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32集。5題から1題を選ぶ練習用TOPICカードを5組、合計独自25トピック、2分スピーチ想定の模範5本、追質問35問と英語模範回答・日本語解説を無料掲載します。介護と雇用、博物館のデジタル化、湿地の復元、大学教育、学校周辺の道路安全を扱い、暗記でなく応答力を鍛えます。
英検協会の1級二次試験は英語面接約10分で、5つの話題から1題を選んで2分間スピーチをし、その内容に関連した質問に答えます（協会公式試験内容）。本記事の題材は慶英会独自制作であり、英検公式のTOPICカードではありません。
次の無料演習：二次面接第33集｜TOPIC25題・模範スピーチ・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分間でスピーチの構成を決める
- 5つの候補から自分の立場を明確に説明できる話題を選ぶ。
- 立場を1文でまとめ、根拠を3方向に分ける。例：公平性・費用・長期的影響。
- 反対意見を想定し、その合理的な部分を認めて条件付きの応答を考える。
- 時計を使い2分間話す。語数だけで時間を保証できないため実際に声に出して調整する。
- 追質問では結論→理由→例外条件の順で短く直接答える。
オリジナルTOPICカードA｜介護と職場の制度
次の5つから1題を選択します。模範スピーチは1番への回答例で、実際の唯一の正解ではありません。
- 1. Should large employers provide paid leave to care for elderly relatives?
- 2. Can flexible working arrangements reduce inequality?
- 3. Should employers fund continuing professional education?
- 4. Is a four-day working week suitable for most industries?
- 5. Should corporations disclose the effects of restructuring on communities?
立場と留保の日本語メモ：高齢家族を介護する従業員には一定の有給休暇が必要。ただし制度の規模や代替要員は現実的に設計する。
2分スピーチ想定の模範英文（約225語）
Large employers should provide a reasonable amount of paid leave for workers who need to care for elderly relatives. Such a policy would not solve every problem associated with aging, but it can support both employees and organizations for three reasons.
First, family responsibilities do not always follow a predictable schedule. An older relative may suddenly need assistance after an accident or a change in living arrangements. Without limited paid leave, employees can face an impossible choice between maintaining their income and attending to an urgent family need.
Second, a predictable policy may improve workforce retention. Experienced employees who leave their jobs because of short-term family emergencies represent a loss of skills and institutional knowledge. Offering structured leave, together with flexible scheduling, may help employers retain valuable staff.
Third, common rules can reduce unequal treatment. If access to leave depends entirely on a manager’s discretion, workers with less bargaining power may receive less support. Clear eligibility criteria and a straightforward application process would make decisions more transparent.
Critics understandably worry that paid absence could impose costs on colleagues and smaller businesses. That concern should guide the design. Employers could introduce reasonable limits, advance planning when possible, and temporary staffing arrangements, while governments consider support for smaller firms.
Overall, modest, well-managed paid care leave is a sensible investment in a stable workforce and humane employment practices.
追質問・モデル回答7問｜カードA
Q1. Should all employers provide the same amount of leave?
Answer: Not necessarily. A common minimum could protect workers, but small firms may need public support or flexible arrangements because fixed staffing costs affect them differently.
日本語解説：最低水準と規模別の実施方法を分ける。
Q2. What about employees who have no relatives to care for?
Answer: Fairness does not require identical use of every benefit. Other leave policies should address different legitimate needs, while care leave responds to a specific social responsibility.
日本語解説：全員が同じ給付を使う必要はない。
Q3. Could people misuse the leave?
Answer: Some misuse is possible, so clear documentation and reasonable oversight are appropriate. However, excessive checks could invade privacy or prevent genuine caregivers from seeking help.
日本語解説：適切な管理とプライバシー。
Q4. Would flexible hours be better than paid leave?
Answer: They are complementary. Flexible hours help with routine duties, whereas urgent medical or family situations may require time away from work entirely.
日本語解説：柔軟勤務と休暇の役割は異なる。
Q5. Isn’t elder care mainly the government’s responsibility?
Answer: Public services are essential, but workplaces also influence whether families can respond to immediate needs. Shared responsibility is more realistic than assigning everything to one institution.
日本語解説：公的支援と職場の補完。
Q6. What outcome would show that the policy works?
Answer: I would examine retention, employee well-being and operational costs while protecting personal information. The number of leave days taken alone would not prove success.
日本語解説：離職・負担・費用を一緒に評価。
Q7. Should employers ask for medical details?
Answer: Only the minimum information necessary to administer the benefit. Sensitive diagnoses should not be routinely shared with managers when other verification is possible.
日本語解説：個人情報の最小化。
オリジナルTOPICカードB｜博物館のデジタル公開と文化的権利
次の5つから1題を選択します。模範スピーチは1番への回答例で、実際の唯一の正解ではありません。
- 1. Should museums provide free digital access to most collections?
- 2. Who should control the online publication of community oral histories?
- 3. Can virtual exhibitions replace visits to physical museums?
- 4. Should historic buildings be adapted for modern accessibility?
- 5. Do public archives have a responsibility to correct misleading labels?
立場と留保の日本語メモ：公的博物館は原則としてデジタル公開を進める。ただし当事者の同意・権利・正確性を条件とする。
2分スピーチ想定の模範英文（約222語）
Public museums should generally provide free digital access to their collections, although some materials require restrictions based on consent, privacy or cultural significance. I support this approach because of three benefits.
First, digital access broadens educational opportunity. Students and researchers who live far from major museums can examine images, descriptions and catalogues without paying for long journeys. Online collections cannot reproduce every aspect of a physical visit, but they can make basic research more accessible.
Second, publishing reliable records may improve scholarly understanding. When images and their associated information can be examined by specialists from different institutions, errors in dates or descriptions may be detected and corrected. Museums should keep a visible record of revisions rather than silently replacing earlier interpretations.
Third, online access can encourage public participation. Community members may recognize people, objects or locations that curators have described incompletely. Their contributions can enrich the collection, provided that claims are reviewed before being presented as verified facts.
However, free access must not become an excuse to ignore the wishes of communities whose material is being displayed. Certain recordings or objects may carry restrictions that are not captured by ordinary copyright rules. Museums should consult relevant people and explain why access is limited when appropriate.
Therefore, digital openness should be the default, combined with responsible consent procedures, clear provenance and transparent corrections.
追質問・モデル回答7問｜カードB
Q8. Should museums publish every object without exception?
Answer: No. Privacy, consent and cultural sensitivity can justify narrowly defined restrictions. Openness should be the normal practice, not an unconditional obligation.
日本語解説：原則公開と限定的例外を両立。
Q9. Who should decide restrictions on community recordings?
Answer: The people concerned should have a meaningful role, alongside legal and professional expertise. Funding an archive does not automatically grant unrestricted publication rights.
日本語解説：当事者の同意と権利を重視。
Q10. How can museums avoid online misinformation?
Answer: They should distinguish verified facts from hypotheses and publish corrections visibly. Digital accessibility is useful only when the information is reasonably reliable.
日本語解説：事実と仮説、訂正履歴。
Q11. Could free online access reduce ticket revenue?
Answer: It might affect some visits, but digital collections can also encourage interest in exhibitions. Museums should study actual behavior rather than assume either outcome.
日本語解説：収益への影響を実測する。
Q12. Are photographs sufficient for studying an object?
Answer: Not always. Materials, scale and physical context may require direct examination. Digital records expand access but do not remove the value of originals.
日本語解説：画像で代替できない情報を認める。
Q13. Should visitors be able to suggest corrections?
Answer: Yes, with moderation and verification. Local knowledge can be valuable, but an unverified comment should not automatically replace a catalogue entry.
日本語解説：参加型の訂正制度。
Q14. How should success be measured?
Answer: I would consider meaningful reuse, accurate metadata and participation across regions, not simply the number of files uploaded.
日本語解説：ファイル件数以外の価値。
オリジナルTOPICカードC｜洪水対策と湿地の再生
次の5つから1題を選択します。模範スピーチは1番への回答例で、実際の唯一の正解ではありません。
- 1. Should governments restore wetlands as part of flood protection?
- 2. Are large concrete flood barriers always the best investment?
- 3. Should cities prohibit construction on high-risk floodplains?
- 4. Can community-led environmental monitoring improve resilience?
- 5. Should climate adaptation funding prioritize vulnerable communities?
立場と留保の日本語メモ：湿地再生を治水対策の重要な選択肢に組み込む。ただし堤防などの構造物を一律に否定しない。
2分スピーチ想定の模範英文（約229語）
Governments should give wetland restoration a serious role in flood protection, but they should not treat it as a universal replacement for engineered defenses. An effective strategy needs to match local conditions. Three considerations explain why restoration deserves attention.
First, wetlands can store or slow water under certain conditions. Restoring natural floodplains may reduce pressure on downstream communities during some rainfall events. However, the effect depends on geography, existing land use and the scale of flooding. Officials should avoid promising that one restored area will prevent every disaster.
Second, wetlands may provide benefits beyond flood management. Healthy habitats can support wildlife and create opportunities for recreation and environmental education. These additional values matter when comparing public investments, although they should not be used to hide the cost of long-term maintenance.
Third, restoration can sometimes work alongside existing infrastructure. A combination of natural areas, warning systems and carefully maintained barriers may be more robust than relying on a single intervention. Such a mix can also allow authorities to adjust plans as monitoring provides new evidence.
Critics rightly raise concerns about land acquisition and the effect on farming or housing. Residents must be involved before land-use changes are approved, and the costs should be stated openly.
In conclusion, wetland restoration should be evaluated as part of an integrated flood strategy, with rigorous monitoring, local consultation and realistic limits on expected protection.
追質問・モデル回答7問｜カードC
Q15. Can wetlands prevent all floods?
Answer: No. Their performance varies with rainfall, topography and existing conditions. Restoration is one tool among several, not a guarantee against extreme events.
日本語解説：防災効果の過大な断定を避ける。
Q16. Why not build only concrete barriers?
Answer: Engineered barriers can be essential, but they also require maintenance and may shift risks. Governments should compare combined approaches where appropriate.
日本語解説：構造物の価値と副作用。
Q17. What if farmers lose land?
Answer: Fair consultation and compensation may be needed, and alternative sites should be considered. Environmental objectives do not erase legitimate livelihood concerns.
日本語解説：生活上の費用と合意。
Q18. How can effectiveness be measured?
Answer: Compare water levels, flood timing and downstream impacts across events, while considering other changes. A single successful season is not conclusive.
日本語解説：継続的な比較と交絡要因。
Q19. Should local residents control the project?
Answer: They should participate meaningfully, but technical safety decisions also require relevant expertise. Transparency can help combine local knowledge with engineering judgment.
日本語解説：住民参加と専門性。
Q20. Are wildlife benefits enough to justify every project?
Answer: Not automatically. Each proposal should be assessed for ecological value, flood benefits, financial costs and possible displacement.
日本語解説：環境・経済・公平性を比較。
Q21. Could restoration become more expensive over time?
Answer: Yes, especially if maintenance is neglected or conditions change. Long-term responsibilities and budgets should be decided before expansion.
日本語解説：維持費と責任分担。
オリジナルTOPICカードD｜大学教育と実務・理論の均衡
次の5つから1題を選択します。模範スピーチは1番への回答例で、実際の唯一の正解ではありません。
- 1. Should universities place greater emphasis on practical training?
- 2. Are traditional lectures becoming less important?
- 3. Should all students complete an internship before graduation?
- 4. Do interdisciplinary degrees prepare graduates better for uncertainty?
- 5. Should universities assess teamwork as well as individual achievement?
立場と留保の日本語メモ：大学の実務教育を充実させるが、理論教育を犠牲にしない。
2分スピーチ想定の模範英文（約222語）
Universities should expand opportunities for practical training, but they should preserve a strong foundation in theory and critical inquiry. In my view, the most useful education combines both approaches for three reasons.
First, practical projects help students apply abstract ideas. A student may understand statistical methods in lectures yet struggle to evaluate incomplete data from a real organization. Carefully supervised projects can reveal these limitations and teach students to revise their assumptions.
Second, theoretical knowledge remains valuable when technologies change. Training that focuses only on a particular software package may become outdated quickly, whereas deeper principles help graduates adapt to unfamiliar tools and problems. Practical experience should therefore illustrate theory rather than replace it.
Third, different students have different educational needs. Some benefit from internships or laboratory placements, while others pursue research that requires long periods of independent reading and analysis. Universities should offer meaningful choices instead of imposing an identical placement on every student.
Critics worry that additional practical courses could increase tuition costs or make academic study too closely dependent on employers. Those concerns are valid. Clear learning objectives, independent assessment and partnerships with a range of organizations could limit the risks.
Ultimately, universities should judge courses by whether students can reason, learn and use knowledge responsibly. Neither workplace experience nor classroom theory should be treated as sufficient by itself.
追質問・モデル回答7問｜カードD
Q22. Why not focus exclusively on job-ready skills?
Answer: Specific skills are useful, but they can become obsolete. Fundamental concepts help graduates learn new methods when work changes.
日本語解説：汎用知識と専門スキル。
Q23. Should all students complete internships?
Answer: No. Opportunities and career paths differ, and unpaid placements may disadvantage some students. Equivalent research or community projects can be appropriate.
日本語解説：無給実習の機会格差。
Q24. How can practical projects be assessed fairly?
Answer: Use published criteria for preparation, reasoning, execution and reflection. Mere attendance or the prestige of a placement is insufficient.
日本語解説：成果とプロセスを測る。
Q25. Could employers gain too much influence?
Answer: Yes, so academic staff should retain control over learning objectives and assessment. External cooperation must not replace educational independence.
日本語解説：大学の教育目的を守る。
Q26. Are lectures still useful?
Answer: They can efficiently introduce complex ideas, especially when combined with discussion and feedback. Their value depends on design, not simply format.
日本語解説：形式だけで評価しない。
Q27. Would this make university education more expensive?
Answer: It may. Institutions should compare additional learning gains with supervision and equipment costs, using pilot projects before expanding.
日本語解説：追加コストの検証。
Q28. Which skill should be prioritized?
Answer: The ability to evaluate evidence and revise a conclusion is valuable across fields. Practical exercises can reveal whether students truly possess that skill.
日本語解説：証拠評価の普遍性。
オリジナルTOPICカードE｜小学校周辺の交通と安全
次の5つから1題を選択します。模範スピーチは1番への回答例で、実際の唯一の正解ではありません。
- 1. Should cities restrict private cars around primary schools at certain hours?
- 2. Do pedestrian-only streets improve urban life?
- 3. Should parking regulations prioritize disabled access?
- 4. Are road-safety education campaigns enough to protect children?
- 5. Should public transport receive priority over city-center parking?
立場と留保の日本語メモ：小学校前の時間限定車両規制には条件付き賛成。送迎・障害者アクセス・物流の代替策が必要。
2分スピーチ想定の模範英文（約224語）
Cities should consider restricting private-car access around primary schools during arrival and departure times, provided that they plan realistic exceptions. The objective should be safer access, not simply reducing vehicle numbers. Three arguments support carefully designed restrictions.
First, school entrances often bring together children, pedestrians and vehicles within a short period. Reducing unnecessary car traffic may make crossings easier to manage and improve visibility. However, traffic officials should measure actual safety outcomes rather than assume that every restriction automatically prevents accidents.
Second, safer walking routes may encourage more families to travel on foot when distances and circumstances permit. That can reduce congestion immediately outside schools and give children more opportunities to develop independent travel skills. Yet such benefits depend on crossings, lighting and nearby routes remaining safe.
Third, a well-tested program can guide better use of public space. A city could begin with temporary restrictions, collect observations and adjust boundaries before adopting a permanent scheme. Neighbors should be involved because displaced traffic may affect surrounding streets.
Critics correctly note that some families need vehicles for accessibility, medical reasons or long journeys. Deliveries and emergency access also matter. Rules should include practical exemptions and avoid treating all drivers alike.
Overall, targeted school-street measures can be worthwhile, but the evidence should focus on safety, access and wider traffic effects, not only the popularity of the idea.
追質問・モデル回答7問｜カードE
Q29. Should every school use the same rule?
Answer: No. Road layouts, transport availability and family needs differ. A city should assess each location and define reasonable exceptions.
日本語解説：地域条件の差。
Q30. What about children with disabilities?
Answer: Accessible drop-off arrangements must be preserved, and affected families should help design the plan before implementation.
日本語解説：実効的なアクセス確保。
Q31. Could restrictions move traffic elsewhere?
Answer: Yes. Monitoring nearby streets is essential, or a local improvement might create a new problem for neighbors.
日本語解説：交通転嫁を調査。
Q32. How can success be measured?
Answer: Examine near misses, crossing conditions, travel times and access for different users. Vehicle counts alone do not show whether the policy works.
日本語解説：事故前指標も含む。
Q33. Would road-safety education be enough?
Answer: Education helps, but safe street design and vehicle behavior also matter. Responsibility should not fall entirely on children.
日本語解説：環境設計の役割。
Q34. Would parents support the policy?
Answer: Views would likely differ, so officials should collect feedback without treating the loudest group as representative of everyone.
日本語解説：代表性に注意。
Q35. Should the measure become permanent immediately?
Answer: A time-limited pilot is preferable. It allows officials to test exceptions, traffic effects and actual safety before making a lasting decision.
日本語解説：段階的実装。
返答に困ったときの表現
- 条件付き賛成：I would support this measure, provided that its costs and effects are independently reviewed.
- データ不足：I do not have reliable figures on that point, so I would avoid making a definite numerical claim.
- 妥当な反論：That is a reasonable exception, but it does not necessarily invalidate the broader principle.
- 説明し直す：Let me clarify what I mean. The crucial distinction is between … and … .
- 結論へ戻す：For that reason, my position is that the policy should be evaluated by its practical outcomes.
自己採点の5観点
- 問いに直接答えているか。
- 互いに異なる理由で立場を支えているか。
- 反例・留保を無理に否定せず説明できるか。
- 語彙・文法・発音が理解を妨げていないか。
- 実際の話す速度で2分間にまとめられるか。
よくある質問
英検1級二次面接ではトピックを何題から選びますか？
公式形式では5題から1題を選択します。本教材は独自のカード5組、合計25題を用意しています。
スピーチを丸暗記してよいですか？
丸暗記だけに依存せず、異なるテーマで主張・理由・反論への応答を自力で組み立てる練習が重要です。
難しい質問で答えを変えてもよいですか？
合理的な条件を追加したり立場を調整することはできます。理由を説明し、一貫した主張に整理してください。
英検1級の関連無料教材
参考公式情報
本記事のTOPIC・スピーチ・追質問・模範回答は慶英会による独自創作教材で、公式の過去問・出題予告・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