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・第22集の無料模擬教材です。独自トピックカード5枚×5題＝25トピック、模範スピーチ5本、日本語の論点整理、カード別追質問15問と追加20問・計35問の英文回答を掲載。慶英会が行政・研究・文化など社会性の高い5分野から独自制作した非公式教材です。
英検1級二次面接は、5つのTOPICから1つ選び、1分の考慮時間、2分のスピーチ、その後のQ&Aという形式です。日本英語検定協会の1級公式試験内容を参考にしました。
考慮時間1分とスピーチ2分を使い切る
- 最初の30秒で根拠を説明しやすいトピックを選び、残りの時間で理由2〜3点を整理する。
- メモを取らず、結論→異なる理由→反論への条件→再結論を意識する。
- 根拠のない統計を作らず、might・under certain conditionsで適切に限定する。
- Q&Aは結論を先に答えてから理由を示す。
模擬カード1｜地方公共交通の災害時対応
以下の独自5トピックから1題を選択し、1分の準備後に2分で話してください。
- 1. Should governments require public transport operators to prepare stronger emergency plans?
- 2. Can rural transport networks become more resilient without building new roads?
- 3. Should disaster planning prioritize essential journeys over passenger totals?
- 4. Should transit agencies share emergency information across regions?
- 5. Should local authorities retain non-digital travel information during emergencies?
模範スピーチ1（209語）
Governments should require public transport operators to maintain practical emergency plans, because people need reliable ways to reach essential services when ordinary routes are disrupted.
First, preparation can protect vulnerable passengers. During severe weather, an inaccessible replacement stop or a confusing announcement may prevent people with mobility limitations from reaching medical care or safe shelter. Emergency plans should identify these barriers before a crisis occurs.
Second, cooperation can improve continuity. Bus companies, rail operators, and local authorities may need to share information about road closures, alternative routes, and available vehicles. However, the number of messages sent does not prove that passengers received understandable instructions or completed necessary journeys.
Third, realistic exercises can reveal weaknesses. Operators should test communication systems, staff training, and the time required to restore services. Results must account for local conditions, since a plan that works in a city center may be impractical for a remote village.
Critics argue that maintaining backup arrangements is expensive. This concern deserves consideration. Authorities should prioritize essential travel, compare alternative measures, and review costs rather than demand identical plans everywhere.
In conclusion, transport resilience should be evaluated through safe, dependable access during disruption. The goal is not simply producing more emergency documents, but helping people travel when it matters most.
日本語の論点：災害時の公共交通には現実的な代替計画が必要。①移動制約のある利用者の保護、②事業者間で通行止めと代替経路を共有、③訓練で通信・人員の弱点を検証。反論：予備体制は高コスト。条件：必須の移動を優先し地域事情を踏まえる。
このカードの追質問3問・模範回答
Q1. Would sending more emergency announcements prove the plan worked?
A1. No. Authorities must examine whether passengers received, understood, and could act on the information. — 通知数と行動を区別。
Q2. Should every region build identical backup routes?
A2. No. Geography, population needs, and available transport differ, so plans should be adapted. — 地域ごとの実施条件。
Q3. How should operators check readiness?
A3. They can conduct realistic exercises and assess safe journeys, communication, staffing, and recovery times. — 実行成果を測る。
模擬カード2｜食品表示の科学的根拠と消費者保護
以下の独自5トピックから1題を選択し、1分の準備後に2分で話してください。
- 1. Should authorities restrict unsupported environmental claims on food packaging?
- 2. Should consumers be taught to assess nutrition and sustainability labels critically?
- 3. Can independent certification improve trust in product information?
- 4. Should companies disclose important limitations of scientific claims?
- 5. Should public schools teach how advertising can misuse statistics?
模範スピーチ2（197語）
Authorities should require food companies to support important product claims with credible evidence, while avoiding rules that make ordinary information unnecessarily complicated.
First, clear standards can protect consumers. Packaging may promise environmental or health-related benefits without explaining what was actually measured. People need to distinguish a verified result from advertising language before deciding what to purchase.
Second, transparency can encourage responsible competition. Companies that invest in accurate testing should not be placed at a disadvantage against those using exaggerated claims. Independent verification and understandable explanations could help customers compare products on more meaningful terms.
Third, better information can support education. Students and adults can learn that a single favorable result does not prove an outcome under every condition. For example, the environmental effect of packaging may depend on transport, production, and disposal rather than one attractive feature alone.
Critics worry that detailed labeling rules might raise costs for small producers. That concern is legitimate. Requirements should focus on material claims and provide practical guidance, while avoiding unnecessary paperwork.
In conclusion, product labels should communicate what evidence actually supports. Effective regulation should improve accuracy and consumer understanding instead of simply increasing the amount of text printed on packages.
日本語の論点：食品包装に記載する重要な環境・健康上の主張には信頼できる根拠を求める。①誤解を避ける消費者保護、②正確に試験する企業との公平な競争、③統計・限定条件を読み解く教育。反論：小規模生産者の事務費。条件：重要な主張に重点を絞る。
このカードの追質問3問・模範回答
Q4. Does an independent label guarantee every product benefit?
A4. No. Certification has a defined scope and should not be interpreted beyond the evidence examined. — 認証範囲の限定。
Q5. How could consumers evaluate an environmental claim?
A5. They can examine what was measured, under which conditions, and whether reliable comparisons exist. — 測定方法と条件。
Q6. Should every package contain a long scientific report?
A6. Not necessarily. Concise and accurate explanations, with accessible supporting information, may be more useful. — 分かりやすさと費用。
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｜大学の研究交流と地方への機会
以下の独自5トピックから1題を選択し、1分の準備後に2分で話してください。
- 1. Should universities share specialized equipment with smaller institutions?
- 2. Can remote collaboration improve access to scientific research?
- 3. Should governments support research partnerships outside major cities?
- 4. Should scientific programs be evaluated by completed work rather than registrations?
- 5. Should universities publish total costs of shared research facilities?
模範スピーチ3（204語）
Universities should expand cooperation on specialized research facilities when they can provide reliable access and suitable technical support.
First, sharing can broaden opportunities. Smaller universities may lack the budget to purchase expensive instruments for experiments that occur only occasionally. Coordinated use could allow more researchers to address valuable questions without every institution buying identical equipment.
Second, cooperation can improve the use of existing resources. However, an empty reservation slot does not necessarily mean that a machine is ready. Calibration, specialist supervision, and transport of sensitive samples may be required. Universities should measure experiments successfully completed rather than bookings alone.
Third, collaboration can strengthen the exchange of knowledge. Technicians and researchers from different institutions may develop clearer procedures and learn from each other’s experience. But information sharing must respect confidentiality and the rights of research participants.
Critics argue that shared facilities can impose significant travel, maintenance, and staffing costs. That is a reasonable concern. Universities should begin with equipment suited to sharing, set transparent responsibilities, and compare total expenses with alternative arrangements.
Overall, scientific cooperation deserves support when it leads to meaningful and equitable research opportunities. Success should be judged by reliable work and sustainable costs, not simply the size of the shared equipment catalog.
日本語の論点：高額な研究機器の共同利用を条件付きで拡大。①小規模大学の研究機会、②設備の有効利用、③専門知識と技術支援の共有。反論：校正・移送・人件費。対応：適合する機器から限定導入し、予約数ではなく実験完了と総費用を評価。
このカードの追質問3問・模範回答
Q7. Would more bookings prove better research access?
A7. No. Completed experiments and unmet requests reveal whether reservations were genuinely useful. — 予約と研究完了は別。
Q8. Why might remote universities face higher costs?
A8. Transport distances, equipment support, and staffing can differ significantly. — 遠隔地の条件。
Q9. Can shared access ignore confidentiality rules?
A9. No. Agreements must protect appropriate research information and participants. — 機密情報保護。
模擬カード4｜地域の言語資料と教育への利用
以下の独自5トピックから1題を選択し、1分の準備後に2分で話してください。
- 1. Should governments fund preservation of endangered local languages?
- 2. Can digital archives help younger generations learn community history?
- 3. Should communities control access to sensitive cultural recordings?
- 4. Should language projects measure learning rather than download totals?
- 5. Can schools incorporate local oral histories into broader education?
模範スピーチ4（202語）
Governments should support the preservation of local languages and oral histories when projects respect the communities that contribute the material.
First, recordings and written accounts can preserve knowledge that might otherwise become difficult to access. They can help future generations study how people communicated, worked, and understood their environment. However, collecting more files is not the same as preserving accurate context.
Second, carefully designed learning resources can make archives useful. Schools may compare historical accounts, examine translations, and discuss uncertain interpretations. Educational value should be assessed through what learners understand, rather than the number of recordings downloaded.
Third, meaningful community participation is essential. Some recordings include private information or knowledge that speakers did not intend for unrestricted public release. Institutions should seek appropriate consent and use controlled access when necessary. Owning a recording does not automatically grant every publication right.
Critics argue that translation, rights review, and long-term storage cost money. That concern is understandable. Projects should set practical priorities and maintain reliable records instead of racing to upload everything immediately.
In conclusion, cultural preservation should combine accurate documentation, educational usefulness, and respect for contributors. Its success lies in sustaining trustworthy opportunities to learn, not in the size of an online collection.
日本語の論点：地域言語・口承資料の保全を支援する。①消えやすい知識の記録、②学校での比較・解釈学習、③提供者と地域の同意。反論：翻訳・権利審査・長期保存費。対応：優先順位を明確にし、公開件数より質と教育成果を重視。
このカードの追質問3問・模範回答
Q10. Can all cultural recordings be published freely once digitized?
A10. No. Sensitive content and publication permissions may require restrictions. — 保存と一般公開の違い。
Q11. How could schools use oral histories responsibly?
A11. Students could compare accounts, examine context, and discuss uncertain translations. — 資料批判の学習。
Q12. Does a large archive guarantee cultural preservation?
A12. No. Accuracy, permissions, maintenance, and real educational use also matter. — 件数と価値の違い。
模擬カード5｜高齢者を含む地域のデジタル行政
以下の独自5トピックから1題を選択し、1分の準備後に2分で話してください。
- 1. Should government offices maintain face-to-face services alongside online applications?
- 2. Can digital public services be made accessible to residents of every age?
- 3. Should public agencies limit data collection when processing applications?
- 4. Should administrative reforms be judged by successful applications rather than website traffic?
- 5. Should governments fund practical digital-literacy assistance for residents?
模範スピーチ5（194語）
Government offices should improve online services while retaining practical alternatives for residents who cannot use digital systems easily.
First, digital applications can make some procedures faster and more convenient. Residents may be able to submit documents without traveling to an office. However, website visits or accounts created do not prove that applications were completed successfully.
Second, equal access requires attention to different circumstances. Older adults, people with disabilities, and residents without reliable internet connections may face obstacles. Telephone support, accessible written instructions, and suitable in-person assistance can prevent exclusion. Governments should consult people who previously abandoned applications, not only satisfied users.
Third, public agencies must protect personal information. Digital procedures may involve financial, medical, or family records. Institutions should collect only information necessary for legitimate purposes and explain how it is stored and used.
Critics argue that operating multiple service channels is costly. That concern is real. Agencies should measure unmet needs, staff requirements, and total expenses while improving the efficiency of each channel.
In conclusion, digital government should be evaluated by accurate and completed services for diverse residents. Modernization is valuable when it improves access without sacrificing privacy or leaving vulnerable people behind.
日本語の論点：行政のオンライン化と実際に使える代替経路の維持を支持。①手続の利便性、②高齢者・障害者・通信環境の違い、③個人情報保護。反論：複数窓口の費用。対応：未完了申請・人員・総費用を実測。サイト閲覧だけで成果としない。
このカードの追質問3問・模範回答
Q13. Would more accounts created prove better services?
A13. No. Authorities should examine completed applications and unresolved difficulties. — 登録数と完了を区別。
Q14. How can governments learn about excluded residents?
A14. They can consult people who could not use or finish the service and identify practical barriers. — 非利用者の意見。
Q15. Should agencies store every piece of personal information indefinitely?
A15. No. Collection and retention should follow legitimate needs and appropriate safeguards. — データ最小化。
追加追質問20問｜Q16〜Q35
回答例を見ずに1問につき2〜3文で答え、直接の回答・理由・条件がそろっているか確認してください。
Q16. Should emergency transport plans be identical everywhere?
Q17. Can more warnings prove a disaster response worked?
Q18. Why run transport emergency exercises?
Q19. Could backup transport be too expensive?
Q20. Should food labels claim benefits without supporting evidence?
Q21. Does an environmentally friendly feature prove a product is sustainable overall?
Q22. How can small producers meet labeling rules?
Q23. Would longer labels always help consumers?
Q24. Could shared equipment benefit small universities?
Q25. Does an empty booking slot mean an instrument is ready?
Q26. How should shared research be evaluated?
Q27. Can every sensitive sample travel between institutions?
Q28. Does digitization always mean publication is permitted?
Q29. Why include communities in cultural archives?
Q30. Can downloads measure historical understanding?
Q31. What happens when an archival date is uncertain?
Q32. Should public services be digital-only?
Q33. How can officials measure digital service improvement?
Q34. Why maintain privacy protections?
Q35. Can an in-person alternative be valuable?
追加20問の英語模範回答・日本語解説
A16. No. Routes and populations differ, so plans should respond to local risks. — 地域差。
A17. No. Receiving clear information and completing safe journeys are separate outcomes. — 通知と行動。
A18. They reveal operational weaknesses that documents alone cannot identify. — 実地の検証。
A19. Yes. Agencies should prioritize essential travel and assess proportionate alternatives. — 費用対効果。
A20. No. Important claims should reflect appropriate measurements and stated limits. — 表示の根拠。
A21. Not automatically. Production, transport, and disposal can affect the result. — 全体の環境影響。
A22. Clear guidance and proportionate requirements can reduce unnecessary burdens. — 比例性。
A23. No. Understandable explanations are usually more useful than excessive text. — 情報のわかりやすさ。
A24. Yes, when scheduling and technical support are reliable. — 実行条件。
A25. No. Calibration and preparation may still be necessary. — 予約と実用の差。
A26. Through completed experiments, access, reliability, and total costs. — 成果指標。
A27. No. Legal, practical, or confidentiality restrictions can apply. — 資料の制限。
A28. No. Appropriate consent and publication rights must be checked. — 公開権限。
A29. They can clarify context, permissions, and possible sensitive interpretations. — 当事者参加。
A30. No. Comprehension requires educational evidence. — 学習成果。
A31. It should be marked rather than presented as definitive. — 不確実性の明記。
A32. Not if doing so prevents residents from completing essential procedures. — 包摂性。
A33. Track successful applications, errors, waiting times, and unmet needs. — 実利用で評価。
A34. Public applications can include sensitive personal information. — 機密性。
A35. Yes, when it serves people unable to use other channels effectively. — 代替経路。
話し方・内容を改善するチェック項目
- Should / Why / How の問いに最初の文で直接答えているか。
- 同じ内容を言い換えただけの理由3つになっていないか。
- 観測数、来訪数などを成果と混同していないか。
- 相手の反論の妥当な部分を認め、実施条件を説明しているか。
- 2分間で段落を区切って自然に話せるか。
7日間の二次面接練習
- 初日：カード1の1題で1分準備・2分スピーチを録音。
- 2日目：カード2の題を反対の立場でも練習。
- 3日目：カード3とカード別追質問の前半。
- 4日目：カード4と残りのカード別追質問。
- 5日目：カード5を実施し追加20問の前半10問。
- 6日目：追加20問の後半10問と語彙・文法の修正。
- 7日目：未使用トピックで初見の模擬面接を再実施。
FAQ
英検1級のスピーチは理由3つが必須ですか？
理由2〜3点は慶英会が練習用に示した構成で、英検協会が二次試験で理由数を必須指定しているという意味ではありません。論理と英語の正確さを重視してください。
模範スピーチを覚えたら初見でも話せますか？
表現を覚えることは役立ちますが、丸暗記だけで初見トピックには対応できません。理由を自分で組み立てて話す練習も必要です。
次に取り組む無料教材
最新の続編・無料教材：二次面接第23集｜25トピック・模範5本・追質問35問。直前セットで間違えた内容を復習し、新しい初見問題に進んでください。慶英会独自の非公式演習です。
英検1級の二次面接とWritingを個別に練習する際は、慶英会の最大1か月無料体験・学習相談をご利用ください。
出題形式は日本英語検定協会・英検1級を参考。カード、英文、追質問と模範回答は慶英会の独自制作で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