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29集。 地域の独立報道、動物の移動経路、公共行政のオープンソース、食品廃棄の公表、医療研究の同意という5カード・25トピックを収録します。2分間スピーチ練習用の模範英文5本と段落別日本語訳、追質問35問の模範回答・日本語解説を公開し、初見の社会問題で根拠・反論・政策の条件まで答える力を育てます。
公式の1級二次試験ではトピックカードから1題を選び、考慮時間1分（メモ不可）、2分間のスピーチとその後のQ&Aを行います（日本英語検定協会｜1級試験内容）。本教材は非公式の独自演習で、スピーチの語数は公式指定ではなく約2分練習用の参考です。
1分間の準備で考えること
- 5題の中から、自分の結論と異なる理由2〜3点を説明できる1題を選ぶ。
- 公平性・安全・費用・説明責任など異なる観点から理由を整理する。
- 反論の妥当な点を認め、そのうえで条件や代案を示す。
- 実在の統計や法律名を知らないときは創作しない。
- 練習で録音した後、語彙・文法・内容の論理を振り返る。
トピックカード1｜地域の独立報道と公共的な情報
- 1. Should local governments help fund independent journalism?
- 2. Can public-interest reporting survive without advertising revenue?
- 3. Should local news organizations disclose potential conflicts of interest?
- 4. Is regional journalism more important than national news for communities?
- 5. Should schools teach students how to evaluate local news sources?
模範スピーチ1（204語）
模範対象：Should local governments help fund independent journalism?
Local governments may reasonably support public-interest journalism, but any funding must protect editorial independence. Reliable local reporting helps residents understand decisions that affect their neighborhoods, yet financial support could undermine trust if officials influence what journalists publish.
First, independent reporters can investigate matters that receive little national attention. Public spending, transport changes, and school policies may have substantial local consequences. Citizens need credible information about these issues rather than rely entirely on promotional statements from the authorities involved.
Second, careful reporting can improve public debate. Journalists who examine records, interview different groups, and correct mistakes help audiences distinguish documented facts from opinions. This is particularly valuable when social media spreads attractive but unverified claims.
Third, funding arrangements should be transparent. Support could be distributed through independently administered grants with published criteria and regular reviews. Editors must remain free to criticize public officials, and readers should know how the organization is financed.
Critics worry that government money could create dependence or favor certain viewpoints. That concern is valid. Funding should therefore be limited, independently supervised, and open to evaluation. A healthy information environment also benefits from private and community-supported outlets. The objective is not to establish a government newspaper, but to preserve meaningful independent scrutiny.
模範スピーチの段落別和訳
第1段落：行政が公共的な地域報道を支援することはありうるが、編集の独立性を守る必要がある。行政が内容を左右するなら信頼を損なう。
第2段落：第1に地域の予算・交通・学校政策など全国メディアが注目しにくい問題を調査できる。行政の広報だけでなく独立した情報が必要。
第3段落：第2に資料の確認、異なる立場の取材、訂正によって事実と意見を分け、未確認情報への対処に役立つ。
第4段落：第3に独立した助成審査・公開基準・定期評価で資金の透明性を確保する。行政への批判の自由も必要。
第5段落：行政資金への依存や特定の見解を優遇する恐れには限定助成と独立監督で対応する。政府新聞ではなく独立監視の維持が目的。
トピックカード2｜野生動物の移動経路と道路建設
- 1. Should highway projects be required to protect wildlife corridors?
- 2. Can transport development coexist with biodiversity conservation?
- 3. Should governments fund bridges and tunnels specifically for animals?
- 4. Is ecological monitoring necessary after major road construction?
- 5. Should local residents help choose wildlife protection measures?
模範スピーチ2（208語）
模範対象：Should highway projects be required to protect wildlife corridors?
Transport projects should evaluate their effects on wildlife movement and include suitable safeguards when evidence shows significant risks. Roads provide important access for people and businesses, but they may also divide habitats and expose animals to traffic.
First, maintaining wildlife movement can support ecological resilience. Some species need to move between feeding and breeding areas, and physical barriers may reduce their options. The appropriate response depends on local habitats rather than an assumption that every road causes identical problems.
Second, carefully designed crossings may protect both animals and drivers. Bridges, tunnels, or adjusted fencing can reduce some dangerous encounters, although each option requires maintenance and appropriate placement. Engineers and ecologists should compare alternatives using reliable data.
Third, evaluation should continue after construction. Installing a crossing does not prove that animals use it. Researchers need to monitor movement, collisions, and possible unintended effects while accounting for seasonal changes and differences between locations.
Critics point out that wildlife facilities can be expensive and could delay urgent transport improvements. That concern is legitimate. Safeguards should be proportionate to documented risks, and authorities should explain the expected benefits and costs. In conclusion, infrastructure planning should balance human mobility with ecosystem protection through evidence rather than treat the two goals as mutually exclusive.
模範スピーチの段落別和訳
第1段落：道路建設は人と企業の移動を助けるが生息地を分断する可能性もある。重要な影響が示される場合は適切な保護策を評価すべき。
第2段落：第1に動物が餌場と繁殖地を移動できることは生態系の回復力に関わる。ただし道路ごとに条件は違う。
第3段落：第2に動物用の橋・トンネル・柵は動物と運転者双方の安全に役立つ可能性があるが、適切な配置と保守が必要。
第4段落：第3に施設を設置した事実は利用の証明ではない。動物の移動、事故、季節差と副作用を工事後も測る。
第5段落：費用と交通改善の遅れは妥当な懸念なので、確認できたリスクに比例する措置と費用便益の比較で対応する。
トピックカード3｜公共行政のオープンソース利用
- 1. Should governments prefer open-source software for public services?
- 2. Can transparency about government software improve public trust?
- 3. Should public agencies avoid dependence on a single technology supplier?
- 4. Is cybersecurity more important than the cost of software licenses?
- 5. Should digital public services always have non-digital alternatives?
模範スピーチ3（205語）
模範対象：Should governments prefer open-source software for public services?
Governments should seriously evaluate open-source software when developing public services, but should not treat it as automatically cheaper or more secure than proprietary alternatives. The central goal should be reliable, accessible, and accountable public administration.
First, access to source code can enable independent technical scrutiny. Qualified reviewers may identify mistakes or security weaknesses and suggest improvements. However, the mere availability of code does not guarantee that anyone will maintain it or discover every problem.
Second, open standards can reduce dependence on a single supplier. Public agencies may find it easier to exchange data and adapt systems when interfaces and documentation are widely available. That flexibility is useful if contracts change or a provider stops supporting its product.
Third, procurement decisions should consider lifetime costs. Training, integration, cybersecurity, and maintenance may be substantial even when a software license is free. Officials should measure completed services, reliability, accessibility, and support expenses rather than focus only on the purchase price.
Critics warn that small agencies may lack technicians able to manage unfamiliar systems. This concern is reasonable. Governments can test projects gradually, collaborate on maintenance, and retain suitable commercial options where necessary. The best policy is transparent comparison, not a universal rule that every application must be open-source.
模範スピーチの段落別和訳
第1段落：政府はオープンソースを真剣に比較すべきだが、必ず安価・安全とは限らない。行政サービスの信頼性・利用可能性・説明責任が中心。
第2段落：第1にソースコードの公開は専門家による独立検証に役立つが、公開だけで保守や脆弱性発見を保証しない。
第3段落：第2に公開規格・文書があれば一社への依存を減らし、契約変更や支援終了に対応しやすい。
第4段落：第3にライセンス以外の研修・統合・セキュリティ・保守の生涯費用と利用完了・信頼性を評価する。
第5段落：小規模機関に技術職員が足りない問題には段階的試行と共同保守、必要なら商用選択肢の維持で対応する。
トピックカード4｜食品廃棄の公表と流通の透明性
- 1. Should large supermarkets report their food waste publicly?
- 2. Can food donation programs reduce unnecessary waste?
- 3. Should consumers receive clearer guidance about food date labels?
- 4. Is regulation more effective than voluntary action in reducing waste?
- 5. Should restaurants be judged by waste per meal rather than total waste?
模範スピーチ4（207語）
模範対象：Should large supermarkets report their food waste publicly?
Large food retailers should report meaningful information about avoidable waste, provided that the requirements are clear and proportionate. Transparent reporting can support better decisions, but simple totals may misrepresent a business’s actual performance.
First, measurement helps organizations identify where goods are lost. Retailers can compare waste relative to sales volume and distinguish damaged products from items that remain safe but unsold. This is more useful than announcing a lower total after a store has reduced its opening hours.
Second, suitable reporting can encourage practical improvements. Better inventory planning, storage, and cooperation with food redistribution organizations may reduce some losses. However, the number of donations alone does not establish how much food was ultimately consumed or whether safety requirements were met.
Third, public information may help regulators and communities evaluate whether initiatives offer value. Methods should be consistent so that comparisons are fair, and companies should explain changes in measurement practices rather than claim gains that arise only from new accounting rules.
Critics argue that reporting burdens could be heavy for small businesses. That concern is valid, which is why obligations should reflect business size and likely benefits. In conclusion, the purpose is not to produce impressive statistics but to encourage safe, verifiable reductions in avoidable food waste.
模範スピーチの段落別和訳
第1段落：大規模食品小売店は意味のある廃棄情報を公表すべきだが、分かりやすく比例的な規則が必要。単純な総量だけでは実際の改善を誤る。
第2段落：第1に売上量当たりなどで比較し、傷んだ商品と安全だが売れ残った商品を分ける。営業時間短縮による総量減を改善と誤認しない。
第3段落：第2に在庫・保管・再配分を改善できるが、寄付件数だけでは実消費や食品安全を保証しない。
第4段落：第3に測定方法を統一し、変更点を説明することで公平な比較と施策評価に役立つ。
第5段落：小規模事業者の事務負担には規模と便益に応じた規則で対応し、安全で検証できる廃棄削減を目標とする。
トピックカード5｜医療研究バイオバンクと参加者の同意
- 1. Should biobanks renew participants’ consent when research purposes change?
- 2. Can medical research protect privacy while sharing useful data?
- 3. Should participants receive regular updates about uses of their samples?
- 4. Is broad consent sufficient for future genetic studies?
- 5. Should independent committees oversee sensitive research repositories?
模範スピーチ5（222語）
模範対象：Should biobanks renew participants’ consent when research purposes change?
Medical research repositories should clearly explain how donated samples and information may be used, and they should review consent arrangements when proposed uses change substantially. Scientific cooperation is valuable, but it depends on protecting participants’ rights and maintaining public trust.
First, consent is meaningful only when people understand the relevant conditions. Someone who agrees to one type of study may not expect their samples to be used in an unrelated commercial project. Institutions should explain the scope of permission and provide practical ways to ask questions or seek review.
Second, transparent oversight can reduce misuse. Qualified independent committees can evaluate sensitive projects, data protection, and whether access requests remain within approved limits. Such supervision should include clear records of decisions and corrections without promising that every risk can be eliminated.
Third, responsible data sharing can improve research quality. Investigators may check earlier findings or explore important questions using appropriately protected resources. However, access should depend on genuine scientific purposes, privacy safeguards, and the reliability of the data rather than the number of download requests.
Critics argue that seeking new consent too frequently could become burdensome and make valuable research impractical. That is a legitimate concern. Institutions can use carefully defined consent categories and proportionate review procedures. The goal should be useful research with understandable permission, not unrestricted access to every donated record.
模範スピーチの段落別和訳
第1段落：医療研究用の試料・情報は利用方法を明確に説明し、研究目的が大きく変わる場合は同意の枠組みを再検討すべき。
第2段落：第1にある研究への同意が無関係な商業利用への同意を意味するとは限らない。対象・質問・見直し手順を示す。
第3段落：第2に独立委員会が機微情報や利用申請を審査し、決定・訂正を記録する。すべてのリスクをなくせるとは約束しない。
第4段落：第3に保護されたデータ共有は独立検証に役立つが、研究目的・個人情報・データ品質を考慮しダウンロード数だけで成功を判断しない。
第5段落：頻繁な再同意の負担には明確な同意区分とリスクに応じた審査で対応し、無制限公開を避ける。
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。
追質問35問・模範回答と解説
カード1の追質問7問
Q1：Could public funding still influence editorial decisions?模範回答：Yes. Even indirect dependence can create pressure, so decisions about grants should be made independently and the arrangements disclosed.解説：間接的な圧力も検討。
Q2：Why can’t official press releases replace journalists?模範回答：Press releases explain an institution’s position. Independent reporting can compare that position with records and experiences of affected people.解説：広報と第三者検証の差。
Q3：How could local journalism demonstrate its value?模範回答：I would examine the quality of verified reporting, corrections, public use, and independence rather than count article views alone.解説：閲覧数以外の成果。
Q4：Should all news outlets receive equal public subsidies?模範回答：Not necessarily. Clear public-interest criteria and safeguards are needed, while governments should avoid favoring particular political opinions.解説：思想による恣意的配分を防ぐ。
Q5：Could volunteers replace professional reporters?模範回答：Community contributions can help, but complex investigations need training, resources, and reliable ethical procedures.解説：複雑な調査には専門性が必要。
Q6：Would supporting journalism be more urgent than repairing roads?模範回答：That depends on local needs and costs. Authorities should compare priorities transparently rather than claim one objective is always superior.解説：機会費用を比較。
Q7：What is the essential protection for independent reporting?模範回答：Editors must be free to investigate and criticize those who distribute public funding.解説：編集の自由が核心。
カード2の追質問7問
Q8：Do wildlife crossings always work?模範回答：No. Their effectiveness depends on placement, species, maintenance, and actual use, which should be evaluated over time.解説：設置数と成果は別。
Q9：Would protections increase road-building costs?模範回答：They may, but some costs could be offset by avoiding collisions and ecological harm. Claims of savings still need evidence.解説：長期費用と効果を比べる。
Q10：Should every road have an animal bridge?模範回答：No. Safeguards should reflect ecological evidence, traffic conditions, and feasible alternatives.解説：全道路一律ではない。
Q11：How can communities participate?模範回答：Residents can share local observations and access concerns, while ecological and engineering decisions should also rely on expert assessment.解説：地域知識と専門家の分析。
Q12：What indicators would you monitor?模範回答：Animal movements, collision patterns, habitat access, and maintenance costs across comparable periods.解説：複数の成果指標。
Q13：Could rerouting a highway be better than building a tunnel?模範回答：Possibly. The alternatives should be compared for safety, habitat impact, costs, and access rather than assuming one solution is always best.解説：代替案比較。
Q14：Is protecting wildlife more important than human mobility?模範回答：They are both important. Policy should identify specific risks and find proportionate arrangements rather than frame every decision as an absolute choice.解説：偽の二者択一を避ける。
カード3の追質問7問
Q15：Does open-source software always have better security?模範回答：No. Openness can support review, but security depends on maintenance, design, and how promptly problems are fixed.解説：ソース公開と安全は別。
Q16：Why might governments avoid one supplier?模範回答：Excessive dependence can make switching difficult and reduce flexibility when prices or services change.解説：供給業者依存のリスク。
Q17：Is free software cost-free?模範回答：No. Training, integration, support, security, and maintenance all involve potential expenses.解説：ライセンスと総費用の区別。
Q18：Should governments publish all security code and details?模範回答：Disclosure should support accountability without exposing genuinely sensitive credentials or operational risks.解説：透明性と安全。
Q19：What would make a trial successful?模範回答：Reliable completed services, accessible interfaces, manageable support costs, and independently verified security.解説：成果の測定。
Q20：Can small agencies manage open-source systems?模範回答：Some may need shared technical support or commercial services. The right arrangement depends on local capabilities.解説：現場能力の差。
Q21：Should all public applications be open-source by law?模範回答：A universal mandate could be inflexible. Evidence-based comparison may be better than assuming one model suits every service.解説：一律義務の弊害。
カード4の追質問7問
Q22：Would donating all unsold food always be beneficial?模範回答：No. Food safety, transport, storage, and actual use matter. Donation counts alone do not show the final outcome.解説：寄付と利用・安全を区別。
Q23：Why measure waste per item sold?模範回答：Adjusting for business activity can make comparisons more meaningful than totals alone, although context still matters.解説：分母を揃えた比較。
Q24：Could reporting requirements hurt small stores?模範回答：They could, so obligations should be proportionate, simple, and reviewed for actual benefit.解説：事務負担と効果の比較。
Q25：Should date labels be removed?模範回答：No. Consumers need clear safety information. The aim is to reduce confusion, not weaken food protection.解説：安全情報の保持。
Q26：Can technology eliminate food waste?模範回答：It may help forecast demand or manage stock, but success depends on implementation and reliable evidence.解説：技術万能ではない。
Q27：How would you evaluate redistribution?模範回答：Measure safely delivered and used food, operating costs, and whether waste was genuinely avoided.解説：実際の追加効果。
Q28：Is public disclosure more useful than financial incentives?模範回答：They can complement each other. The better mix depends on the causes of waste and how well outcomes can be measured.解説：施策の組合せ。
カード5の追質問7問
Q29：Would broad consent always be invalid?模範回答：Not necessarily. Its appropriateness depends on how clearly the scope and safeguards are explained, and on applicable ethical and legal requirements.解説：同意の条件を検討。
Q30：Could requiring new consent slow research?模範回答：Yes, but proportionate procedures can focus on significant changes while preserving appropriate protections.解説：重要な変更に重点。
Q31：Should everyone receive genetic results from research?模範回答：There is no single answer. Reliability, clinical relevance, consent, and qualified advice all matter.解説：個別の高リスク医療判断を断定しない。
Q32：Can data be fully anonymous in every situation?模範回答：Not necessarily. Privacy risks should be assessed realistically rather than assumed to disappear after labels are removed.解説：匿名化の限界。
Q33：What is the role of independent oversight?模範回答：To review purposes, data safeguards, consent conditions, and decisions about access with transparent procedures.解説：独立審査の役割。
Q34：Should commercial companies use biobank data?模範回答：Some cooperation may be appropriate under clear agreements, ethical review, and participant protections. Blanket approval would be irresponsible.解説：企業利用の条件。
Q35：How would you measure repository success?模範回答：Look at responsible scientific use, reliability, participant trust, privacy safeguards, and operating costs, not download totals alone.解説：多面的な成果。
追質問への短い応答の型
- That is a valid concern, but …：合理的な反論を認めて対応する。
- It depends on …：条件を明確にする。
- I would distinguish between … and ….：別概念を分ける。
- One practical example would be …：具体例で説明する。
- I cannot give an exact figure without reliable evidence.：不確かな数字を作らない。
復習の段階
- 初見で1分構成・2分スピーチを実行する。
- 模範の冒頭主張・理由3点・反論と結論を分解する。
- 追質問35問を短い英語で回答し、条件と根拠を追加する。
- モデル対象以外の20題も新しい理由でスピーチする。
- 翌日と7日後に録音を聞き比べ、正確さ・明瞭さを改善する。
よくある質問
英検1級二次面接は5トピックから選ぶのですか？
はい。現行公式案内では5題から1題を選びます。本教材の25題は5カード分の独自練習問題です。
模範スピーチを暗記すればよいですか？
初見の題材に対応できるよう、理由の組み立て方と根拠を転用する練習が重要です。
スピーチの語数が公式に指定されていますか？
英検協会による一律語数指定はありません。約2分の発話を基準に文章量・話速を調整してください。
関連する英検1級無料教材
慶英会では初見の社会問題を論理的に説明するための個別学習支援を行っています。最大1か月無料体験・学習相談。
参考にした公式情報
問題、スピーチ、Q&A、解説と和訳はすべて慶英会の独自制作であり、英検協会の公式過去問ではありません。
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