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34集。独自TOPICカード5組・計25題、2分間のスピーチ想定模範5本、追質問35問・英語回答と日本語解説を無料掲載します。公的契約の透明性、学校での発表、猛暑対策、製品安全、デジタル文化の保存を練習します。
英検協会の1級面接は5つのTOPICから1題を選び、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。本番の考慮時間にメモはできません。（日本英語検定協会｜1級試験内容）。自宅ではメモ付き練習から始めても、最後はメモなしで構成する練習が必要です。
続きの無料教材：二次面接第35集｜独自25題・追質問35問。初見演習のあと、解答の根拠と誤答の原因まで確認してください。
本番に近い演習手順
- 5つの候補から自分の立場を説明できる1題を選ぶ。
- 1分で立場・異なる理由・反論への対応を考える。
- 模範を見ず2分間話す。語数より時間と伝達の明瞭さを確認する。
- 追質問は直接の答え、理由、例外条件を短く組み立てる。
オリジナルTOPICカードA｜公的契約と独立監査
次の5題から1題を選択してください。下記の模範スピーチは最初の題についての一例です。
- 1. Should public procurement contracts be more transparent?
- 2. Do independent audits improve major infrastructure projects?
- 3. Should governments disclose how automated systems affect decisions?
- 4. Are financial penalties enough to prevent corporate misconduct?
- 5. Should the lowest bid always win a public contract?
模範スピーチ（約199語）
Governments should publish clearer information about major public procurement contracts, while protecting legitimately confidential details. Public spending creates responsibilities that cannot be satisfied by reporting a final price alone.
First, transparent selection criteria can discourage favoritism. When residents and independent experts can examine the reasons for choosing a contractor, unusual decisions are easier to question. Disclosure does not automatically eliminate corruption, but it creates opportunities for scrutiny.
Second, accessible information can help smaller suppliers compete. If requirements are unclear, businesses with fewer administrative resources may struggle even when they offer useful services. Published criteria and meaningful feedback make future participation more predictable.
Third, transparency supports better outcomes after a contract is awarded. A cheap initial price may conceal expensive maintenance, poor accessibility or unreliable delivery. Public agencies should explain how performance will be checked and how complaints will be handled.
Critics argue that disclosure can reveal trade secrets and impose paperwork costs. Those concerns are valid. Requirements should be proportional, and narrowly defined sensitive details can be protected without hiding the basic grounds for a decision.
In conclusion, public procurement should be evaluated through transparent decisions, fair participation and verified service quality, not publicity or the initial invoice alone.
関連追質問7問｜カードA
Q1. Could transparency increase bureaucracy?
Answer: Yes. Common reporting templates and proportionate requirements can reduce duplication without hiding important decisions.
日本語解説：報告負担を必要最小限にする
Q2. Should all business information be public?
Answer: No. Genuine trade secrets may need protection, while the evaluation criteria and public costs should remain understandable.
日本語解説：企業秘密と公費の説明を区別
Q3. Can publishing prices prevent corruption?
Answer: Not alone. Independent reviews, fair competition and complaint procedures are also necessary.
日本語解説：透明性だけでは不十分
Q4. How can small suppliers benefit?
Answer: Clear rules and feedback can reduce uncertainty, provided compliance costs are reasonable.
日本語解説：参入障壁を抑える
Q5. What should auditors measure?
Answer: Actual quality, long-term costs, accessibility and compliance with promised standards.
日本語解説：履行結果を評価
Q6. Could public criticism discourage officials?
Answer: It might, so evidence-based review should distinguish honest mistakes from misconduct.
日本語解説：誤りと不正を区別
Q7. What is the main goal of disclosure?
Answer: To make better decisions and support correction when contracts fail to deliver promised results.
日本語解説：公開から改善へ
オリジナルTOPICカードB｜学校の発表と評価
次の5題から1題を選択してください。下記の模範スピーチは最初の題についての一例です。
- 1. Should oral presentations be assessed alongside written examinations?
- 2. Can teamwork be graded fairly?
- 3. Should students revise assignments after feedback?
- 4. Do standardized tests adequately measure creativity?
- 5. Should students explain uncertainty in science classes?
模範スピーチ（約201語）
Schools should evaluate oral presentations alongside written examinations, but presentations should not replace every conventional test. The two methods reveal different abilities and can complement each other.
First, explaining an idea aloud requires students to organize their reasoning. Someone may recognize the correct option in a test but still struggle to justify it or answer reasonable questions. Structured speaking activities can reveal whether the underlying concept is understood.
Second, oral communication matters beyond school. Presenting evidence, admitting uncertainty and responding to criticism are useful in university study and employment. A presentation should therefore be judged on its reasoning and clarity rather than confidence or entertainment alone.
Third, varied assessment methods may provide a more complete picture of learning. Some students express themselves effectively in writing, while others demonstrate understanding through discussion. Using several methods may reduce dependence on one narrow form of performance, although it does not eliminate inequality automatically.
Critics rightly worry that shy students or those with communication disabilities could be disadvantaged. Teachers should provide clear rubrics, preparation time and reasonable accommodations. Presentations should also be used selectively to avoid consuming excessive teaching time.
Overall, well-designed oral assessment can strengthen written examinations by measuring understanding, explanation and responsible communication.
関連追質問7問｜カードB
Q8. Would shy students be disadvantaged?
Answer: They could be unless tasks include preparation, clear criteria and appropriate accommodations.
日本語解説：性格と学力を混同しない
Q9. Should pronunciation dominate grading?
Answer: Only when pronunciation is relevant to the learning objective; reasoning should matter in other subjects.
日本語解説：目標と採点を一致させる
Q10. Are written examinations still necessary?
Answer: Yes. They provide useful individual evidence and can complement more interactive assessment.
日本語解説：書く力との補完
Q11. How can scoring be consistent?
Answer: Teachers can use published rubrics and sample performances, sometimes with multiple assessors.
日本語解説：ルーブリックの透明性
Q12. What about group presentations?
Answer: Individual contributions should be considered so unequal participation does not disappear in a group score.
日本語解説：個人の貢献も評価
Q13. Would presentations take too much time?
Answer: They might. Selected meaningful assignments are better than lengthy speeches in every lesson.
日本語解説：授業時間の効率性
Q14. What is their most valuable benefit?
Answer: Learning to defend a conclusion clearly while acknowledging uncertainty.
日本語解説：説明力と留保
オリジナルTOPICカードC｜猛暑と公共の避暑施設
次の5題から1題を選択してください。下記の模範スピーチは最初の題についての一例です。
- 1. Should cities operate public cooling centers during heat waves?
- 2. Should urban tree planting receive more public investment?
- 3. Should school schedules change during extreme heat?
- 4. Should governments subsidize home insulation?
- 5. Do public heat warnings change behavior effectively?
模範スピーチ（約205語）
Cities should offer accessible cooling centers during severe heat waves, while coordinating them with housing improvements and emergency services. These centers cannot solve every problem associated with heat, but they can offer practical protection.
First, exposure is unequal. Some households lack effective cooling or live in poorly insulated buildings. A nearby public facility can provide temporary relief, especially when extended hot weather makes home conditions difficult.
Second, cooling centers can support emergency coordination. Staff may provide reliable information, connect visitors with assistance and identify people who need additional help. However, a building offers limited protection if residents cannot travel to it safely or do not know it is open.
Third, a coordinated network can reveal where investment is most needed. Usage records, travel difficulties and operating costs can guide improvements in public shade, housing insulation or transport. Visitor numbers alone do not prove that those at greatest risk received assistance.
Critics reasonably worry about electricity expenses, staffing and whether existing facilities can meet demand. Cities should therefore activate services according to local conditions and assess alternatives instead of promising identical centers everywhere.
In conclusion, well-managed cooling facilities can be a useful part of heat adaptation, provided that actual accessibility and long-term operating capacity guide policy.
関連追質問7問｜カードC
Q15. Can cooling centers prevent all heat illness?
Answer: No. Housing conditions, personal circumstances and medical care also matter.
日本語解説：万能策ではない
Q16. Where should they be located?
Answer: Near people with limited cooling options and reachable transport, based on local evidence.
日本語解説：立地と移動条件
Q17. Are rural needs different?
Answer: Often. Local building improvements or mobile support may be more useful than distant central centers.
日本語解説：地方の条件
Q18. How should success be measured?
Answer: Use access, reliability, unmet demand and evidence of practical benefits, not visits alone.
日本語解説：来場数と実効性
Q19. Are trees a substitute for cooling centers?
Answer: Not always. Trees provide long-term shade, but indoor cooling may be needed during severe events.
日本語解説：短期と長期の違い
Q20. What about staffing costs?
Answer: Fund trained staff and realistic operating schedules before announcing services.
日本語解説：固定費の管理
Q21. Should every center operate all summer?
Answer: Not necessarily. Activation can reflect temperature, demand and available resources.
日本語解説：需要連動の運用
オリジナルTOPICカードD｜製品安全と企業の説明責任
次の5題から1題を選択してください。下記の模範スピーチは最初の題についての一例です。
- 1. Should companies publicly report serious product-safety incidents?
- 2. Are voluntary safety standards sufficient?
- 3. Should independent tests be required for high-risk technology?
- 4. Are corporate apologies meaningful without corrective action?
- 5. Should repair instructions be more accessible?
模範スピーチ（約208語）
Companies should disclose serious product-safety concerns in a timely and understandable way. Reports must distinguish confirmed facts from preliminary findings, but silence can expose customers to avoidable danger.
First, clear warnings help people respond. Users cannot take reasonable precautions if they do not know that a product may present a risk. Effective notices explain which items are affected and what action is required rather than relying on reassuring statements without evidence.
Second, disclosure strengthens accountability. When firms record incidents, corrective actions and later results, independent reviewers can identify recurring weaknesses. A single complaint does not prove that every product is defective, so investigations should describe the evidence and its limitations carefully.
Third, transparent corrections can improve future design. Engineers may learn from patterns that only become visible when failures are documented. A public apology is less valuable than a verified change that prevents similar problems.
Critics warn that premature announcements can create unnecessary fear and damage reputations. That is a legitimate concern. Reporting thresholds should reflect the severity and credibility of risks, while urgent warnings should not be delayed until absolute certainty is possible.
Overall, meaningful safety disclosure should combine practical instructions, fair investigation, corrective action and independent verification. Public trust should rest on results, not confident promises.
関連追質問7問｜カードD
Q22. Should every minor complaint be announced?
Answer: Not in the same way. Reporting should reflect severity and evidence quality.
日本語解説：重大性に比例
Q23. Could early warnings cause panic?
Answer: They could if poorly written, so notices should explain risks and actions without alarmist claims.
日本語解説：不必要な恐怖を避ける
Q24. Who should verify incidents?
Answer: Independent testing organizations and regulators can complement internal investigations.
日本語解説：第三者検証
Q25. What if an earlier notice is wrong?
Answer: The firm should publish a visible correction and explain any change in recommended action.
日本語解説：訂正を隠さない
Q26. Are voluntary standards enough?
Answer: Sometimes, but high-risk products may require enforceable duties and oversight.
日本語解説：リスク別の規制
Q27. Should proprietary code be published?
Answer: Not necessarily. Independent audits and understandable explanations may protect security and accountability together.
日本語解説：機密と説明責任
Q28. What makes an apology meaningful?
Answer: Specific remedies, progress reports and evidence that the problem was addressed.
日本語解説：行動の裏付け
オリジナルTOPICカードE｜デジタル文化と長期保存
次の5題から1題を選択してください。下記の模範スピーチは最初の題についての一例です。
- 1. Should public institutions preserve historically significant digital art?
- 2. Who should control old personal online archives?
- 3. Can digital copies replace physical cultural objects?
- 4. Should museums make more collections searchable?
- 5. Is technological obsolescence a threat to cultural memory?
模範スピーチ（約205語）
Public institutions should support the preservation of significant digital art and historical records. Works created entirely in electronic form can disappear when software becomes obsolete, storage fails or a service closes.
First, digital material is part of cultural history. Future researchers may want to examine how people communicated, created art and participated in communities. If the tools needed to open a file vanish, keeping its filename alone may preserve very little.
Second, meaningful preservation requires maintenance. Some works depend on particular software or interactions, so institutions may need migration, emulation or detailed documentation. Copying files once does not ensure that the same experience will remain possible decades later.
Third, public collections can support education and responsible research. Searchable records allow people to discover material, while transparent catalogues can distinguish original features from later reconstructions. However, permission to preserve something is not automatically permission to publish personal or copyrighted information.
Critics question the costs and whether every digital artifact deserves permanent storage. They are right that selection is necessary. Institutions should use clear criteria, cooperate on technical infrastructure and review whether the collection remains useful.
In conclusion, digital cultural preservation deserves measured public support, balancing historical significance, technical sustainability and the rights of creators and communities.
関連追質問7問｜カードE
Q29. Why not simply copy a file once?
Answer: Formats and software can become obsolete, requiring ongoing checks and migration.
日本語解説：継続的な保守
Q30. Should every social media post be archived?
Answer: No. Selective criteria and privacy safeguards are needed.
日本語解説：選別と権利
Q31. What is emulation?
Answer: It recreates aspects of an older computing environment to make digital works usable.
日本語解説：旧環境の再現
Q32. How are creators’ rights protected?
Answer: Distinguish permission to preserve from permission to display or distribute.
日本語解説：保存と公開の権利は別
Q33. Can digital migration change a work?
Answer: Yes. Changes should be recorded so users understand what is original and reconstructed.
日本語解説：改変履歴
Q34. How should limited budgets be allocated?
Answer: Prioritize culturally valuable, vulnerable collections and share technical expertise.
日本語解説：限られた資源の配分
Q35. What defines success?
Answer: Continued usability, accurate records and responsible access rather than file counts.
日本語解説：資産としての実用性
追質問で役立つ5つの表現
- I would support the proposal, provided that its costs and effects are assessed independently.
- That is a valid concern, although it does not necessarily invalidate the goal.
- I do not have reliable statistics on that point, so I would avoid a definite claim.
- The crucial distinction is between the intended benefit and the evidence we have.
- I would judge the policy by its practical outcomes rather than its publicity.
よくある質問
英検1級の面接は何題から選択しますか？
公式形式では5題から1題を選びます。本教材は独自の5題カードを5組用意しています。
本番の1分間でメモを取れますか？
できません。英検協会の公式案内でも考慮時間中のメモは禁止されています。日頃から頭の中で構成する練習をしてください。
模範スピーチの語数はそのまま暗記すべきですか？
語数は参考です。実際の発話時間を計測し、主張と根拠を自分の言葉で説明できることを優先してください。
次の無料教材
公式情報
本記事のTOPIC・英文・解答はすべて慶英会の独自作成であり、英検公式問題や出題予告ではありません。
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