の明瞭さ、質疑に対応する力を重視します。
関連する英検1級無料教材
公式情報
トピック・模範スピーチ・追質問・回答はすべて慶英会が独自作成した非公式教材です。公式の出題予告や過去問ではありません。
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