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・慶英会オリジナル第33集。公式の5つのTOPICから1題を選ぶ練習を想定し、独自5題カード×5組＝25トピック、模範スピーチ5本、追質問35問と35の英語回答例・日本語解説を収録しました。デジタル格差、住宅・観光、持続可能な水産物、学校のメディアリテラシー、宇宙探査を題材にしています。
英検1級の二次試験は英語面接約10分で、提示される5つのTOPICから1題を選び2分間スピーチをした後、関連する質問に答える形式です（日本英語検定協会｜公式試験内容）。本記事は慶英会が独自作成した練習題材で、英検協会の公式問題や出題予告ではありません。
次の無料教材：二次面接第34集｜独自25題・追質問35問。初見演習後に解答根拠と誤答原因まで確認してください。
本番を意識した練習の流れ
- TOPICカードの5つを読み、最も主張を組み立てやすい1題を選ぶ。
- 1分で立場・独立した理由2〜3つ・考えられる反論をメモする。
- 2分間、根拠と例を使ってスピーチする。語数は目安で、話速に応じて調整する。
- 追質問は直接の答え→理由→具体例または条件を20〜40秒程度で伝える。
- 模範は丸暗記せず、別テーマでも同じ論理構成が作れるか試す。
独自TOPICカードA｜公共インターネットとデジタル格差
次の5題から1題を選びます。下の模範スピーチは1番のTOPICに対する解答例です。
- 1. Should reliable internet access be considered an essential public service?
- 2. Should public libraries provide free digital-skills lessons?
- 3. Is online-only government administration fair to all citizens?
- 4. Should public Wi-Fi be available in more rural communities?
- 5. Do technology companies have a responsibility to improve digital accessibility?
立場の日本語メモ：基本的なネット接続は公共サービスに近い価値があるが、無制限の無料提供だけを解決策としない。
模範スピーチ（約215語）
Reliable internet access should increasingly be treated as an essential public service, although this does not mean that every connection must be unlimited and free. The most sensible policy is to guarantee meaningful access while considering cost and security.
First, internet access affects educational and economic opportunity. Students need reliable connections for research and assignments, while adults may depend on digital systems for job applications or essential services. When a household lacks affordable access, the resulting disadvantage can extend beyond entertainment or convenience.
Second, greater accessibility can improve public administration. Online applications save time for many residents, but governments should not assume that a website automatically serves everyone equally. Public access points, accessible interfaces and non-digital alternatives are necessary for people with different circumstances.
Third, a shared minimum standard may encourage infrastructure investment where commercial returns are limited. Rural areas could otherwise remain underserved because network construction is expensive and customer numbers are small.
Critics reasonably worry about public expenditure and the risk of creating poorly used networks. Funding should therefore target verified gaps, use transparent contracts and be evaluated through actual service reliability and user outcomes.
For these reasons, internet access deserves public attention as essential infrastructure, but effective policy must include skills, affordable devices and practical alternatives rather than simply counting connected households.
追質問7問｜カードA
Q1. Should every citizen receive internet service free of charge?
Answer: Not necessarily. Targeted subsidies or public access points may be more efficient than providing unlimited free service to every household.
日本語解説：一律無料と最低限のアクセスを区別。
Q2. Can schools solve digital inequality alone?
Answer: They can provide devices and guidance, but household connectivity and public infrastructure also matter.
日本語解説：学校支援だけで生活環境の差は消えない。
Q3. What about people who prefer paper applications?
Answer: Essential services should retain practical alternatives. Digital efficiency should not become a barrier to legitimate applicants.
日本語解説：オンライン以外の導線。
Q4. Would public internet investment distort competition?
Answer: It might if designed poorly. Transparent procurement and support focused on underserved areas can limit that risk.
日本語解説：市場との補完。
Q5. How should success be measured?
Answer: By service reliability, affordability and residents’ ability to complete essential tasks, not simply by the number of connections installed.
日本語解説：結果指標を重視。
Q6. Should digital literacy be taught to older adults?
Answer: Voluntary training can help, but it should respect different learning speeds and should not eliminate non-digital services.
日本語解説：学習機会と選択の自由。
Q7. Is security more important than convenience?
Answer: Both matter. Secure systems with understandable procedures can protect users without making services unnecessarily difficult.
日本語解説：安全と利便の設計。
独自TOPICカードB｜都市住宅と短期滞在型賃貸
次の5題から1題を選びます。下の模範スピーチは1番のTOPICに対する解答例です。
- 1. Should cities place stricter limits on short-term holiday rentals?
- 2. Can tourism and residents’ housing needs be balanced?
- 3. Should empty urban homes face higher property taxes?
- 4. Do rent controls improve access to housing?
- 5. Should cities convert underused office buildings into apartments?
立場の日本語メモ：短期滞在型賃貸は住宅供給を圧迫する地域で規制を検討するが、観光効果と所有者の権利も評価。
模範スピーチ（約210語）
Cities should consider limits on short-term holiday rentals in neighborhoods where residents face serious housing shortages. However, rules should be based on local evidence rather than an assumption that every rental harms the community.
First, converting ordinary homes into visitor accommodation may reduce the supply available to long-term residents. In places with limited housing, that change can contribute to pressure on rents. The scale of the effect depends on how many properties are affected and what alternative accommodation exists.
Second, clear rules can protect neighborhood life. Frequent turnover may create problems involving noise, waste and building security. Licensing requirements and enforceable responsibilities can help address these issues without necessarily prohibiting all visitor stays.
Third, transparent regulation gives businesses and property owners more predictable conditions. A city can distinguish an owner occasionally renting a spare room from a company operating many dedicated apartments. Treating these cases identically may be neither fair nor effective.
Critics argue that restrictions could reduce tourism income and limit homeowners’ freedom. Those concerns deserve attention. Local authorities should compare housing availability, neighborhood complaints and visitor spending before setting thresholds.
Overall, carefully targeted regulation is preferable to either a total ban or unlimited expansion. The objective is to protect long-term housing access while retaining beneficial forms of tourism.
追質問7問｜カードB
Q8. Would a complete ban be simpler?
Answer: It might be simpler to explain, but could eliminate useful accommodation without addressing every source of housing pressure.
日本語解説：全面禁止の副作用。
Q9. How can cities identify harmful concentrations?
Answer: They can combine licensing data, housing supply, rental prices and local complaints, while accounting for broader market changes.
日本語解説：複数データで判断。
Q10. Should homeowners be allowed to rent a spare room?
Answer: That may merit different treatment from operating multiple dedicated tourist apartments.
日本語解説：規模による区別。
Q11. Could regulations reduce local jobs?
Answer: Possibly. Tourism jobs should be included in the impact assessment alongside residents’ housing needs.
日本語解説：就業への影響も考慮。
Q12. Are higher rents always caused by short-term rentals?
Answer: No. Construction, migration and economic conditions also affect rents. Causal claims require comparison rather than assumption.
日本語解説：因果の過大断定を避ける。
Q13. How should penalties work?
Answer: They should be proportionate and transparent, with reasonable opportunities for operators to correct violations.
日本語解説：比例性と手続保障。
Q14. What is the ultimate policy goal?
Answer: To maintain access to long-term housing and manageable neighborhood conditions, not merely to minimize rental listings.
日本語解説：手段と目的を区別。
独自TOPICカードC｜水産業・持続可能性表示・消費者の理解
次の5題から1題を選びます。下の模範スピーチは1番のTOPICに対する解答例です。
- 1. Should seafood products carry clearer sustainability labels?
- 2. Do consumers have a duty to consider environmental costs when buying food?
- 3. Should governments restrict certain fishing methods?
- 4. Can marine protected areas balance conservation and livelihoods?
- 5. Should seafood importers disclose more supply-chain information?
立場の日本語メモ：水産物の環境表示は支持。ただし単純な優劣スコアではなく検証可能な基準と例外が必要。
模範スピーチ（約207語）
Seafood products should carry clearer information about environmental sustainability, but labels must be based on credible evidence rather than attractive symbols. I support carefully designed disclosure for three reasons.
First, consumers often cannot observe how fish were caught or whether relevant rules were followed. Comparable information can make purchasing choices more informed and may encourage suppliers to improve practices. However, a label should explain its scope rather than imply that one product is environmentally perfect.
Second, clear standards can improve accountability across supply chains. If fishing methods, origin and verification procedures are documented, companies have stronger reasons to examine misleading claims. Independent checks are especially important when businesses benefit commercially from positive labels.
Third, better information can support public discussion. Sustainability involves different concerns, including habitat effects, stock conditions and workers’ livelihoods. A useful label can direct people to details rather than hide complex trade-offs behind a single unexplained number.
Critics point out that certification costs may disadvantage small fishing operations. This is a genuine concern. Regulators and industry groups should consider affordable assessment methods and avoid unnecessary paperwork while preserving meaningful oversight.
In conclusion, trustworthy seafood labeling can strengthen consumer choice and responsible production, but its credibility depends on transparent criteria, independent review and fair implementation.
追質問7問｜カードC
Q15. Can one label capture every ecological impact?
Answer: No. It should identify the dimensions assessed and link to more detailed information where possible.
日本語解説：指標の範囲を明示。
Q16. Who should verify sustainability claims?
Answer: Independent assessors can complement public oversight, while conflicts of interest need transparent management.
日本語解説：第三者検証。
Q17. Would labels disadvantage small fishers?
Answer: Certification costs might. Shared verification schemes or proportional requirements could help.
日本語解説：中小の固定費負担。
Q18. Should governments ban all unsustainable products?
Answer: Some serious harms may justify restrictions, but policies should consider evidence, enforcement and livelihoods.
日本語解説：禁止は証拠と社会影響で判断。
Q19. Do consumers actually read labels?
Answer: Some do and others may not. Understanding and behavior should be measured rather than assumed.
日本語解説：理解度・行動の実測。
Q20. Can imported seafood be evaluated fairly?
Answer: Yes if standards are transparent and account for verifiable conditions rather than favoring origin alone.
日本語解説：産地だけで区別しない。
Q21. Why include workers’ livelihoods?
Answer: Environmental protection should consider how transitions affect people whose income depends on fishing.
日本語解説：保全と生計の両立。
独自TOPICカードD｜学校教育とメディアリテラシー
次の5題から1題を選びます。下の模範スピーチは1番のTOPICに対する解答例です。
- 1. Should media literacy be a compulsory school subject?
- 2. Are schools doing enough to teach students how to evaluate evidence?
- 3. Should children be taught to identify misleading online statistics?
- 4. Do social media platforms have a responsibility to explain recommendation systems?
- 5. Should schools teach students to check the reliability of AI-generated information?
立場の日本語メモ：メディアリテラシーは必修の教育要素にすべきだが、独立科目だけでなく全科目に組み込む方法もある。
模範スピーチ（約213語）
Media literacy should be a compulsory part of school education, although it need not always be taught as a separate subject. Students need practical methods for evaluating information in an environment where persuasive claims can spread rapidly.
First, understanding evidence is important for citizenship. A headline may describe an increase in reported incidents without explaining that the reporting system changed. Students who can distinguish raw counts from meaningful comparisons are better prepared to assess public arguments.
Second, media literacy supports independent learning. Online tools can offer useful explanations, but students should know how to check authorship, dates, sources and the difference between fact and interpretation. The goal is not to reject digital information automatically, but to use it responsibly.
Third, the subject encourages constructive disagreement. Students can learn to examine competing claims, explain uncertainty and revise their positions when better evidence appears. These abilities matter across science, history and language classes.
Critics worry that a compulsory course could add pressure to an already crowded curriculum or allow political bias. Such concerns require careful design. Teachers should use transparent evaluation criteria and examples drawn from multiple perspectives, while focusing on methods rather than prescribed opinions.
Overall, schools should ensure that every student develops the ability to evaluate claims, recognize uncertainty and communicate evidence responsibly.
追質問7問｜カードD
Q22. Could media literacy become politically biased?
Answer: Yes if teachers prescribe approved views rather than teach evidence evaluation. Transparent methods and diverse examples are important.
日本語解説：政治的意見の誘導を避ける。
Q23. Is fact-checking enough?
Answer: No. Students also need to understand uncertainty, incentives, selection bias and the difference between correlation and causation.
日本語解説：因果・選択バイアスにも対応。
Q24. Should it replace traditional reading lessons?
Answer: Not entirely. Close reading and media literacy can reinforce each other.
日本語解説：読解力との補完。
Q25. How can schools assess these skills?
Answer: Ask students to compare sources, justify conclusions and identify what further evidence is needed.
日本語解説：思考手順を評価。
Q26. Can artificial intelligence help?
Answer: It can provide practice materials, but its outputs should also be checked against reliable sources.
日本語解説：AI自身も検証対象。
Q27. Should parents be involved?
Answer: Optional resources for families can help students apply the skills outside school without shifting all responsibility to parents.
日本語解説：家庭との連携。
Q28. What is the greatest long-term benefit?
Answer: The ability to update one’s beliefs when evidence changes, rather than following the most confident voice.
日本語解説：自律的な判断。
独自TOPICカードE｜宇宙探査と公費の配分
次の5題から1題を選びます。下の模範スピーチは1番のTOPICに対する解答例です。
- 1. Should governments continue funding space exploration?
- 2. Is scientific research valuable even without immediate commercial applications?
- 3. Should private companies lead future space missions?
- 4. Do international partnerships improve scientific discovery?
- 5. Should space agencies spend more on monitoring near-Earth objects?
立場の日本語メモ：宇宙探査の公的支援は維持すべきだが、優先順位と成果・安全の説明責任が必要。
模範スピーチ（約208語）
Governments should continue funding space exploration, but public investment should be guided by clear scientific goals and careful evaluation. Space programs are expensive, so their benefits must be considered alongside other priorities.
First, exploration can advance basic knowledge. Research into planets, materials and distant environments may reveal findings that are not immediately profitable. A narrow focus on short-term commercial returns could discourage work whose value becomes apparent only later.
Second, space projects may support useful technical capabilities. Advanced sensors, communication methods and engineering systems can have applications beyond a single mission. However, governments should not exaggerate these benefits or claim that every expensive project will produce valuable technology.
Third, international cooperation can distribute costs and bring together specialized expertise. Shared instruments and transparent research data may allow scientists from different countries to examine findings, challenge interpretations and improve future missions.
Critics correctly note that urgent problems on Earth also require public funding. That concern should shape budgeting rather than automatically eliminate exploration. Agencies should publish realistic costs, explain their objectives and allow independent scrutiny of outcomes.
In conclusion, public space research deserves continued support when programs offer credible scientific value, responsible spending and opportunities for cooperation. Exploration should be pursued with curiosity and accountability rather than prestige alone.
追質問7問｜カードE
Q29. Why fund projects without immediate profits?
Answer: Basic research can generate knowledge with long-term value, though public funding still requires credible objectives.
日本語解説：基礎研究の選択価値。
Q30. Should Earth-based problems always come first?
Answer: Urgent needs matter, but governments can balance multiple priorities. The question is not necessarily all or nothing.
日本語解説：予算配分を二項対立にしない。
Q31. Can private firms replace governments?
Answer: They can contribute innovation, but some basic research has uncertain returns that markets may underfund.
日本語解説：市場と公共の役割分担。
Q32. What risks should be monitored?
Answer: Safety, debris, environmental impacts and cost overruns all deserve scrutiny.
日本語解説：安全・外部性・費用。
Q33. How should success be measured?
Answer: By scientific results, transparent data and credible project management, not simply the number of launches.
日本語解説：回数と成果の違い。
Q34. Does competition between countries help?
Answer: It may stimulate investment, but excessive prestige competition can waste resources. Cooperation has advantages.
日本語解説：競争と協調。
Q35. What would justify canceling a mission?
Answer: Persistent safety problems, unjustified costs or an inability to meet meaningful goals could warrant reconsideration.
日本語解説：撤退基準を提示。
答えに詰まったときの英語表現
- I would support that policy, provided that its costs and side effects are independently reviewed.
- I do not have reliable figures on that point, so I would avoid a definite numerical claim.
- That is a valid concern, but it does not necessarily undermine the broader principle.
- Let me clarify the distinction between the intended benefit and the actual evidence.
- In conclusion, the policy should be judged by practical outcomes rather than publicity alone.
自分で確認する5項目
- 問いへの直接的な賛否・立場が明確か。
- 異なる根拠が論理的につながっているか。
- 反論や例外条件を公平に扱っているか。
- 語彙・文法・発音が理解を妨げないか。
- 1分の考慮と2分のスピーチを実際の時計で練習したか。
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つのトピックから1つを選びます。この教材は独自5題カードを5組用意しました。
スピーチは2分間で何語話せばよいですか？
固定の語数を保証することはできません。普段の話速で時計を使い練習し、論旨を伝えられる長さに調整してください。
反対意見を聞かれたら賛否を変えますか？
必ずしも変える必要はありません。例外を認めたうえで立場を明確にし、理由を説明できます。
次の無料教材
参考公式情報
本記事のトピック・英文スピーチ・追質問・回答例は慶英会独自の非公式教材であり、英検の公式出題や合格を保証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