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
慶英会・英検1級二次面接の独自第35集。5題から1題を選ぶTOPICカード5組＝オリジナル25題、模範スピーチ5本、追質問35問と英語回答・日本語解説を無料公開します。科学教育、公共空間、研究の透明性、修理の自由、防災点検でのAI活用という長期に使える社会問題を扱います。
英検1級二次試験は5つの話題から1つを選び、1分間考えて2分間スピーチし、関連質問に答える形式です。本番の1分間の考慮時間にはメモを取れません。（英検協会｜1級二次試験）。本ページは慶英会独自教材で、実際の出題予告ではありません。
続きの無料教材：二次面接第36集｜独自25題・追質問35問。初見で解いた後、解答根拠・誤答理由まで復習してください。
1分で立場を決める練習
- 5つのTOPICから自分の立場を明確に述べられる1題を選ぶ。
- 冒頭結論、独立した理由2〜3つ、合理的な反論と条件を考える。
- 2分間のスピーチを時計で計測し、発音と内容の明瞭さを確認する。
- 追質問は直接答える→理由→例外条件の順で簡潔に話す。
- 初回はメモを使っても、仕上げは本番と同じメモなしの1分間で練習する。
TOPICカードA｜自治体の科学教育・公共施設
次の5つから1つを選んでスピーチします。以下の模範は1番のテーマに対する一例です。
- 1. Should local governments invest more in community science centers?
- 2. Do free public workshops increase educational opportunity?
- 3. Should citizens be allowed to borrow scientific equipment from libraries?
- 4. Are local museums as important as national institutions?
- 5. Should public education programs prioritize measurable outcomes?
2分間のスピーチ想定・模範英文（208語）
Local governments should support community science centers when they respond to genuine educational needs. These facilities cannot replace schools or universities, but they can provide useful opportunities for people who might otherwise have limited access to scientific activities.
First, science centers allow visitors to explore practical questions. Students can observe demonstrations, make measurements and discuss the evidence behind everyday technologies. Such experiences may help them understand that science involves investigation and uncertainty, rather than memorizing a list of facts.
Second, public facilities can reduce barriers to participation. Families without expensive equipment or nearby specialist institutions may benefit from shared instruments and affordable workshops. However, location, opening hours and accessibility matter as much as the number of programs advertised.
Third, partnerships can make facilities more effective. Universities, schools and community organizations may contribute expertise while sharing resources. Managers should assess whether participants actually gain useful skills instead of focusing only on visitor totals.
Critics reasonably argue that new buildings involve substantial maintenance and staffing costs. That concern should guide investment decisions. Before constructing major facilities, municipalities could test smaller programs in existing libraries or schools and compare their results.
In conclusion, community science centers deserve considered support when they offer reliable educational value, practical access and manageable long-term costs.
追質問7問と模範英語回答｜カードA
Q1. Would online science lessons be cheaper?
Answer: Often, but physical experiments and supervised equipment can offer experiences that videos cannot fully reproduce.
日本語解説：体験の違いを考える。
Q2. Should admission always be free?
Answer: Free access can help some groups, while targeted subsidies may be more sustainable for others.
日本語解説：補助の対象を設計。
Q3. How should success be measured?
Answer: Assess learning, repeat participation and equitable access, rather than just the number of visitors.
日本語解説：人数だけで測らない。
Q4. Can private sponsors help?
Answer: Yes, provided that educational independence and transparent conditions are maintained.
日本語解説：企業協賛と独立性。
Q5. Would this compete with schools?
Answer: It should complement schools by supplying equipment and experiences that some classrooms cannot offer.
日本語解説：学校との補完。
Q6. What if attendance is low?
Answer: Managers should investigate whether the location, schedule or content meets community needs before expanding.
日本語解説：低利用の要因調査。
Q7. Which risk is most important?
Answer: Long-term staffing and equipment maintenance may undermine a promising project if funding is unstable.
日本語解説：持続的運用。
TOPICカードB｜子どもと高齢者のための公共空間
次の5つから1つを選んでスピーチします。以下の模範は1番のテーマに対する一例です。
- 1. Should city planners prioritize accessible public spaces for different age groups?
- 2. Do pedestrian-only streets improve community life?
- 3. Should parks provide more quiet areas?
- 4. Can playground design promote social inclusion?
- 5. Should cities require public consultations before redesigning parks?
2分間のスピーチ想定・模範英文（204語）
Cities should design public spaces that accommodate children, older residents and people with different mobility needs. A park or street is not truly accessible merely because it exists on a city map. Its practical use depends on several considerations.
First, thoughtful design can improve everyday independence. Safe crossings, places to rest and clear signs may enable people to move around without unnecessary assistance. These features can support both older visitors and families with young children.
Second, shared spaces encourage social participation. Parks, libraries and pedestrian routes offer opportunities to meet others without paying for a commercial service. However, a design that favors one activity exclusively may discourage visitors who need quiet or step-free routes.
Third, inclusive planning can reduce expensive mistakes. If residents with different needs are involved before construction, planners may identify obstacles that standard diagrams overlook. Small practical trials can test whether routes and facilities work as intended.
Critics argue that accessible redesigns may be costly and that available land is limited. These constraints are real. Cities should compare alternatives and invest where the improvements will reach people facing significant barriers.
Ultimately, the aim should be useful and welcoming public space, measured through actual access and safety rather than architectural appearance alone.
追質問7問と模範英語回答｜カードB
Q8. Can one design meet everyone’s needs?
Answer: Not perfectly, so cities should provide varied spaces and reasonable alternatives.
日本語解説：一律解を前提にしない。
Q9. Who should be consulted?
Answer: Different age groups, disability advocates, maintenance staff and nearby residents can provide useful evidence.
日本語解説：当事者の多様性。
Q10. Should safety always override recreation?
Answer: Serious hazards matter, but proportionate measures can sometimes protect both recreation and safety.
日本語解説：比例的な安全策。
Q11. Would consultations slow projects?
Answer: They may initially, but identifying problems early can reduce costly redesign later.
日本語解説：手戻りを防ぐ。
Q12. How can accessibility be tested?
Answer: Invite people with different mobility needs to try routes and facilities under realistic conditions.
日本語解説：現地検証。
Q13. Are benches really important?
Answer: They can enable longer journeys for people who need regular rest, though placement must fit local demand.
日本語解説：休憩の機能。
Q14. How would you measure success?
Answer: Examine actual use, access barriers, safety and maintenance costs across different groups.
日本語解説：成果の複合指標。
TOPICカードC｜学術論文の査読・研究の透明性
次の5つから1つを選んでスピーチします。以下の模範は1番のテーマに対する一例です。
- 1. Should scientific peer-review reports be more publicly accessible?
- 2. Are preprint repositories beneficial to research?
- 3. Should universities reward replication studies more?
- 4. Do journals have a responsibility to preserve correction histories?
- 5. Should publicly funded research share its data by default?
2分間のスピーチ想定・模範英文（203語）
Scientific peer review should become more transparent where practical, while protecting legitimate privacy and the independence of reviewers. Research quality depends on how evidence is examined, not simply on whether a journal has accepted a manuscript.
First, access to review reasoning can help readers understand limitations. A published conclusion may look confident even when specialists have identified unresolved questions. Sharing the substance of criticism and the authors’ responses can make the state of the evidence clearer.
Second, transparent review can improve research practices. Authors who know that methods, data and corrections may be scrutinized have incentives to explain their work carefully. Other researchers can learn from constructive disagreements and avoid repeating preventable mistakes.
Third, better records support long-term trust. If a paper is revised or corrected, readers should be able to see what changed and why. A version history is often more informative than silently replacing the original text.
Critics worry that naming reviewers could expose them to retaliation or discourage frank criticism. That risk is serious. Journals could publish substantive reviews without always disclosing reviewers’ identities, and sensitive data could remain under controlled access.
Overall, carefully designed transparency can help science correct itself, provided that it safeguards independence, privacy and rigorous evaluation.
追質問7問と模範英語回答｜カードC
Q15. Should every reviewer’s name be disclosed?
Answer: Not necessarily. Protecting reviewers from retaliation can be important while still sharing substantive critiques.
日本語解説：匿名性と透明性。
Q16. Could open review slow publication?
Answer: It might add work, so procedures should be proportionate and focus on useful information.
日本語解説：運用負担。
Q17. Are preprints reliable?
Answer: Some contain valuable findings, but readers must distinguish preliminary manuscripts from peer-reviewed articles.
日本語解説：未査読の留保。
Q18. Why reward replication?
Answer: Independent replication helps evaluate whether results are robust beyond one research team.
日本語解説：再現性。
Q19. What about sensitive data?
Answer: Controlled access or useful summaries may support verification without publishing personal records.
日本語解説：情報保護。
Q20. How should corrections be displayed?
Answer: Visible version histories and explanations help readers trace how conclusions changed.
日本語解説：訂正履歴。
Q21. What is the main benefit?
Answer: Readers can judge evidence and uncertainty instead of relying only on the status of publication.
日本語解説：証拠の質。
TOPICカードD｜家電修理の自由と消費者保護
次の5つから1つを選んでスピーチします。以下の模範は1番のテーマに対する一例です。
- 1. Should manufacturers make more repair information available?
- 2. Does the right to repair reduce environmental waste?
- 3. Should products disclose expected maintenance costs?
- 4. Can independent repair services compete fairly?
- 5. Should governments require more spare parts availability?
2分間のスピーチ想定・模範英文（203語）
Manufacturers should make appropriate repair information and spare parts more accessible, provided that safety and legitimate security concerns are addressed. Consumers need practical choices when products fail, and unnecessary replacement can impose financial and environmental costs.
First, repairability can extend the useful life of equipment. A minor fault should not automatically require purchasing an entirely new product. Clear instructions and reliable parts may help qualified technicians restore devices safely.
Second, better information can strengthen competition. When only the original manufacturer can perform routine maintenance, customers may face high prices or long delays. Independent providers should be able to compete where they can meet relevant safety and quality standards.
Third, repair transparency helps people make informed purchasing decisions. A low initial price may conceal expensive proprietary components or software restrictions. Consumers benefit from understanding likely maintenance and support arrangements before buying.
Critics correctly warn that some repairs involve dangerous batteries, electrical components or security-sensitive software. Unrestricted access without appropriate training could create harm. Rules should distinguish ordinary tasks from interventions that require specialist authorization.
Overall, a responsible right to repair should expand choices and reduce avoidable waste while preserving product safety. Its success depends on usable information, fair access to parts and effective safeguards.
追質問7問と模範英語回答｜カードD
Q22. Should anyone repair high-voltage equipment?
Answer: No. High-risk tasks require appropriate qualifications and safety procedures.
日本語解説：危険度で区別。
Q23. Could repairability raise product prices?
Answer: It might in some cases, so total ownership costs should be compared rather than assumed.
日本語解説：ライフサイクル費用。
Q24. What about intellectual property?
Answer: Necessary safety information can be shared while protecting genuinely confidential designs.
日本語解説：知財と安全。
Q25. Would repairs always reduce emissions?
Answer: Not automatically. Energy efficiency and the condition of the product can affect the outcome.
日本語解説：効果を断定しない。
Q26. Should spare parts remain available forever?
Answer: Not necessarily, but reasonable support periods should be clear before purchase.
日本語解説：期間の現実性。
Q27. Can independent repairers be trusted?
Answer: They should meet relevant training and documentation standards, just as manufacturers should.
日本語解説：同一基準で比較。
Q28. What should consumers know?
Answer: Part availability, expected service costs and limits on software support are particularly useful.
日本語解説：購入前の情報。
TOPICカードE｜防災点検とAI支援
次の5つから1つを選んでスピーチします。以下の模範は1番のテーマに対する一例です。
- 1. Should emergency agencies use AI to prioritize inspections after disasters?
- 2. Can automated risk scores improve public safety?
- 3. Should human officials review high-stakes algorithmic decisions?
- 4. Do communities need better explanations of emergency warning systems?
- 5. Should public agencies publish data used to evaluate disaster technologies?
2分間のスピーチ想定・模範英文（218語）
Emergency agencies may use artificial intelligence to help prioritize inspections after disasters, but automated scores should support trained professionals rather than determine outcomes without review. Speed is valuable during emergencies, yet mistakes can carry serious consequences.
First, computer systems can process many reports and identify locations that may need urgent attention. This could help teams allocate limited staff when roads, bridges and buildings must be examined quickly. However, a rapid ranking is not the same as a verified safety assessment.
Second, data quality is uneven during disasters. Some neighborhoods may have broken communications or fewer people able to report damage. An algorithm trained on available reports could therefore overlook vulnerable areas. Agencies should combine automated analysis with local knowledge and deliberate checks of underrepresented locations.
Third, transparent procedures can strengthen accountability. Officials should know which factors influence priorities, how people can report errors and when human judgment must override an automated recommendation. Outcomes should be reviewed after an emergency to identify missed risks.
Critics argue that developing such systems may divert money from basic emergency equipment and training. This is a valid concern. Limited trials should compare real benefits and costs before wider adoption.
In conclusion, AI can be useful for disaster inspection planning when it is tested, explainable enough for oversight and paired with strong human responsibility.
追質問7問と模範英語回答｜カードE
Q29. Could an automated model miss the most vulnerable area?
Answer: Yes, particularly where damage reports are scarce because communications have failed.
日本語解説：データ不足の地域。
Q30. Should AI make final evacuation decisions?
Answer: High-stakes decisions should retain clear human responsibility and appropriate review.
日本語解説：人間の責任。
Q31. How can the model be evaluated?
Answer: Compare its priorities with actual inspected damage, missed cases and response times.
日本語解説：真の成果を評価。
Q32. What if the system fails during a disaster?
Answer: Agencies need backup communication and manual procedures that have been practiced.
日本語解説：バックアップ手順。
Q33. Should the algorithm be fully public?
Answer: Public explanations and independent review are important, while sensitive security details may require protection.
日本語解説：公開範囲を調整。
Q34. Can AI reduce costs?
Answer: Possibly, but maintenance, training and verification costs must also be counted.
日本語解説：総費用で評価。
Q35. What is the main safeguard?
Answer: A clear process for correcting errors and overriding recommendations when evidence requires it.
日本語解説：修正と介入の手段。
答えに詰まるときに使う5表現
- I would generally support this proposal, provided that its costs and side effects are evaluated.
- That is a reasonable concern, although it does not necessarily invalidate the goal.
- I do not have verified figures for that claim, so I would avoid a definite numerical statement.
- The key distinction is between the expected benefit and the actual evidence.
- I would judge the policy by its practical results rather than publicity alone.
自己評価のチェック
- 問いへ明確に答えている。
- 独立した根拠を使い、同じことを繰り返さない。
- 反論と例外を公平に認めた。
- 語彙・文法・発音が理解を妨げない。
- 1分のメモなし準備と2分間の発話を実際に実施した。
よくある質問
英検1級は何題のTOPICから選択しますか？
本番は5題から1題を選びます。本教材には5題カードを5組、合計25題掲載しています。
本番の準備時間にメモを取れますか？
取れません。英検協会の公式案内で確認できる規則です。メモなしで結論と理由を構成する訓練が必要です。
模範スピーチは丸暗記するべきですか？
論理の組み立てを参考にし、未知の題に自分の言葉で答えることを優先してください。語数よりも実際の発話時間で調整します。
関連する英検1級無料教材
公式情報
本教材のTOPIC・スピーチ・追質問・回答例は慶英会独自制作です。公式問題の再現・予告・合格保証ではありません。
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