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36集。公式の5トピックから1つを選ぶ形式に合わせて、独自TOPICカード5組（合計25題）・模範スピーチ5本・追質問35問と英語回答・日本語解説を公開します。研究報道の不確実性、災害時の働き方、都市緑化、公共図書館のAI、国際研究協力を幅広く練習できます。
英検1級の二次試験では、提示された5つの題から1つを選んで1分間考え、2分間スピーチを行い、関連質問に答えます。本番の考慮時間にメモは取れません（英検協会の公式案内）。本教材の設問・模範回答はすべて慶英会オリジナルです。
続きの無料教材：二次面接第37集｜独自25題・追質問35問。初見演習の後、根拠・誤答理由まで確認してください。
1分間の準備と2分間のスピーチ
- 5題の中から自分が主張しやすく、異なる根拠を示せる1題を選ぶ。
- 1分で立場、2〜3の理由、妥当な反論への応答を考える。
- 2分間話して論旨の明瞭さと時間を計測する。
- 追質問では直接回答、理由、具体例または条件を簡潔に示す。
- 模範の丸暗記より、別の題でも自分の言葉で論理を組み立てる力を伸ばす。
TOPICカードA｜研究結果の報道と不確実性
次の5題から1題を選びます。下の模範スピーチは第1問への一例です。
- 1. Should news organizations explain uncertainty in scientific studies more clearly?
- 2. Does public access to research data improve trust in science?
- 3. Should journalists receive more training in statistical interpretation?
- 4. Are scientific corrections reported prominently enough?
- 5. Should schools teach how to distinguish correlation from causation?
2分間スピーチ想定・模範英文（約213語）
News organizations should explain uncertainty in scientific research more clearly, especially when studies influence public debate. Clarity does not require reporters to weaken every finding. Instead, it means describing what the evidence actually supports and what remains unknown.
First, accurate reporting helps people make better decisions. A study may identify an association between two factors without establishing that one causes the other. Headlines that ignore this distinction can lead readers to support ineffective policies or misunderstand personal risks.
Second, honest explanations strengthen trust. When early findings are later revised, the public may feel misled if the original article presented them as unquestionable facts. Visible corrections and clear descriptions of study limitations show that scientific knowledge develops through continued examination.
Third, reporting uncertainty can encourage responsible discussion. People with opposing views may still agree on the evidence available and on which questions require further research. Journalists can help by explaining sample size, comparison groups and alternative explanations without overwhelming readers with technical terms.
Critics worry that too many qualifications will make articles difficult to read. That is a legitimate concern. Reporters should prioritize the uncertainties that could materially change the conclusion and use accessible examples.
Overall, better science journalism should combine readable language with accurate evidence, helping people distinguish promising findings from established knowledge.
関連追質問7問・英語回答｜カードA
Q1. Would uncertainty make readers distrust science?
Answer: It might initially confuse some readers, but honest limits and visible corrections can support more durable trust.
日本語解説：不確実性を隠すより説明する。
Q2. Should every article include statistical details?
Answer: Only the details necessary to interpret the central claim, with links to methods for interested readers.
日本語解説：必要な情報を優先。
Q3. How can journalists avoid exaggeration?
Answer: They should compare headlines with original findings and ask whether a causal claim is actually supported.
日本語解説：因果の検証。
Q4. Are corrections a sign of failure?
Answer: Not always. Prompt and transparent corrections can demonstrate responsible editorial practice.
日本語解説：訂正の信頼価値。
Q5. Does social media make this harder?
Answer: Short formats can omit context, so clear links and concise caveats become more important.
日本語解説：短文媒体でも出典を残す。
Q6. Should schools teach these skills?
Answer: Yes. Reading evidence and recognizing uncertainty are useful across science, history and public debate.
日本語解説：学校教育との接続。
Q7. What is the most important principle?
Answer: The strength of the language should match the strength of the evidence.
日本語解説：主張の強さと根拠の強さ。
TOPICカードB｜災害時の職場と柔軟勤務
次の5題から1題を選びます。下の模範スピーチは第1問への一例です。
- 1. Should employers offer more flexible working arrangements during emergencies?
- 2. Can remote work improve community resilience?
- 3. Should companies be required to maintain emergency backup plans?
- 4. Are employees sufficiently involved in workplace safety decisions?
- 5. Should businesses prioritize staff welfare over short-term productivity during disasters?
2分間スピーチ想定・模範英文（約209語）
Employers should provide flexible working arrangements during serious emergencies whenever jobs and safety conditions allow. However, flexibility must be supported by planning rather than treated as a promise that every employee can always work remotely.
First, emergencies affect workers differently. Transport disruption, family responsibilities and unsafe travel may make a normal schedule impossible. Temporary adjustments can allow essential work to continue while reducing unnecessary risks for employees.
Second, flexible systems can improve organizational resilience. Companies that have tested alternative communication tools and backup procedures may respond more effectively when their main workplace becomes unavailable. Yet merely purchasing software does not guarantee success if staff have not practiced using it.
Third, clear policies can make decisions fairer. If emergency accommodations depend entirely on individual managers, employees with limited bargaining power may face inconsistent treatment. Transparent criteria and communication channels can reduce confusion.
Critics point out that healthcare, transport and manufacturing often require people to be physically present. That is true. Employers should develop safe staffing arrangements and realistic contingency plans for those roles instead of assuming everyone has the same options.
In conclusion, flexible emergency work should be part of responsible business planning. Its value lies in safety, continuity and fair treatment, not simply the number of remote-work days recorded.
関連追質問7問・英語回答｜カードB
Q8. Can every job be remote?
Answer: No. Essential on-site roles require different safety and staffing plans.
日本語解説：職種で異なる。
Q9. Should employers pay employees during closures?
Answer: Rules depend on circumstances, but clear and fair policies should be established before emergencies.
日本語解説：事前に条件を設計。
Q10. Would flexibility reduce productivity?
Answer: It may in some situations, so organizations should evaluate task completion and safety together.
日本語解説：生産性と安全を両立。
Q11. How can smaller companies prepare?
Answer: Simple backup contacts, tested procedures and external support may offer value without expensive systems.
日本語解説：低固定費の備え。
Q12. Who should decide exceptions?
Answer: Managers should use published criteria and consult affected staff rather than decide arbitrarily.
日本語解説：例外の一貫性。
Q13. Is technology enough for resilience?
Answer: No. Training, access to equipment and human coordination matter as well.
日本語解説：人・手順・設備。
Q14. What is the main indicator of success?
Answer: Whether essential operations and employee safety are maintained under real disruption.
日本語解説：実際の継続と安全。
TOPICカードC｜都市の緑化と屋上庭園
次の5題から1題を選びます。下の模範スピーチは第1問への一例です。
- 1. Should cities encourage green roofs on large commercial buildings?
- 2. Can urban vegetation meaningfully reduce heat exposure?
- 3. Should property developers contribute more to public green spaces?
- 4. Are environmental building standards effective without long-term maintenance?
- 5. Should urban planning prioritize biodiversity alongside recreation?
2分間スピーチ想定・模範英文（約216語）
Cities should encourage green roofs where buildings can safely support them, but policies should be based on realistic environmental benefits and maintenance requirements. A green roof can be useful, yet it is not a universal solution for urban heat or flooding.
First, vegetation may reduce heat on certain surfaces and help retain rainfall. In densely built districts, roofs can offer space for plants without taking land away from essential streets or housing. However, the effect depends on plant choice, local weather and the building’s design.
Second, green roofs may support biodiversity. Appropriate planting can provide habitat for some insects and birds. Simply covering an area with decorative plants, however, does not guarantee that local species will benefit across seasons.
Third, encouraging maintenance planning may improve long-term results. Roofs require attention to drainage, structural loads and irrigation. A project that looks attractive immediately after construction may fail if these responsibilities and expenses are ignored.
Critics worry about installation costs and the burden on owners of older buildings. Those concerns are legitimate. Cities should distinguish suitable new structures from roofs that would require expensive reinforcement, while exploring proportionate incentives.
Overall, green roofs can contribute to resilient cities when their design, ecological function and operating costs are evaluated honestly rather than judged by the number of square meters planted.
関連追質問7問・英語回答｜カードC
Q15. Can green roofs prevent all flooding?
Answer: No. Rainfall volume, soil capacity and wider drainage systems limit their effects.
日本語解説：万能策にしない。
Q16. Are they suitable for every building?
Answer: No. Structural capacity and water management must be checked by qualified specialists.
日本語解説：耐荷重・排水を検証。
Q17. Do they always reduce energy costs?
Answer: Not necessarily. Savings depend on climate, design and ongoing maintenance.
日本語解説：省エネ効果の条件。
Q18. How should biodiversity be evaluated?
Answer: Monitor appropriate species and habitat conditions across seasons, not plant counts alone.
日本語解説：季節を通した生態評価。
Q19. Should grants be universal?
Answer: Targeted support may be fairer where costs and environmental benefits differ.
日本語解説：補助の比例性。
Q20. What is the biggest operational risk?
Answer: Neglecting maintenance and drainage after installation.
日本語解説：長期保守を重視。
Q21. What would prove success?
Answer: Useful heat, water and habitat outcomes relative to lifecycle costs.
日本語解説：実効性と総費用。
TOPICカードD｜公共図書館とAIによる学習支援
次の5題から1題を選びます。下の模範スピーチは第1問への一例です。
- 1. Should public libraries offer AI-assisted learning services?
- 2. Can automated tutors reduce educational inequality?
- 3. Should users be taught to verify AI-generated explanations?
- 4. Are traditional libraries still necessary in a digital society?
- 5. Should public institutions disclose when automated systems answer questions?
2分間スピーチ想定・模範英文（約211語）
Public libraries should explore AI-assisted learning services, provided that these tools are designed to support rather than replace informed human assistance. Libraries have long helped people find reliable information, and new technologies can extend that mission if used carefully.
First, automated learning tools may increase access to basic explanations and practice. People who cannot afford private resources or who study outside normal opening hours may benefit from additional guidance. However, users must understand that an apparently confident answer can still be incorrect.
Second, libraries can teach responsible use. Staff could demonstrate how to verify claims against original sources, distinguish fact from speculation and recognize when a question requires specialist advice. This educational role may be more valuable than merely giving visitors access to a new application.
Third, public services can help identify accessibility needs that commercial platforms overlook. Tools should work with assistive technologies and offer clear routes to human help when automated answers fail.
Critics worry about privacy, subscription expenses and overreliance on unreliable information. These concerns are serious. Libraries should minimize collection of personal data, review costs and evaluate whether learning actually improves.
Overall, AI assistance can be one useful library service, but public value depends on accuracy, user control and the continued availability of people and trustworthy sources.
関連追質問7問・英語回答｜カードD
Q22. Can AI replace librarians?
Answer: It can assist with routine questions, but human judgment and source evaluation remain important.
日本語解説：人による支援を維持。
Q23. What if the system gives an incorrect answer?
Answer: Users need clear verification methods and an accessible way to report and correct errors.
日本語解説：検証・修正。
Q24. Should students trust AI explanations?
Answer: They should check important claims against reliable sources and understand the limits of the tool.
日本語解説：一次情報との照合。
Q25. How can privacy be protected?
Answer: Collect as little personal information as necessary and explain retention and access policies.
日本語解説：データ最小化。
Q26. Would libraries face high costs?
Answer: Potentially. Licensing, training and maintenance should be included in the total evaluation.
日本語解説：総費用を比較。
Q27. Could AI improve accessibility?
Answer: It may help some users, but tools must be tested with people who have different needs.
日本語解説：利用者による検証。
Q28. What should libraries measure?
Answer: Actual learning and effective access, not just logins or the number of questions submitted.
日本語解説：利用実績と教育成果。
TOPICカードE｜国際共同研究と研究データの共有
次の5題から1題を選びます。下の模範スピーチは第1問への一例です。
- 1. Should countries invest more in international scientific collaboration?
- 2. Should publicly funded research data be shared across borders?
- 3. Do international research partnerships improve scientific reliability?
- 4. Should governments protect sensitive data while supporting scientific openness?
- 5. Can smaller universities benefit from global research networks?
2分間スピーチ想定・模範英文（約212語）
Countries should support international scientific collaboration, especially on questions that cannot be answered adequately within one laboratory or region. Research partnerships can produce valuable knowledge, but they must be structured to protect participants and distribute responsibilities fairly.
First, cooperation allows researchers to compare findings across different conditions. A result observed in one country may not apply everywhere because environmental, social or technical circumstances vary. Multi-site studies can identify these differences and help prevent unjustified generalization.
Second, shared expertise can improve efficiency. Laboratories may contribute specialized equipment, analysis methods or local knowledge, reducing unnecessary duplication. However, cooperation works best when research questions and standards are agreed upon before data collection.
Third, collaboration can strengthen the reliability of evidence. Independent teams can challenge interpretations, repeat analyses and uncover errors that a single institution misses. Transparent correction histories are important when findings change.
Critics rightly raise concerns about privacy, unequal bargaining power and the transfer of sensitive information. These risks require clear consent, secure access controls and agreements about credit and data use. Open science does not mean that every record should be published without restrictions.
In conclusion, international research can create lasting benefits when it combines rigorous methods, fair participation and responsible information governance rather than focusing solely on the number of participating institutions.
関連追質問7問・英語回答｜カードE
Q29. Should all research data be public?
Answer: No. Personal or security-sensitive information may require controlled access.
日本語解説：公開範囲は条件付き。
Q30. Why use multiple research sites?
Answer: Comparisons reveal whether results generalize across different conditions.
日本語解説：外的妥当性の検証。
Q31. Can small universities benefit?
Answer: Yes, if partnerships provide fair access to equipment, training and authorship opportunities.
日本語解説：公平な機会。
Q32. What are the main risks?
Answer: Privacy failures, unequal control of data and unclear responsibilities.
日本語解説：権利と責任を設計。
Q33. Would collaboration slow research?
Answer: It can add coordination costs, but shared standards may prevent expensive mistakes.
日本語解説：調整費との比較。
Q34. How should contributions be recognized?
Answer: Use transparent agreements about roles, credit and access before work begins.
日本語解説：貢献の明確化。
Q35. What is the most important outcome?
Answer: Reliable, reproducible knowledge that participants can use responsibly.
日本語解説：信頼性と再現性。
追質問で使える表現
- That is a reasonable concern, but it does not necessarily undermine the broader argument.
- I would support the proposal, provided that its costs and effects are evaluated carefully.
- I do not have reliable data on that point, so I would avoid a definite claim.
- The important distinction is between the expected benefit and what the evidence actually shows.
- For those reasons, I believe a limited trial is preferable to immediate universal adoption.
自己評価の5項目
- 立場はTOPICへの直接回答になっている。
- 理由は重複せず、それぞれ具体的な仕組みを示す。
- 反論を不当に弱めず、妥当な懸念を認める。
- 語彙・文法・発音は意思疎通を妨げない。
- メモなしで1分構成し、2分で話す練習を行った。
よくある質問
英検1級二次面接は何題から選びますか？
公式では5つのトピックから1題を選びます。この教材ではオリジナル5題カードを5組用意しています。
本番の準備中にメモできますか？
できません。英検協会の公式案内では1分の考慮時間にメモを取れないため、頭の中で構成を決める練習をしてください。
模範スピーチの語数が少なくてもいいですか？
語数は時間と発話速度により変わります。自分の声で計測し、論点を十分に示したうえで2分に収まるよう調整してください。
関連する無料教材
参考公式情報
トピック・英文スピーチ・追質問と回答は慶英会独自の非公式教材であり、公式の過去問や出題予告・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