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・模擬第20集の無料教材です。慶英会が制作した独自トピックカード5枚×5テーマ＝25題、2分スピーチの模範5本、追質問15問と追加20問・計35問の全模範回答と日本語解説を掲載します。海洋資源・公衆衛生・歴史建築・研究公開・交通決済を題材に、根拠のある考えを説明する練習をします。公式過去問ではありません。
英検1級二次試験は英語面接で、5題から1題を選ぶ1分間の考慮時間、2分間のスピーチと質疑応答があります。英検協会の公式1級試験形式を参照しました。スピーチの理由3つは本教材の練習モデルであり、公式の必須個数ではありません。
1分間で準備する思考の順番
- 5つのTOPICの中から、実証可能な理由を説明しやすい1つを選ぶ。
- 自分の立場→2〜3の異なる理由→反論と条件→結論を頭の中で組み立てる。
- 根拠のない統計を創作せず、likely、may、under certain conditionsの使い分けを意識。
- 質疑応答では質問の種類に直接答え、理由や実施条件を続ける。
模擬カード1｜海洋資源と深海の保全
以下の独自5トピックから1題を選び、メモなしで1分準備して2分間スピーチを行ってください。
- 1. Should governments restrict commercial extraction from the deep ocean?
- 2. Should international organizations regulate activities in international waters?
- 3. Can technological innovation protect marine ecosystems?
- 4. Should governments prioritize marine research over immediate resource extraction?
- 5. Should companies disclose uncertainty about environmental impacts?
模範スピーチ1（216語）｜Should governments restrict commercial extraction from the deep ocean?
Governments should approach commercial extraction from the deep ocean cautiously, because potential economic benefits must be weighed against uncertain environmental consequences.
First, deep-sea ecosystems remain difficult to observe. Researchers may not know how quickly certain habitats recover when disturbed. Beginning large operations before understanding these conditions could create effects that are costly or impossible to reverse. Independent scientific assessments are therefore essential.
Second, resources found in international waters raise questions about responsibility. If commercial activity affects ecosystems shared by many countries, a single operator should not determine the acceptable level of risk. Governments need clear international standards and transparent procedures for monitoring and enforcement.
Third, a cautious approach can encourage the development of alternatives. Recovering materials from used products, improving resource efficiency, and researching less damaging technologies may reduce some pressure for new extraction. However, these alternatives also have costs and limitations, so they should be evaluated realistically.
Critics argue that mineral demand may increase as technology develops, making additional sources valuable. This is a reasonable concern. Yet the existence of economic demand does not automatically establish that a particular project is environmentally or financially justified.
Overall, authorities should support rigorous research and workable international rules before approving activities whose risks are poorly understood. Responsible resource policy must consider long-term consequences, not merely immediate commercial opportunities.
日本語の論理構成：深海資源の商業採取は慎重に扱う。理由①深海生態系の回復が不確実、②国際水域の責任と共同規則、③回収・効率化など代替策の研究。反論：鉱物需要と産業発展。対応：経済需要を認めつつ独立調査・国際基準を条件とする。
カード1の追質問3問と模範回答
Q1. Would a complete ban on research be appropriate?
A1. No. Scientific investigation can improve understanding. The question is how to manage potentially harmful commercial activity. — 科学的調査と商業採取の違い。
Q2. Who should monitor operations outside national waters?
A2. International cooperation and independent oversight are important because risks can cross national boundaries. — 国境を越える環境の管理。
Q3. Can recycling eliminate all demand for new materials?
A3. Not necessarily. Recycling has limitations, but it can be assessed alongside other resource strategies. — 代替策の過大評価を避ける。
模擬カード2｜薬剤への耐性と公衆衛生の情報教育
以下の独自5トピックから1題を選び、メモなしで1分準備して2分間スピーチを行ってください。
- 1. Should schools teach more about responsible use of antibiotics?
- 2. Should governments fund research into antimicrobial resistance?
- 3. Should public-health campaigns distinguish evidence from misinformation?
- 4. Can international cooperation improve the monitoring of resistant infections?
- 5. Should medical education emphasize explaining uncertainty to patients?
模範スピーチ2（219語）｜Should schools teach more about responsible use of antibiotics?
Public education about responsible antibiotic use should receive more attention, while individual medical decisions must remain guided by qualified professionals.
First, misunderstandings can affect how people respond to illness. Some may assume that antibiotics are useful for every infection, even though these medicines do not treat viral illnesses. Clear explanations can help patients ask informed questions and follow appropriate professional guidance. Public campaigns should avoid implying that individuals should diagnose or treat themselves.
Second, reliable communication can support responsible public-health policy. People encounter conflicting claims through advertisements and social media. Governments and educators should identify trustworthy sources, explain uncertainty, and correct misleading information without exaggerating what a single study proves.
Third, resistance is an issue that benefits from research and international cooperation. Monitoring patterns and sharing appropriately protected information can help health institutions understand developing problems. However, more reported cases do not automatically establish that conditions are worsening; changes in testing and reporting can also affect the figures.
Critics argue that schools already have limited teaching time. This concern is legitimate. Focused lessons about evidence, healthcare communication, and following prescribed treatment could be incorporated into existing science education.
In conclusion, better public understanding can complement clinical expertise and research. The aim should be accurate, practical knowledge and appropriate medical consultation, not simplistic rules or unsupported guarantees about health outcomes.
日本語の論理構成：抗菌薬の正しい理解を教えるべきだが診療判断は専門家に委ねる。理由①ウイルス感染への誤用などの誤解防止、②公的情報とSNS情報の検証、③研究・国際的な監視。反論：学校の時間不足。既存の理科に具体例を組み込み、自分で薬を選ぶ指導と誤認させない。
カード2の追質問3問と模範回答
Q4. Should people decide on antibiotic treatment using online posts alone?
A4. No. Treatment choices require appropriate medical assessment and professional advice. — 医療判断と一般知識を区別。
Q5. Could higher case counts reflect changes in testing?
A5. Yes. Reporting practices can affect trends, so comparable evidence is needed. — 報告数と実際の状況を区別。
Q6. How can schools teach this without giving medical advice?
A6. Teachers can explain evidence and encourage students to consult qualified healthcare professionals. — 教育内容の範囲を明確にする。
慶英会 塾長｜慶應義塾大学卒・英検1級
塾長の経歴・指導方針
中高一貫校の英語・定期テスト・英検の学習状況を整理し、必要な復習の優先順位を考えたい方は、無料体験・学習相談のご案内をご確認ください。最大1か月完全無料体験の対象・回数・担当講師は、お申し込み時にご案内します。
友だち追加後、学年・教材・困っていることと「学習相談希望（ブログ・記事中盤）」をお送りください。LINEを開くだけでは受付は完了しません。LINEを利用できない方はメールでの学習相談も可能です。料金・無料体験の期間と条件はコース・料金・無料体験のご案内でご確認ください。
模擬カード3｜歴史的な建物の保存と現代の暮らし
以下の独自5トピックから1題を選び、メモなしで1分準備して2分間スピーチを行ってください。
- 1. Should cities spend public money preserving historic buildings?
- 2. Can renovating old buildings be preferable to new construction?
- 3. Should accessibility requirements apply to heritage sites?
- 4. Should local communities influence decisions about historical preservation?
- 5. Should governments publish full lifecycle costs of heritage projects?
模範スピーチ3（217語）｜Should cities spend public money preserving historic buildings?
Cities should preserve selected historic buildings when their cultural value can be protected alongside safety, accessibility, and responsible spending.
First, older buildings can help communities understand their history. Architecture, materials, and records may reveal how people worked and lived in earlier periods. Carefully maintained sites can support education and contribute to local identity. However, historical significance should be documented rather than assumed from a building’s age alone.
Second, adaptation may offer practical benefits. Some unused buildings could become learning spaces, libraries, or community facilities. Reuse might avoid certain new construction costs, but unexpected structural repairs and continuing maintenance can make individual projects expensive. Authorities should compare realistic alternatives instead of relying only on initial estimates.
Third, preservation should be inclusive. A restored site has limited public value if residents with mobility difficulties cannot enter or use it safely. Planning should address access, emergency procedures, and the needs of different users while respecting important historical features.
Critics argue that restoration can divert money from essential services. This objection deserves careful consideration. Governments should prioritize projects with credible educational or community benefits and publish their full expected costs.
In conclusion, preservation should not mean keeping every old building unchanged. The most responsible approach is selective, evidence-based conservation that allows historical assets to remain useful and accessible to contemporary communities.
日本語の論理構成：歴史的建物は文化的価値と安全・利用可能性・費用が成立するものを選択して保存。理由①地域の歴史教育、②建物の転用による活用可能性、③移動に困難がある人のアクセス。反論：公共予算を圧迫すること。対応：正確な文化的評価と全費用の公開。
カード3の追質問3問と模範回答
Q7. Should every old building be preserved permanently?
A7. No. Decisions should consider documented significance, safety, future use, and realistic costs. — 築年数だけで結論を出さない。
Q8. Can renovation always cost less than replacement?
A8. No. Hidden repairs and long-term maintenance can change the comparison. — ライフサイクル費用。
Q9. How should accessibility be addressed at historic sites?
A9. Planners should seek practical access solutions while respecting significant features and safety requirements. — 保存と利用の両立。
模擬カード4｜学術出版のオープンアクセスと研究者の責任
以下の独自5トピックから1題を選び、メモなしで1分準備して2分間スピーチを行ってください。
- 1. Should publicly funded research be freely accessible online?
- 2. Should universities encourage publication of unsuccessful experiments?
- 3. Can open peer review improve the reliability of research?
- 4. Should academic publishers explain editorial decisions more clearly?
- 5. Should research institutions prioritize quality over publication counts?
模範スピーチ4（217語）｜Should publicly funded research be freely accessible online?
Research funded by the public should generally be accessible, provided that publication protects legitimate rights and does not weaken scientific quality.
First, wider access can support education and independent examination. Students and researchers at institutions with limited library budgets may benefit from reading work they otherwise cannot obtain easily. Publishing methods and clear explanations can also help specialists understand how conclusions were reached.
Second, openness can encourage better research practices. Sharing appropriately prepared results, including unsuccessful attempts, may allow other teams to question assumptions and avoid repeating unproductive approaches. Nevertheless, public availability does not mean that every conclusion is correct. Sampling methods, reproducibility, and interpretation still require careful scrutiny.
Third, transparency can improve public accountability. When studies are used to support policy, readers should understand their limitations and whether authors have relevant conflicts of interest. Universities should reward credible work rather than treat publication totals as a direct measure of research quality.
Critics note that publishing and maintaining open resources involves costs, while some data contain confidential personal information. These are genuine concerns. Institutions can use suitable funding arrangements and controlled access for sensitive records.
In conclusion, open research is valuable when paired with rigorous methods, appropriate privacy safeguards, and clear communication of uncertainty. The goal is trustworthy knowledge, not simply more files uploaded to the internet.
日本語の論理構成：公的研究は原則としてアクセス可能にすべきだが、研究の品質と権利保護を条件とする。理由①予算の限られた学校でも学べる、②失敗を含む知見の再検証、③政策利用の透明性。反論：出版費用と個人情報。管理付き公開を使い分ける。出版数だけで質を評価しない。
カード4の追質問3問と模範回答
Q10. Does an openly accessible study automatically become reliable?
A10. No. Openness helps scrutiny, but methods, evidence, and interpretation still need careful evaluation. — 公開と正確性は別。
Q11. Can personal research data always be published after names are removed?
A11. Not always. Some details can permit re-identification, so suitable access controls may be needed. — 匿名化の限界。
Q12. Why publish unsuccessful studies?
A12. Reliable accounts of negative outcomes can help others understand limits and refine methods. — 否定的結果の価値。
模擬カード5｜デジタル決済と公共交通の包摂性
以下の独自5トピックから1題を選び、メモなしで1分準備して2分間スピーチを行ってください。
- 1. Should public transportation always retain cash payment options?
- 2. Can contactless tickets improve public-service accessibility?
- 3. Should transit agencies limit the collection of travel-history data?
- 4. Should public transport be evaluated by completed journeys rather than payment speed?
- 5. Should governments support passengers who find digital services difficult?
模範スピーチ5（207語）｜Should public transportation always retain cash payment options?
Transport agencies should modernize ticketing while keeping practical alternatives for passengers who cannot use digital payment systems easily.
First, contactless payment can simplify everyday journeys. Travelers may no longer need to buy separate tickets before each trip, and operators may reduce some administrative work. However, faster transactions do not prove that a service has become accessible to every passenger.
Second, public transportation serves people with different resources and abilities. Some residents lack suitable devices, while others rely on cash or require personal assistance. Eliminating all alternatives too quickly could prevent people from reaching work, medical care, or essential services. Agencies should evaluate unmet travel needs rather than assume digital adoption is universal.
Third, digital systems create responsibilities involving privacy. Detailed payment and journey records may reveal patterns of people’s lives. Transport authorities should collect only necessary information, explain its use, and implement appropriate safeguards.
Critics argue that operating several payment channels can be expensive. This is a reasonable concern. Agencies should compare overall costs and consider targeted assistance, rather than maintaining every legacy system without review.
In conclusion, digital tickets can improve transport when they are introduced responsibly. The standard of success should be reliable journeys and meaningful access, not simply the percentage of payments processed electronically.
日本語の論理構成：電子決済を普及させながら実際に使える代替手段を残す。理由①運賃決済の効率、②端末・現金・障害など利用条件の差、③移動履歴のプライバシー。反論：複数方式の維持費。対応：費用と未達成の移動需要を検討し段階的に判断。
カード5の追質問3問と模範回答
Q13. Would digital ticket sales prove more people completed journeys?
A13. No. Payment counts and practical access must be evaluated separately. — 取引数と利用完了。
Q14. How should transit agencies handle travel histories?
A14. Collect only appropriate data, restrict access, and explain retention policies. — データ最小化。
Q15. Should cash always be kept under all conditions forever?
A15. Decisions should depend on whether workable alternatives meet real needs at reasonable costs. — 一律・恒久的な断定を避ける。
追加の追質問20問｜Q16〜Q35
模範回答を読む前に2〜3文で直接答え、根拠と条件が一貫しているか確認してください。
Q16. Could commercial demand justify every deep-sea project?
Q17. Why is international cooperation useful in marine regulation?
Q18. Can recycling immediately replace all raw material extraction?
Q19. Would more scientific surveys automatically prove extraction safe?
Q20. Should a school teach students to prescribe medicine?
Q21. Could case counts increase because testing improved?
Q22. Should public campaigns acknowledge uncertainty?
Q23. Can a short lesson provide useful health literacy?
Q24. Should a historically important building remain inaccessible?
Q25. Could initial restoration estimates underestimate costs?
Q26. How can preservation projects be evaluated?
Q27. Would more visitors prove that a restored site is educationally successful?
Q28. Does free online research always mean high-quality research?
Q29. Should failed experiments always be hidden?
Q30. Can all research data be made public without restriction?
Q31. Would publication counts alone justify university funding?
Q32. Does faster payment prove transport is more inclusive?
Q33. Should travel data always be stored indefinitely?
Q34. What if cash payment becomes too costly?
Q35. Can digital-only policies disadvantage some residents?
追加20問の英文回答・日本語解説
A16. No. Demand should be weighed against uncertainty, safeguards, and alternative sources. — 需要と正当化は別。
A17. Environmental impacts can cross national boundaries, making compatible standards important. — 国際的な影響。
A18. Not necessarily. It has technical and economic limits that require evaluation. — 代替案の限界。
A19. No. Their methods, coverage, and findings need independent scrutiny. — 調査数と安全性の違い。
A20. No. It should explain general scientific evidence and the role of qualified professionals. — 医療判断の範囲。
A21. Yes. Changes in testing can affect reported totals without equivalent underlying change. — 検査数と傾向。
A22. Yes. Clear limitations support informed understanding and avoid exaggerated claims. — 科学的な留保。
A23. It can help with basic concepts, while individual clinical decisions still require professionals. — 短時間教育の可能性。
A24. Not as a default. Preservation should consider practical access and safety. — 建築保存と包摂。
A25. Yes. Hidden structural repairs and continuing maintenance can alter costs. — 見積もりの不確実性。
A26. Through documented significance, meaningful use, safety, accessibility, and lifecycle costs. — 複数の評価項目。
A27. No. Visitor numbers and actual learning require different measures. — 来訪数と教育効果。
A28. No. Independent examination of methods and evidence remains necessary. — アクセスと品質。
A29. No. Well-documented negative findings can help avoid repeated errors. — 失敗の価値。
A30. No. Confidential and personal information may require controlled access. — 権利保護。
A31. No. Research quality and meaningful contributions should also be evaluated. — 件数の限界。
A32. No. Travelers need usable payment alternatives and accessible journeys. — 速度とアクセス。
A33. No. Retention should reflect legitimate needs and appropriate safeguards. — 保存期間の設計。
A34. Authorities should compare costs with the needs of passengers lacking workable alternatives. — コストと利用できない人。
A35. Yes. Disability, device access, and financial circumstances can create barriers. — 参加格差。
自己評価のポイント
- 立場が明確か。Should / Why / Howの問いに直接答えたか。
- それぞれの理由は異なる軸で、結論を支えるか。
- 科学・技術・行政の話題で未確認の効果を断定していないか。
- 反論の合理性を認めたうえで安全・費用・公平性の条件を説明したか。
- 2分間で文のまとまりと発音を整え、追質問にも柔軟に答えたか。
7日間の模擬面接
- 1日目：カード1を選び1分準備・2分スピーチを録音。
- 2日目：カード2に別の立場で答える。
- 3日目：カード3を選び、追質問15問のうち最初の半分を回答。
- 4日目：カード4を選び残りのカード別Q&Aを確認。
- 5日目：カード5を選び追加Q&Aの前半10問を即答。
- 6日目：追加の後半10問を即答し語彙・文法・論理を修正。
- 7日目：まだ使っていないTOPICで最初から再実施。
FAQ
模範スピーチをそのまま暗記する必要はありますか？
いいえ。初見のテーマと追質問に対応するには、自分で根拠と条件を組み立てることが重要です。模範答案は構成の学習に活用してください。
英検1級のスピーチでは理由が必ず3つ必要ですか？
理由3つは本教材の練習上の推奨であり、協会が二次試験の必須個数を指定しているという意味ではありません。2分間で一貫して話すことを優先してください。
関連する英検1級無料教材
新作・続編の無料教材：二次面接第21集｜25トピック・模範5本・追質問35問。前回セットを復習した後、初見問題に取り組んで理解を深めてください。慶英会が独自制作した非公式教材です。
慶英会では英検1級二次面接の2分スピーチ、発音、追質問への対応を個別に確認します。最大1か月無料体験・学習相談はこちら。
試験形式は日本英語検定協会・英検1級を参照。カード、英語スピーチ、追質問・回答は慶英会独自の非公式教材です。
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