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39集。公式の5つの題から1つを選ぶ形式を参考に、独自TOPICカード5組・25題、2分間スピーチを想定した模範5本、追質問35問と英語回答・日本語解説を掲載しました。テーマは公共AI、金融教育、短期賃貸と住宅、海洋保全、企業の環境情報開示です。
英検協会の1級二次試験は5題から1題を選び、1分間の準備後に2分間スピーチし、関連質問に答えます。本番の準備時間中にメモは取れません。（英検1級の公式試験内容）。本記事は慶英会による独自の演習で、公式の過去問ではありません。
次の無料教材：二次面接第40集｜独自25トピック・追質問35問。初見で解き、正答の根拠・誤答の原因まで確認してください。
1分で主張を組み立てる練習手順
- 5題から、立場と2〜3個の異なる理由を思いつく1題を選ぶ。
- 1分間で結論・論拠・反論への対応を頭の中で整理する。
- 2分間話し、論拠の分かりやすさと時間配分を確認する。
- 35の追質問は、直接答える→理由→具体例・条件を示す順に練習する。
- 模範を丸暗記せず、別の題にも応用して自分の言葉で答える。
独自TOPICカードA｜公共サービスの自動判断と人間の責任
次の5つから1つを選んでスピーチしてください。以下の模範は1番のTOPICに対する一例です。
- 1. Should governments explain the use of AI in important public decisions?
- 2. Can automated systems make public services fairer?
- 3. Should citizens have a right to challenge algorithmic decisions?
- 4. Are independent audits essential for government technology?
- 5. Should efficiency take priority over transparency in public administration?
2分スピーチ想定の模範英文（199語）
Governments should explain when automated systems materially influence important public decisions. Technology can improve the speed of routine processing, but efficient administration is not automatically fair or reliable.
First, transparency enables people to identify and challenge mistakes. A system may flag an application because a document has an unusual format even though the applicant meets the relevant requirements. Without an understandable explanation and an appeals process, a technical error could become an unfair denial of service.
Second, openness encourages better public management. Agencies should examine whether systems perform differently across regions or demographic groups and whether missing data lead to misleading recommendations. Independent review can reveal weaknesses that ordinary performance dashboards conceal.
Third, clearer responsibility protects public trust. Officials should be able to explain why they accepted an automated recommendation, especially when public funds or legal rights are involved. Software does not remove the responsibility of the institution using it.
Critics argue that disclosure might reveal sensitive technical details or delay useful projects. Those concerns justify proportionate reporting and protected expert audits rather than complete secrecy.
In conclusion, governments should use automation as a support for accountable decisions. Speed, accuracy, fairness and opportunities for correction must be evaluated together.
追質問7問｜カードA
Q1. Does transparency require publishing all source code?
Answer: Not always. Agencies can explain decision factors and allow protected independent audits where security or intellectual property is involved.
日本語解説：説明と機密を両立する。
Q2. Would human review make the system slower?
Answer: It may increase work in difficult cases, but it can prevent unfair decisions and costly corrections later.
日本語解説：短期速度と長期費用。
Q3. Can algorithms be more consistent than people?
Answer: Sometimes. However, consistent errors can also spread widely unless the underlying assumptions are checked.
日本語解説：一貫性と正確性は別。
Q4. What if citizens do not understand technical details?
Answer: Public explanations should focus on practical effects, reasons for decisions and how to appeal.
日本語解説：住民が行動できる説明。
Q5. How could bias be detected?
Answer: Compare verified outcomes across relevant groups and examine missing records and alternative explanations.
日本語解説：公平性を検証。
Q6. Who is ultimately responsible?
Answer: The public institution should retain responsibility, even when a supplier develops the software.
日本語解説：責任を委託しきらない。
Q7. What justifies suspending a system?
Answer: Serious unexplained errors, unsafe outcomes or ineffective appeal procedures would warrant suspension and investigation.
日本語解説：明確な停止基準。
独自TOPICカードB｜学校の金融リテラシーと自立
次の5つから1つを選んでスピーチしてください。以下の模範は1番のTOPICに対する一例です。
- 1. Should personal finance be taught in every secondary school?
- 2. Are young people sufficiently prepared to manage digital payments?
- 3. Should financial education include lessons about investment risk?
- 4. Do schools have a duty to explain consumer contracts?
- 5. Can practical financial lessons reduce inequality?
2分スピーチ想定の模範英文（204語）
Schools should provide practical financial education before students begin managing significant amounts of money. This should not mean teaching pupils to choose particular investments, but helping them understand common decisions and risks.
First, financial knowledge supports everyday independence. Young people encounter subscriptions, payment apps and borrowing arrangements that may contain fees or conditions they do not immediately recognize. Lessons on budgeting and contracts can help them compare options and avoid unnecessary obligations.
Second, financial education can improve understanding of risk. Students should learn that an attractive return is not guaranteed and that uncertainty, diversification and time horizons matter. They should also distinguish promotional claims from evidence, without being encouraged to speculate.
Third, schools can provide a basic foundation for students from different family backgrounds. Some pupils receive extensive guidance at home, while others have few opportunities to discuss money. Accessible teaching can reduce this difference, although it cannot remove broader economic inequality by itself.
Critics note that school timetables are crowded and that financial products change quickly. Teachers can address this by emphasizing durable principles and using practical examples within mathematics or civic education.
Overall, financial literacy is a worthwhile educational priority when it strengthens informed, responsible choices rather than promoting particular commercial products.
追質問7問｜カードB
Q8. Should schools recommend specific investments?
Answer: No. Education should explain risk and basic principles without endorsing products or predicting returns.
日本語解説：販売と教育の分離。
Q9. Can financial lessons prevent all debt problems?
Answer: No. Income, emergencies and social conditions also matter. Education provides tools rather than guarantees.
日本語解説：教育の限界。
Q10. How should children learn about subscriptions?
Answer: They can compare recurring costs, cancellation conditions and the difference between price and total expenditure.
日本語解説：実際の契約を理解。
Q11. Should lessons include digital fraud?
Answer: Yes. Recognizing suspicious messages and verifying payment requests are practical skills.
日本語解説：安全と意思決定。
Q12. Could finance teaching disadvantage some families?
Answer: Materials should avoid assumptions about family wealth and focus on accessible examples.
日本語解説：家計の多様性を尊重。
Q13. Is it better as a separate subject?
Answer: It may be integrated into existing courses if learning objectives and assessments remain clear.
日本語解説：既存教科との統合。
Q14. What should students ultimately be able to do?
Answer: Explain the costs, uncertainty and terms of a financial choice before making it.
日本語解説：判断の再現性。
独自TOPICカードC｜都市の短期賃貸と住宅供給
次の5つから1つを選んでスピーチしてください。以下の模範は1番のTOPICに対する一例です。
- 1. Should cities impose limits on short-term holiday rentals?
- 2. Are tourists responsible for housing pressures in popular destinations?
- 3. Should landlords face stricter rules on vacant properties?
- 4. Can cities balance tourism income and long-term housing?
- 5. Should housing policies differ by neighborhood?
2分スピーチ想定の模範英文（205語）
Cities should consider targeted rules for short-term holiday rentals when evidence shows that they reduce housing available to long-term residents. However, a blanket ban across an entire city may be unnecessarily restrictive.
First, dedicated visitor accommodation can compete with ordinary rental housing in neighborhoods where space is limited. If many homes are diverted to tourism, residents may face fewer options. The effect should be measured alongside construction, migration and other influences on housing supply.
Second, clear licensing can protect neighborhood conditions. Residents may experience excessive noise or building-security problems when occupants change frequently. Enforceable responsibilities can address such issues without treating occasional home sharing in the same way as a large commercial operation.
Third, transparent rules provide predictability for owners and businesses. Cities can differentiate between renting a spare room temporarily and operating multiple properties primarily for visitors. This can preserve some tourism benefits while limiting the most disruptive activities.
Critics reasonably argue that restrictions may reduce visitor spending and property owners’ income. These costs deserve consideration, including effects on local workers.
In conclusion, housing regulations should respond to verified local pressures and be reviewed as conditions change. The goal is livable neighborhoods and reasonable housing access, not simply reducing the number of tourist listings.
追質問7問｜カードC
Q15. Would a total ban be easier to enforce?
Answer: It might be simpler in theory, but it could also remove useful accommodation where housing pressure is limited.
日本語解説：地域別の必要性。
Q16. Are short-term rentals the only cause of high rents?
Answer: No. Construction constraints, population changes and broader economic conditions also contribute.
日本語解説：単一原因にしない。
Q17. Should homeowners be allowed to rent spare rooms?
Answer: That activity may justify different rules from businesses operating many dedicated visitor units.
日本語解説：規模による区別。
Q18. Can licensing solve every complaint?
Answer: Not automatically. Enforcement and effective response to residents are still necessary.
日本語解説：実際の運用が重要。
Q19. How should cities measure results?
Answer: Compare long-term supply, rents, complaints and tourism effects while accounting for other changes.
日本語解説：複数指標で判断。
Q20. Could restrictions harm small businesses?
Answer: Yes, especially firms serving visitors, so the economic costs should be examined.
日本語解説：間接的な影響。
Q21. When should rules be revised?
Answer: If credible evidence shows little housing benefit or disproportionate harm, the design should be reconsidered.
日本語解説：見直し条件。
独自TOPICカードD｜海洋保護区と漁業者の生計
次の5つから1つを選んでスピーチしてください。以下の模範は1番のTOPICに対する一例です。
- 1. Should governments expand marine protected areas?
- 2. Can ocean conservation be compatible with commercial fishing?
- 3. Should consumers receive clearer information about seafood sustainability?
- 4. Are temporary fishing restrictions better than permanent bans?
- 5. Should local communities participate in marine conservation decisions?
2分スピーチ想定の模範英文（211語）
Governments should expand carefully designed marine protected areas where scientific evidence shows that important habitats are at risk. Protecting ecosystems is valuable, but the rules must account for local fishing communities and the conditions of different marine environments.
First, protected zones can reduce particular pressures on vulnerable habitats. Restrictions on damaging activities may help some species recover or preserve areas used for breeding. However, one boundary or rule will not necessarily work for every ecosystem.
Second, well-managed conservation may support long-term fisheries. Healthy habitats can contribute to marine productivity, although the scale and timing of any benefit are uncertain. Governments should avoid promising immediate increases in catches simply because an area has been designated protected.
Third, participation can improve both fairness and compliance. Fishers often understand local conditions, seasonal patterns and the costs of changing routes. Consultation can reveal practical alternatives such as seasonal restrictions, different permitted methods and targeted support for affected livelihoods.
Critics reasonably worry that fishing limits can cause immediate income losses. Independent assessment and transparent compensation arrangements may be needed where public benefits impose concentrated private costs.
In conclusion, marine protection should be based on measurable ecological outcomes and workable rules. Conservation and livelihoods are more likely to coexist when local experience and scientific monitoring guide decisions.
追質問7問｜カードD
Q22. Should all fishing be banned inside protected areas?
Answer: Not necessarily. Rules should reflect habitat sensitivity, fishing methods and conservation objectives.
日本語解説：一律禁止とは限らない。
Q23. Do protected zones always increase catches?
Answer: No. Effects depend on species, enforcement and ecological conditions, and may take time.
日本語解説：便益の不確実性。
Q24. How can fishing communities participate?
Answer: They can contribute local observations, discuss workable restrictions and review monitoring results.
日本語解説：当事者との協議。
Q25. Should affected fishers receive support?
Answer: Targeted assistance may be reasonable where public ecological benefits create substantial private losses.
日本語解説：費用の配分。
Q26. How is success measured?
Answer: Track habitat quality, species populations, compliance and community impacts across multiple years.
日本語解説：複数年の検証。
Q27. Could restrictions shift fishing elsewhere?
Answer: Yes. Displaced activity and its environmental consequences must be included in assessment.
日本語解説：外部への転嫁。
Q28. When should protected-area rules change?
Answer: When reliable evidence shows that a rule is ineffective or creates unjustified harms.
日本語解説：適応的管理。
独自TOPICカードE｜企業の環境情報開示と実効性
次の5つから1つを選んでスピーチしてください。以下の模範は1番のTOPICに対する一例です。
- 1. Should large companies disclose more information about product environmental impacts?
- 2. Can environmental labels help consumers make responsible choices?
- 3. Should businesses report their supply-chain emissions?
- 4. Are voluntary sustainability commitments sufficiently reliable?
- 5. Should environmental reporting standards differ by company size?
2分スピーチ想定の模範英文（206語）
Large companies should disclose more reliable information about the environmental impacts of their products and operations. However, reporting should help people compare meaningful outcomes rather than produce large volumes of promotional data.
First, consistent information makes environmental claims easier to evaluate. A company may describe a product as recyclable without explaining whether suitable collection and processing facilities exist. Clear definitions can distinguish technical possibilities from what happens in practice.
Second, disclosure may encourage businesses to improve operations. When companies examine energy use, transport and waste across their supply chains, they can identify activities with significant costs or impacts. Nevertheless, public reporting alone does not guarantee improvement.
Third, comparable standards can strengthen accountability. Consumers, investors and regulators may find it difficult to compare companies that use different boundaries or methods. Independent verification of important claims can reduce confusion, especially when a label implies substantial environmental benefits.
Critics argue that detailed reporting is expensive and may disadvantage smaller suppliers. This concern supports proportionate requirements and shared reporting tools rather than the absence of standards.
In conclusion, environmental transparency deserves support when it is accurate, comparable and practical. Policies should evaluate verified improvements and the costs of reporting, rather than assume that more pages of disclosure automatically represent progress.
追質問7問｜カードE
Q29. Does a recyclable label prove that a product will be recycled?
Answer: No. Actual collection, processing capacity and consumer behavior also matter.
日本語解説：技術的可能性と実績。
Q30. Should every business face identical requirements?
Answer: No. Proportionate rules can limit the fixed burden on small suppliers while preserving essential information.
日本語解説：規模別の設計。
Q31. Can reporting reduce pollution by itself?
Answer: Not necessarily. It can inform action, but verified operational changes determine environmental outcomes.
日本語解説：開示と改善は別。
Q32. Why is independent verification useful?
Answer: It can test whether significant claims follow consistent methods and reliable evidence.
日本語解説：情報の信頼性。
Q33. What about trade secrets?
Answer: Some details may require protection, while material impacts and methods should remain understandable.
日本語解説：透明性と機密。
Q34. Could labels overwhelm shoppers?
Answer: Yes. Clear summaries with accessible detail may be better than confusing scores.
日本語解説：情報構造の設計。
Q35. What is the strongest success measure?
Answer: Actual environmental improvement relative to cost and feasibility, not simply the number of indicators reported.
日本語解説：実成果を評価。
即答に使える5つの表現
- I would support the proposal, provided that its costs and effects are carefully evaluated.
- That is a valid concern, although it does not necessarily invalidate the main objective.
- I do not have verified statistics on that point, so I would avoid a definite numerical claim.
- We should distinguish the intended benefit from what the evidence actually demonstrates.
- A limited trial may reveal whether the policy works under local conditions.
自己採点の5項目
- 冒頭に賛否・立場がある。
- 根拠が独立していて、実例や因果を説明できる。
- 妥当な反論を理解している。
- 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分間の発話を時計で練習した。
よくある質問
英検1級の二次面接は何題から選びますか？
公式では5題から1題を選択します。本教材では独自5題カードを5組用意しています。
1分の準備でメモできますか？
本番ではメモを取れません。練習時も最終段階はメモなしで組み立てます。
模範と反対の意見でも構いませんか？
構いません。根拠の正確さ、意見の一貫性、質疑に答える力が大切です。
関連する無料教材
参考公式情報
TOPIC・模範スピーチ・追質問・回答は慶英会が独自制作した非公式教材で、実際の出題を予告するものではありません。
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