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37集。5題から1題を選択するTOPICカードを5組、計25題。独自模範スピーチ5本と追質問35問・35の英語モデル回答と日本語解説を無料収録します。地方交通、文化財の来歴、個人データ、食品廃棄、大学研究という社会性の高い題材を扱います。
英検1級二次試験は5つの題から1題を選び、1分間の考慮後に2分間スピーチし質疑応答を行います。本番の考慮時間にメモを取ることはできません（英検協会｜1級面接形式）。本記事の題材は慶英会が作成した非公式問題です。
次の無料教材：二次面接第38集｜25題・模範スピーチ5本・追質問35問。初見で解き、解答根拠と誤答理由まで確認してください。
使い方｜初見スピーチから追質問まで
- カードの5つから立場と根拠を明確に話せる1題を選ぶ。
- 1分間で主張、異なる理由、反論の合理的な部分を考える。
- 2分間話し、時計を使って説明が十分かを確認する。
- 追質問は結論・理由・具体例または条件の順に直接答える。
- 模範は暗記せず、別の話題にも応用して練習する。
独自TOPICカードA｜地方の公共交通の維持
5つの中から1題を選択してください。模範スピーチは1番のTOPICへの解答例です。
- 1. Should rural public transport receive public subsidies?
- 2. Are flexible community buses better than fixed routes?
- 3. Should essential transport be free for older residents?
- 4. Do local governments spend enough on accessible bus stops?
- 5. Should transport performance be judged by access rather than passenger totals?
2分間スピーチ想定の模範英文（206語）
Local governments should support essential public transport in remote communities when commercial services cannot provide reasonable access. However, funding should be linked to practical needs instead of guaranteeing that every existing route continues unchanged.
First, reliable transport affects access to healthcare, education and work. Residents without cars may have very few alternatives, and a bus with relatively few passengers can still provide substantial benefits if it connects an isolated village to essential services.
Second, public support can reduce inequalities. A service may appear available on a timetable but remain unusable for someone who needs step-free boarding or travels outside typical working hours. Officials should assess actual journeys and unmet needs, not just the number of stops.
Third, subsidies can encourage flexible solutions. Smaller vehicles, telephone reservations and shared services may suit some districts better than large buses on fixed schedules. Nevertheless, these options also involve staffing and operating costs that must be examined.
Critics fairly note that transport spending competes with other public priorities. Regular evaluation and transparent criteria are therefore essential. Governments should compare completed journeys, reliability, accessibility and total expenses.
In conclusion, targeted transport funding can protect residents’ independence when the system is judged by meaningful access rather than publicity or raw passenger totals.
追質問7問・英語回答と日本語解説｜カードA
Q1. Should every bus route be subsidized?
Answer: No. Local need, alternatives and operating costs should guide the decision.
日本語解説：一律補助は避ける
Q2. What if passenger numbers stay low?
Answer: A route can still be valuable, but schedules and vehicle sizes should be tested.
日本語解説：低利用でも重要な可能性
Q3. Can ride-sharing apps solve the problem?
Answer: Some residents benefit, but smartphone access and vehicle suitability are not universal.
日本語解説：デジタル格差
Q4. What about wheelchair users?
Answer: Accessible vehicles and safe stops must be planned with affected residents.
日本語解説：当事者参加
Q5. How can success be measured?
Answer: Completed essential trips, reliability, unmet demand and cost are useful indicators.
日本語解説：実移動を測る
Q6. Should fares be eliminated?
Answer: Possibly in selected cases, but affordability and service capacity must be examined together.
日本語解説：料金と供給を比較
Q7. Why choose targeted subsidies?
Answer: They can serve people lacking reasonable alternatives while making public spending more accountable.
日本語解説：透明な対象条件
独自TOPICカードB｜文化財の来歴と博物館
5つの中から1題を選択してください。模範スピーチは1番のTOPICへの解答例です。
- 1. Should museums disclose more about the origins of their collections?
- 2. Can digital copies replace the return of cultural objects?
- 3. Should local communities help design museum exhibitions?
- 4. Are museums sufficiently transparent when correcting catalogue errors?
- 5. Should conservation skills be shared internationally?
2分間スピーチ想定の模範英文（207語）
Museums should research and disclose the ownership history of important cultural objects more actively. An item’s significance includes not only its physical qualities but also the people and circumstances through which it passed.
First, provenance research can improve historical accuracy. An exhibition may describe when an object was created while overlooking how it entered a collection. Archival records can reveal relevant information and help curators distinguish established facts from uncertain interpretations.
Second, openness strengthens accountability. When ownership or consent is contested, museums should examine evidence carefully and consult people with legitimate interests. Missing documents do not automatically prove misconduct, but silence should not substitute for investigation.
Third, collaboration can support preservation and education. Museums and communities may share conservation knowledge, digital descriptions and access arrangements. The best response may differ from one collection to another, especially where cultural meaning or publication rights are involved.
Critics reasonably worry that extensive research may be costly and that some disputes are difficult to resolve. Institutions should therefore prioritize significant cases, publish their methods and use fair procedures rather than promise that every question can be answered quickly.
In conclusion, responsible museums should be willing to explain what is known, what remains uncertain and how decisions about cultural objects are reached.
追質問7問・英語回答と日本語解説｜カードB
Q8. Does missing documentation prove theft?
Answer: No. It creates a reason to investigate, not proof of a particular event.
日本語解説：証拠不足と立証を区別
Q9. Should all objects be returned?
Answer: Decisions must consider lawful ownership, historical context and affected communities.
日本語解説：一律に判断しない
Q10. Can digital reproductions replace originals?
Answer: They widen access but cannot always replace physical and cultural significance.
日本語解説：複製の限界
Q11. Who should participate in decisions?
Answer: Relevant communities, museum staff and qualified specialists should all have a voice.
日本語解説：多面的な検討
Q12. How can costs be controlled?
Answer: Prioritize collections with significant questions and share archival expertise.
日本語解説：調査の重点化
Q13. What if historical records disagree?
Answer: Describe the disagreement and examine sources rather than hide uncertainty.
日本語解説：異なる記録を扱う
Q14. What matters most?
Answer: Accurate interpretation and responsible stewardship, not only attractive displays.
日本語解説：責任ある所蔵
独自TOPICカードC｜消費者の個人データ
5つの中から1題を選択してください。模範スピーチは1番のTOPICへの解答例です。
- 1. Should companies simplify privacy notices?
- 2. Should essential services remain usable without smartphone apps?
- 3. Do consumers control enough of their personal information?
- 4. Should companies retain customer data for shorter periods?
- 5. Can independent audits improve trust in digital services?
2分間スピーチ想定の模範英文（201語）
Companies should explain the significant uses of customer information in language that people can understand. A very long privacy statement may exist without giving customers meaningful choices.
First, clarity supports informed participation. People should know which data are required for a service and which uses are optional. When essential details are hidden in complicated wording, agreement may reflect confusion rather than a genuine decision.
Second, clearer policies may improve business practices. Managers who have to explain why information is retained may recognize that certain records are unnecessary. Reducing excessive collection can also limit the consequences of security incidents.
Third, transparency makes accountability possible. Customers need practical ways to correct inaccurate records or report uses that conflict with published promises. Independent reviews can help test whether actual practices match the explanations given to users.
Critics argue that technical systems cannot be described accurately in a few sentences. This is a reasonable concern. The answer is to provide understandable summaries that connect to more complete documentation, rather than pretend every detail can fit on one screen.
Overall, responsible information management should provide clear choices, proportionate collection, correction procedures and verifiable safeguards. The goal is actual user control, not merely the appearance of consent.
追質問7問・英語回答と日本語解説｜カードC
Q15. Should companies stop collecting all data?
Answer: Some information is necessary, but unnecessary collection should be challenged.
日本語解説：必要最小限
Q16. Can a short notice cover every issue?
Answer: No. Summaries should link to accurate and accessible details.
日本語解説：説明の階層化
Q17. What makes consent meaningful?
Answer: Users need understandable choices without being pushed into unnecessary uses.
日本語解説：自由な意思
Q18. How should errors be corrected?
Answer: Provide an accessible process and explain how requests are reviewed.
日本語解説：訂正経路
Q19. Are independent audits sufficient?
Answer: They help, but daily management and user feedback remain essential.
日本語解説：監査だけではない
Q20. Should everyone use an app?
Answer: No. Essential services need reasonable alternatives for people unable to use apps.
日本語解説：代替手段
Q21. How should success be judged?
Answer: By whether real practices match clear commitments, not by the length of notices.
日本語解説：実態で評価
独自TOPICカードD｜食品廃棄と小売
5つの中から1題を選択してください。模範スピーチは1番のTOPICへの解答例です。
- 1. Should supermarkets disclose more information about discarded food?
- 2. Can dynamic pricing significantly reduce food waste?
- 3. Should governments encourage safer food donation programs?
- 4. Do households have a responsibility to limit waste?
- 5. Should small retailers face different reporting requirements?
2分間スピーチ想定の模範英文（198語）
Supermarkets should disclose more useful information about avoidable food waste, provided that reporting requirements reflect the scale of each business. Food disposal carries environmental and financial costs, but headline totals can mislead readers without context.
First, consistent information helps consumers and suppliers understand the problem. Retailers can distinguish products sold, safely donated and discarded. A decline in disposal may be encouraging, but it could also reflect a change in store size or recording methods.
Second, measurement can lead to operational improvements. Better ordering systems and carefully timed discounts may prevent products from being thrown away. However, the number of discount labels printed is not a reliable measure of how much food was ultimately saved.
Third, clear data can support useful cooperation with community organizations. Donations may help people in need, yet transport, storage and food safety matter. Sending unsuitable products to a charity could shift costs without producing real benefits.
Critics correctly note that detailed reporting systems may be expensive for small stores. Common definitions and proportionate requirements can reduce unnecessary burden while preserving accountability.
In conclusion, food-waste policies should be evaluated by genuine reductions in avoidable disposal and practical, safe distribution rather than by public-relations claims alone.
追質問7問・英語回答と日本語解説｜カードD
Q22. Can donations eliminate all waste?
Answer: No. Product safety, storage and recipients’ needs limit donations.
日本語解説：安全条件
Q23. Do discounts always reduce disposal?
Answer: Not necessarily. Stores should compare actual waste before and after changes.
日本語解説：実測が必要
Q24. Should small shops report equally?
Answer: Requirements should be proportional to capacity and costs.
日本語解説：規模別負担
Q25. What data should be tracked?
Answer: Products sold, donated and discarded using consistent definitions.
日本語解説：一貫した分類
Q26. Is food safety negotiable?
Answer: No. Donations and discounts must maintain appropriate safety standards.
日本語解説：安全最優先
Q27. Could disclosure harm retailers?
Answer: Some information is sensitive, so reporting can focus on relevant, comparable results.
日本語解説：公開範囲
Q28. What is the final objective?
Answer: Less avoidable waste and more useful food distribution, not attractive statistics.
日本語解説：成果主義
独自TOPICカードE｜大学研究の自由と説明責任
5つの中から1題を選択してください。模範スピーチは1番のTOPICへの解答例です。
- 1. Should universities protect freedom to pursue long-term research?
- 2. Can publication-count targets damage scientific quality?
- 3. Should public funds support replication studies?
- 4. Do corporate partnerships threaten academic independence?
- 5. Should universities disclose conflicts of interest more clearly?
2分間スピーチ想定の模範英文（208語）
Universities should protect researchers’ freedom to pursue long-term questions while maintaining clear accountability for public resources. Important scientific work often involves uncertain outcomes and cannot always be evaluated through immediate commercial returns.
First, intellectual freedom supports basic inquiry. Researchers may investigate underlying mechanisms whose benefits become clear only much later. A funding system focused exclusively on short-term financial results could discourage valuable but difficult questions.
Second, academic evaluation should reward quality rather than publication counts alone. Pressure to produce many papers may create incentives to divide results into small reports or rush analysis. Transparent methods, careful correction and independent replication deserve recognition.
Third, stable support can help teams develop expertise. Long-running projects may require maintaining specialized equipment and training new researchers. Constantly interrupting such work can waste earlier investment. However, independence should not remove expectations of honest reporting and credible research plans.
Critics reasonably ask why governments should fund projects without guaranteed discoveries when other public needs are urgent. Periodic review, transparent budgets and meaningful objectives can address this concern without turning uncertainty itself into a reason to stop investigation.
In conclusion, academic freedom and accountability should reinforce each other. Universities should judge the rigor and public value of research, not demand certain results before the evidence exists.
追質問7問・英語回答と日本語解説｜カードE
Q29. Should funding ever be unlimited?
Answer: No. Research freedom still requires budgets and periodic review.
日本語解説：財政責任
Q30. Are publication counts meaningless?
Answer: They provide one signal but cannot establish research quality alone.
日本語解説：指標の限界
Q31. Why support replication research?
Answer: Independent tests help establish whether findings hold across different settings.
日本語解説：再現性
Q32. Can industry partnerships cause conflicts?
Answer: They can if sponsors influence methods or publication, so safeguards matter.
日本語解説：利益相反
Q33. What if experiments fail?
Answer: Documented negative results can still advance understanding.
日本語解説：失敗の価値
Q34. Should all research data be open?
Answer: Sensitive records may need controlled access and appropriate consent.
日本語解説：情報保護
Q35. How should results be evaluated?
Answer: Through rigorous methods, credible findings and lasting knowledge, not short-term publicity.
日本語解説：研究の質
追加の英語表現
- I support the idea, provided that its costs and outcomes are reviewed.
- That is a valid concern, although it does not necessarily defeat the broader argument.
- The evidence is not yet strong enough for a definite conclusion.
- The important question is whether the policy works for those who actually need it.
- A limited trial may be more responsible than an immediate universal requirement.
自己評価のチェック
- 問いに直接答えている。
- 根拠が重複せず、社会的・経済的な仕組みを説明している。
- 合理的な反論を認め、過度に断定しない。
- 英語の発音・文法・語彙が伝達を妨げない。
- メモを取らず1分で構成して2分間話す練習をした。
よくある質問
英検1級では何題からトピックを選びますか？
公式形式では5題から1題を選びます。本教材は練習用カードを5組、合計25題掲載しています。
本番の準備中にメモを取れますか？
できません。英検協会の試験手順に基づいて、練習の最終段階ではメモなしで準備してください。
模範と異なる意見でもよいですか？
問題ありません。合理的な立場、説明の一貫性、質疑への応答を重視します。
関連する無料教材
公式情報
TOPIC・スピーチ・追質問・英語回答はすべて慶英会のオリジナルであり、公式過去問・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