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・慶英会独自模擬第25集。 5枚の練習用トピックカード・独自25題、2分スピーチの模範5本と段落別日本語訳、さらに各カードの追質問7問・合計35問の英文模範回答と解説を掲載。デジタル本人確認、市民科学、老朽インフラ、食品廃棄、学際教育を題材に、未知の社会問題でも自分の論拠を組み立てる練習ができます。英検協会の公式過去問ではありません。
日本英語検定協会の公式1級二次試験は、5トピックから1題を選び、メモを取らず1分間準備し、2分スピーチの後にQ&Aを行います（1級公式試験内容／バーチャル二次試験）。この教材では5カード×5題の25トピックで繰り返し練習します。
次の二次面接模擬5カード：英検1級二次面接・模擬第26集｜独自25トピック・模範スピーチ5本・追質問35問。新しい社会問題の1分構成・2分スピーチを練習できます。
1分準備・2分スピーチの学習手順
- カードの5題から、立場を決めて根拠を説明できる1題を選ぶ。
- 理由2〜3点・想定される反論・結論をメモなしで考える。
- 模範を見る前に2分間話し、録音して結論・理由・例を確認する（録音は自宅練習のみ）。
- モデルは暗記せず、別の題へ主張と構成を応用する。
- 実際の面接では1分考慮・2分スピーチ・Q&Aの指示に従う。
トピックカード1｜デジタル本人確認と行政サービス
- 1. Should governments maintain non-digital methods of identification?
- 2. Can digital identity systems improve access to public services?
- 3. Should facial recognition be used for routine government applications?
- 4. Is convenience more important than privacy in public administration?
- 5. Should citizens be allowed to challenge automated identity decisions?
模範スピーチ1｜約218語
モデル対象：Should governments maintain non-digital methods of identification?
Governments should maintain practical alternatives to digital identity checks while improving the security and convenience of online services. Technology can simplify routine procedures, but it should not make essential public support inaccessible to people who cannot use a particular device.
First, citizens have different levels of digital access. Some people lack suitable phones, reliable connections, or the skills to complete complicated verification steps. Providing staffed assistance or a secure paper-based alternative can prevent administrative convenience from becoming exclusion.
Second, identity systems handle sensitive information. Clear limits on data collection, storage, and sharing are necessary to maintain trust. Individuals should also be able to correct inaccurate records through a meaningful review process rather than depend entirely on an automated decision.
Third, governments need to evaluate actual outcomes. A system that processes applications more quickly may still create problems if more applicants abandon the process or require repeated assistance. Officials should measure completion, errors, accessibility, and total operating costs instead of celebrating downloads alone.
Critics argue that maintaining several channels is expensive and slows modernization. This is a valid concern, so services should be designed proportionately and reviewed regularly. Nevertheless, efficiency cannot be the only objective when access to essential rights is involved. A secure, flexible system with human assistance would be more reliable than a single compulsory digital route.
段落別日本語訳
第1段落：政府はオンライン本人確認を改善しつつ非デジタル手段も維持すべき。便利さだけで必須サービスから人を排除してはならない。
第2段落：第1に端末・通信・技能の差があり、職員支援や安全な紙手続きを残す必要がある。
第3段落：第2に機微情報の収集・保存・共有を制限し、誤記を人間の審査で訂正できる仕組みが必要。
第4段落：第3に処理速度だけでなく完了率・エラー・アクセス・総費用を測るべき。
第5段落：複数の窓口の維持費は問題だが、権利へのアクセスが関わるなら効率だけを基準とできない。
トピックカード2｜市民参加型研究とデータ品質
- 1. Should citizen scientists play a greater role in environmental research?
- 2. Can public participation improve the quality of scientific evidence?
- 3. Should volunteers receive formal training before collecting research data?
- 4. Are observations from smartphones reliable enough for public policy?
- 5. Should governments pay volunteers who contribute to scientific projects?
模範スピーチ2｜約215語
モデル対象：Should citizen scientists play a greater role in environmental research?
Citizen scientists should play a greater role in environmental research, provided that their observations are collected and interpreted responsibly. Public participation can broaden the reach of research, but more reports do not automatically mean more reliable conclusions.
First, volunteers can notice changes in places professional researchers cannot monitor continuously. They may record seasonal events, local flooding, or unusual wildlife activity. These observations can help specialists decide where additional investigation is needed, especially when geographic coverage is limited.
Second, participation can improve scientific literacy. People who learn to record dates, locations, and uncertainties are better equipped to distinguish an observation from an explanation. Community projects can also encourage discussion about why independent verification and consistent methods matter.
Third, local involvement may improve the relevance of research questions. Residents often identify practical concerns that broad technical surveys overlook. Nevertheless, project organizers should avoid treating highly active volunteers as a representative sample of every community.
Critics point out that smartphones and untrained observers can produce inaccurate or duplicated reports. That objection is important. Researchers should provide accessible guidance, check unusual observations, and compare volunteer data with established instruments where possible. They should also protect personal location information. In conclusion, citizen participation is valuable as a partnership with professional research, not a substitute for quality control or careful interpretation.
段落別日本語訳
第1段落：市民研究への参加は地域の観測を広げるが、報告件数だけでは信頼性を証明しない。
第2段落：第1に専門家が常時監視できない場所の季節変化・洪水・野生動物の活動などを記録できる。
第3段落：第2に日時・場所・不確実性の記録を通じ科学的素養が育つ。
第4段落：第3に住民固有の課題を研究へ反映できる。ただし活発な参加者を全住民の代表にしない。
第5段落：誤記・重複・位置情報漏洩には手順説明、独立検証、既存機器との比較、プライバシー保護で対応する。
トピックカード3｜老朽インフラの改修と投資配分
- 1. Should cities repair existing public buildings before constructing new ones?
- 2. Can preventive maintenance reduce public spending in the long term?
- 3. Should government infrastructure decisions prioritize accessibility?
- 4. Is the lowest initial construction cost a reliable guide to value?
- 5. Should local residents help decide which facilities receive repairs?
模範スピーチ3｜約213語
モデル対象：Should cities repair existing public buildings before constructing new ones?
Cities should usually compare repair options with replacement before constructing new public facilities. The goal should be lasting safety, access, and value rather than an automatic preference for either old or new buildings.
First, repairing an existing facility can preserve materials and prevent unnecessary disruption. A library or community center may already be close to the people who depend on it. Moving the service could create transport difficulties even if a modern building is cheaper to operate.
Second, responsible maintenance can identify problems before they become severe. Regular inspections and timely repairs may reduce some emergency costs, although they cannot eliminate all failures. Engineers should evaluate structural condition and whether suitable replacement parts remain available.
Third, public authorities need to compare lifetime costs. A low construction price may hide maintenance, energy, staffing, and accessibility expenses. Independent review can help officials explain why a seemingly expensive repair is justified or why replacing a severely damaged building is the safer choice.
Critics argue that older buildings can be inefficient and difficult to adapt. That concern is valid. Cities should not preserve unsafe facilities merely out of nostalgia. Instead, they should publish clear criteria, consult users, and compare realistic alternatives before making irreversible investments. The best decision may differ between buildings because evidence and needs differ.
段落別日本語訳
第1段落：旧施設の修理・新築は先入観で選ばず安全・アクセス・長期価値で比較する。
第2段落：第1に修理は資源と地域への近さを維持し、遠方移転の不便を避けうる。
第3段落：第2に定期検査・早期修理で重大故障を減らしうるが、すべて防げるわけではない。
第4段落：第3に初期費用だけでなく保守・電力・人件費・アクセシビリティを含む生涯費用を比較する。
第5段落：老朽施設の非効率という批判は妥当であり、危険な建物を無理に保存せず透明な基準で判断する。
トピックカード4｜食品廃棄と流通の効率
- 1. Should governments provide incentives to reduce food waste?
- 2. Can clearer date labels help consumers make better decisions?
- 3. Should supermarkets donate more unsold food?
- 4. Is education more effective than regulation in reducing waste?
- 5. Should restaurants be required to report their food waste?
模範スピーチ4｜約209語
モデル対象：Should governments provide incentives to reduce food waste?
Governments should support practical measures to reduce avoidable food waste, but policies must protect food safety and be evaluated against their costs. Waste reduction is valuable when it improves how resources are used rather than simply producing attractive reporting figures.
First, better information can help households and businesses distinguish storage advice from safety warnings. Clear communication may prevent people from discarding usable products unnecessarily. However, no campaign should encourage the use of food that is unsafe to consume.
Second, businesses can improve purchasing and inventory decisions. Measuring waste relative to meals served or goods sold is often more informative than reporting total waste alone. A restaurant serving fewer customers may discard less food even if its practices have not improved.
Third, donation and redistribution systems can connect surplus supplies with organizations able to use them. These systems require reliable storage, transport, and coordination. The number of donations is not sufficient evidence of reduced waste if food later spoils or cannot be distributed safely.
Some critics worry that compliance rules impose a heavy burden on small firms. I agree that reporting should be proportionate and that simple guidance may sometimes work better than penalties. Overall, governments should combine clear information, practical incentives, and credible evaluation while keeping food safety central.
段落別日本語訳
第1段落：食品廃棄を減らす実務策は支援すべきだが、食品安全と費用対効果を重視する。
第2段落：第1に保管上の推奨と安全警告を区別し、使える食品を不必要に捨てるのを防ぐ。ただし危険な食品の利用を促さない。
第3段落：第2に仕入れ・在庫管理を改善し、総量だけでなく食数当たりの廃棄を評価する。
第4段落：第3に余剰品の寄付は保管・輸送・調整が必要で、寄付件数だけでは廃棄削減を保証しない。
第5段落：中小企業の報告負担には比例的な規則と実用的な助言で対応する。
トピックカード5｜大学の学際教育と批判的思考
- 1. Should university students study subjects outside their major?
- 2. Can interdisciplinary education improve problem-solving?
- 3. Should universities make evidence evaluation compulsory?
- 4. Is specialized knowledge more important than broad academic literacy?
- 5. Should students be assessed on reasoning rather than memorization?
模範スピーチ5｜約213語
モデル対象：Should university students study subjects outside their major?
Universities should give students meaningful opportunities to study outside their main discipline, while preserving sufficient depth in their chosen field. Modern problems often involve technical, social, and ethical dimensions that no single subject can fully explain.
First, interdisciplinary learning can help students recognize assumptions they might otherwise overlook. An engineering student considering transport technology may benefit from studying accessibility and public policy. Similarly, students in social sciences can make better use of research when they understand basic measurement and uncertainty.
Second, it encourages clearer communication. Professionals often need to explain specialized findings to colleagues with different backgrounds. Learning to define terms, distinguish evidence from interpretation, and respond to questions can reduce misunderstandings and improve collaboration.
Third, broader education can make graduates more adaptable. Technologies and employment needs change, and the ability to learn unfamiliar concepts may remain useful long after a specific tool becomes outdated. However, flexibility does not mean that every student should take the same set of courses.
Critics argue that additional requirements would reduce time for advanced specialist training. This is a serious concern. Universities can offer short integrated projects or electives rather than impose a large compulsory curriculum. In conclusion, combining disciplinary depth with carefully chosen broader learning is more valuable than treating specialization and breadth as mutually exclusive.
段落別日本語訳
第1段落：大学は専攻の深さを保ちつつ他分野を学ぶ機会を設けるべき。現代の問題は技術・社会・倫理が結びつく。
第2段落：第1に工学とアクセス政策、社会科学と測定手法などの相互理解が前提の見落としを減らす。
第3段落：第2に異分野間で用語と証拠を明確に説明する力を伸ばす。
第4段落：第3に新技術や仕事の変化に適応しやすくなる。ただし全員同じ授業が必要ではない。
第5段落：専門学習時間の圧迫には短い統合課題や選択科目で対応し、専門性と幅広さを両立する。
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。
全35問｜二次面接の追質問と模範回答
カード1・追質問7問
Q1：Wouldn’t paper documents create more opportunities for fraud? 模範英文：They can create risks, so alternatives should include secure verification. The choice is not between perfect digital security and uncontrolled paper records. 説明：紙のリスクを認めて安全策へ。
Q2：Should digital identity be compulsory for everyone? 模範英文：Not for essential services unless accessible alternatives and adequate assistance are genuinely available. Formal availability is not the same as practical access. 説明：利用可能性と実際のアクセス。
Q3：Could automated checks reduce discrimination? 模範英文：They might reduce inconsistent human decisions, but biased records and inaccessible procedures can create other problems. Independent evaluation is needed. 説明：人間の偏りと機械の偏りを対比。
Q4：How would you measure success? 模範英文：I would examine completed applications, error rates, waiting times, access for different groups, and the cost of providing assistance. 説明：利用者数以外のKPI。
Q5：What about the privacy of people using these services? 模範英文：Governments should collect only necessary information, protect it, and explain how citizens can correct or challenge inaccurate records. 説明：最小収集・訂正手順。
Q6：Would running several systems be wasteful? 模範英文：It may be expensive, but a modest alternative could prevent serious exclusion. Costs should be compared with the value of access. 説明：限界費用とアクセス価値。
Q7：How should appeals against automated decisions work? 模範英文：A qualified reviewer should examine the evidence and have authority to correct the outcome. An appeal should not be a purely symbolic step. 説明：実質的な再審査。
カード2・追質問7問
Q8：Can volunteers collect useful data without advanced degrees? 模範英文：Yes, for clearly defined tasks with training and verification. The suitability depends on the measurement and the consequences of errors. 説明：課題に応じた品質管理。
Q9：Do more reports necessarily mean more environmental damage? 模範英文：No. Better tools or recruitment can increase reporting even when underlying conditions have not changed. 説明：検出増と実害増を区別。
Q10：Should schools include citizen science projects? 模範英文：They can provide valuable practice if students learn about measurement limits, consent, and checking evidence rather than just submitting observations. 説明：教育成果の条件。
Q11：How should researchers address inaccurate reports? 模範英文：They should document corrections and explain verification procedures instead of silently removing inconvenient data. 説明：訂正の透明性。
Q12：Would payment undermine volunteer motivation? 模範英文：Not necessarily, but incentives could influence who participates and what gets reported. Any payment model should be evaluated for bias. 説明：報酬による標本バイアス。
Q13：Can citizen data inform regulations? 模範英文：It can identify concerns, but consequential rules should consider reliability, independent checks, and additional evidence. 説明：規制判断の証拠水準。
Q14：What if volunteers reveal sensitive animal locations? 模範英文：Access should be limited when disclosure could cause harm, while useful non-sensitive findings can still be shared. 説明：公開と安全を両立。
カード3・追質問7問
Q15：Would new construction always be more expensive? 模範英文：No. Severe structural problems may make repair more costly over the building’s lifetime. Engineers should compare realistic alternatives. 説明：新築・修理の費用は条件依存。
Q16：How would you measure accessibility? 模範英文：I would examine transport links, step-free routes, opening hours, and whether different user groups can actually reach the service. 説明：実利用の基準。
Q17：Should historic significance affect decisions? 模範英文：Yes, it can be a legitimate consideration, but safety and the costs of preservation should also be assessed. 説明：文化価値と安全を両立。
Q18：Can regular inspections prevent every failure? 模範英文：No. They can identify some risks earlier, but uncertainty remains and emergency planning is still necessary. 説明：予防の限界。
Q19：What is the biggest mistake in public budgeting? 模範英文：Focusing only on initial prices while ignoring maintenance, operation, and the consequences of failure. 説明：ライフサイクル費用。
Q20：Should local residents have the final vote? 模範英文：Their experiences are important, but technical safety assessments and legal responsibilities also matter. A transparent process should combine both. 説明：住民参加と専門判断の統合。
Q21：Is delaying a decision to collect evidence always wise? 模範英文：Not when an immediate safety threat exists. Temporary protective action may be necessary while longer-term options are evaluated. 説明：緊急性による例外。
カード4・追質問7問
Q22：Would food donation always reduce waste? 模範英文：Not always. Safe storage, transport, and actual use matter. Donation totals alone do not show how much food was ultimately consumed. 説明：寄付と消費を区別。
Q23：Should safety labels be removed to prevent unnecessary disposal? 模範英文：No. Consumers need clear safety information. The aim is to reduce confusion, not weaken protections. 説明：安全性の優先。
Q24：How can restaurants measure progress fairly? 模範英文：They can track waste per meal served and distinguish preparation waste from leftovers, alongside total amounts. 説明：分母を揃えた比較。
Q25：Would strict reporting rules hurt small businesses? 模範英文：They might, so requirements should be proportionate and supported by simple tools and training. 説明：規模に応じた規制。
Q26：Can technology solve the problem? 模範英文：Forecasting and inventory systems may help, but their benefits depend on accurate data and how businesses use the advice. 説明：技術万能論を避ける。
Q27：Should governments subsidize food redistribution? 模範英文：Possibly, where evidence shows safe and additional benefits that justify costs. Funding should be reviewed rather than guaranteed permanently. 説明：追加性と費用便益。
Q28：Is consumer education enough by itself? 模範英文：It can help, but business practices, infrastructure, and safety rules also influence outcomes. A combined approach is more realistic. 説明：複数要因を認める。
カード5・追質問7問
Q29：Could general education weaken expertise? 模範英文：It could if requirements were excessive. Courses should complement specialist study rather than replace essential advanced training. 説明：専門性とのバランス。
Q30：Why is evidence evaluation useful outside science? 模範英文：People in business, law, and education also interpret studies, surveys, and reports. Understanding limits helps them avoid exaggerated claims. 説明：分野横断の証拠活用。
Q31：Should every student take a coding course? 模範英文：Not necessarily. Digital literacy matters, but suitable skills differ by discipline and purpose. Institutions should explain their goals. 説明：一律化を避ける。
Q32：How can universities assess critical thinking? 模範英文：They can ask students to compare sources, justify conclusions, and revise arguments when evidence changes. 説明：観察できる評価課題。
Q33：Would a wider curriculum increase fees? 模範英文：It might, depending on staffing and design. Integrating projects into existing courses can reduce some additional costs. 説明：固定費と統合。
Q34：Is memorization completely useless? 模範英文：No. Foundational knowledge supports reasoning, but students also need to apply and question what they remember. 説明：知識と推論の補完。
Q35：How would you know an interdisciplinary course worked? 模範英文：I would assess students’ ability to apply ideas across contexts and explain limitations, rather than count registrations alone. 説明：履修数でなく転用力。
質問で答えに詰まった場合の表現
- Could you clarify whether you mean …?＝対象や条件を確認する。
- That is a valid concern, but …＝反論の合理的な部分を認める。
- I would distinguish between A and B.＝混同しやすい概念を分ける。
- I cannot give a reliable figure without further evidence.＝知らない統計を作らない。
- One practical example is …＝抽象的な理由を具体化する。
復習チェック
- 5カードそれぞれの初見テーマで賛成・反対と理由を即答できるか。
- 「多い」「必ず」「証明した」などの断定を根拠なく追加していないか。
- 追質問には結論→理由→条件の順で短く答えられるか。
- 話速よりも明確な論理・一貫した文法と発音を優先できているか。
- モデルのまま丸暗記せず、同じ論理を別テーマに応用できるか。
よくある質問
英検1級の面接は5トピックのうち1題ですか？
はい。公式二次試験はその場で示される5トピックから1題を選びます。本教材は5カード合計25題の独自練習です。
スピーチは何語必要ですか？
英検協会が語数を一律指定しているわけではありません。モデルの語数は約2分練習の参考であり、実際には発話速度と間の取り方に合わせて調整してください。
次に解く英検1級無料教材
初見のテーマで話すための個別学習相談は慶英会の最大1か月無料体験・お問い合わせからご確認ください。
参考にした主な公式情報
英語スピーチ・独自トピック・追質問・日本語訳は慶英会の創作です。公式過去問・採点基準を再現した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