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
結論：英検1級二次面接で What would change your mind? と尋ねられたときは、単に「考えは変わりません」と繰り返すのではなく、現在の立場・判断に必要な証拠・どんな条件なら再検討するかを短く説明します。慶英会の独自8テーマ・24追質問・全英語模範回答を使い、利点を認めながら条件付きで自分の主張を守る練習ができます。
英検協会の1級二次面接は、5つのTOPICから1つを選んだ後、考慮1分（メモ不可）、2分スピーチ、関連するQ&A約4分の形式です。公式の1級試験形式・公式バーチャル面接をご確認ください。以下のWhat would change your mind?は、必ず本試験に出る質問という意味ではなく、根拠を説明する慶英会独自の追質問演習です。
What would change your mind? に答える3段階
- Step 1：自分の立場を言い直す。I currently support … because …
- Step 2：必要な証拠を具体化する。If reliable evaluations showed … / I would examine …
- Step 3：どの範囲なら考えを変えるか示す。I might reconsider wider adoption, but I would still …
英検1級の面接で「考えを変えること」が採点上必須という意味ではありません。自分の立場を変えずに反論へ答えることも可能です。ただし、根拠のある説明・現実的な例・条件を示すと、抽象的な断言の繰り返しを避けられます。回答は慶英会の学習用の一例です。
独自24追質問｜社会問題8テーマに英語で即答
公共交通の補助金
独自スピーチTOPIC：Should cities subsidize evening bus services?
基本立場の例：I support targeted evening buses when they connect residents with essential work and education opportunities.
Q1：What evidence would make you reconsider supporting the subsidy?
慶英会の英語回答例：I would reconsider if a well-designed trial showed that very few residents used the route and that another service met the same needs more effectively. I would also examine whether people who needed transport were actually able to reach the stops. Low passenger numbers alone would not settle the issue if the route served an isolated community.
日本語の解説：単に利用者数が少ないだけで全面否定せず、代替サービスと必要性を比較。
Q2：Suppose operating costs doubled. Would your position change?
慶英会の英語回答例：It could. I would compare the revised costs with the access the route provides and check whether timetable changes could reduce expenses. I would not promise unlimited funding, but I would also avoid abandoning essential transport without evaluating alternatives.
日本語の解説：費用増に応じた条件付き再検討。
Q3：What result would convince you that the programme was successful?
慶英会の英語回答例：I would look for evidence that residents who previously struggled to travel can now reach important destinations reliably. Passenger totals matter, but so do journey times, service reliability and accessibility. A successful programme should demonstrate practical benefits that justify its continuing costs.
日本語の解説：成果指標は運行回数・乗車数だけではない。
学校でのAI採点
独自スピーチTOPIC：Should schools use AI to help grade student work?
基本立場の例：Automated systems may help with routine marking, but important assessments need understandable criteria and human review.
Q4：What would persuade you to support wider AI grading?
慶英会の英語回答例：I would want repeated evaluations showing that the system can assess appropriate tasks accurately across different student groups. Schools would also need clear appeal procedures and teachers who can explain unusual scores. Faster processing alone would not be enough to justify replacing professional judgment.
日本語の解説：速度だけでなく誤差の分布・再審査制度を重視。
Q5：Would you oppose AI marking if one student received an incorrect grade?
慶英会の英語回答例：Not necessarily. One error should be investigated, but every assessment system can make mistakes. I would consider how frequent the errors were, how serious they were and whether affected students could obtain timely corrections. An isolated problem is different from a systematic unfair pattern.
日本語の解説：単一誤答と体系的な偏りを区別。
Q6：What would make you change your current cautious position?
慶英会の英語回答例：If independent testing demonstrated reliable performance for specific tasks and students had effective ways to challenge decisions, I could support broader use. If repeated unexplained errors persisted, I would favour stricter limits. My position depends on evidence of accuracy, fairness and accountability.
日本語の解説：支持・制限の条件をともに提示。
図書館のデジタル化
独自スピーチTOPIC：Should public libraries prioritize digital collections?
基本立場の例：I favour digital access alongside physical services because different residents use different resources.
Q7：What evidence would make you favour an almost entirely digital library?
慶英会の英語回答例：I would need strong evidence that nearly all residents could access and understand the digital materials, including people who currently depend on physical assistance. Costs and preservation would also matter. Until then, I would retain suitable alternatives rather than assume that a high number of downloads proves equal access.
日本語の解説：閲覧回数と実質的なアクセシビリティを分ける。
Q8：What if printed books are extremely expensive to maintain?
慶英会の英語回答例：Then I would reassess the balance of formats. Some rarely used materials could be stored centrally, while essential resources might remain available in print. I would compare long-term costs and actual demand instead of insisting that every item be offered in both forms.
日本語の解説：二択ではなく資料別の選択。
Q9：How could a city test whether digitalization improved learning?
慶英会の英語回答例：It could examine whether readers find suitable sources and use them accurately, rather than counting visits alone. Surveys might help, but tasks requiring people to locate and evaluate unfamiliar information would provide additional evidence. The evaluation should include residents who face barriers to digital services.
日本語の解説：利用統計と学習成果の違い。
環境配慮型容器
独自スピーチTOPIC：Should businesses be encouraged to replace disposable packaging?
基本立場の例：I support reducing unnecessary disposable packaging when alternatives are safe and environmentally worthwhile.
Q10：What could make you change your mind about reusable containers?
慶英会の英語回答例：I would reconsider if reliable comparisons showed that repeated washing, transport and replacement used substantially more resources than the disposable system under local conditions. I would not assume either option was always better. The environmental effect depends on actual use and maintenance.
日本語の解説：比較対象はライフサイクル、条件付き判断。
Q11：If return rates were low, would you ban the scheme?
慶英会の英語回答例：No. I would first investigate why people were not returning the containers and whether collection points could be improved. If a redesigned trial still produced poor results and high costs, I might support alternatives. A low rate is useful evidence, but it does not automatically identify the best response.
日本語の解説：低返却率から即全面禁止へ飛躍しない。
Q12：What evidence would justify expanding the programme?
慶英会の英語回答例：I would seek consistent results showing fewer unnecessary purchases without disproportionate transport or cleaning costs. It would also help to see that small businesses can manage the procedures and that customers understand how to return the containers. Expansion should follow credible overall comparisons.
日本語の解説：環境・店舗運営・利用者行動の3基準。
在宅・柔軟勤務
独自スピーチTOPIC：Should employers allow more flexible working hours?
基本立場の例：Flexible schedules can be valuable if service quality and fair treatment are maintained.
Q13：What evidence would lead you to restrict flexible hours?
慶英会の英語回答例：I would consider restrictions if repeated evaluations showed serious declines in service quality or unsafe workloads that could not be addressed through coordination. I would not judge the policy solely by a few complaints, because different teams may need different arrangements.
日本語の解説：一部の不満と全制度の失敗を区別。
Q14：What if most employees liked the policy but customers complained?
慶英会の英語回答例：Both perspectives matter. I would examine the type and frequency of customer problems and test whether coverage could be adjusted. Employee satisfaction is valuable, but the company also has obligations to customers. A balanced arrangement may work better than an unrestricted schedule.
日本語の解説：利用者側のサービス品質を加える。
Q15：What result would strengthen your support?
慶英会の英語回答例：Evidence that employees can manage their responsibilities while customers receive reliable service would strengthen my support. I would examine workloads, retention and service quality over time. A positive result from one department might justify a broader trial, not an automatic companywide guarantee.
日本語の解説：満足度・サービス・長期測定の3要素。
歴史的建造物の保存
独自スピーチTOPIC：Should governments preserve historic buildings?
基本立場の例：I support preserving historically significant structures when safety and long-term costs are addressed.
Q16：What would make preservation unjustifiable in a particular case?
慶英会の英語回答例：If independent assessments showed that a building could not be made reasonably safe or that preservation would prevent essential public services, I would reconsider full restoration. Documentation or partial preservation might still protect some historical value. I would not treat demolition and complete preservation as the only possible choices.
日本語の解説：安全・公共性による条件付き判断。
Q17：What if residents strongly opposed public spending on one site?
慶英会の英語回答例：Their concerns should be examined, especially if other services lack funding. I would want a transparent comparison of historical value, maintenance costs and possible uses. Public consultation matters, but participation totals alone do not prove which choice is best.
日本語の解説：住民参加と費用比較の区別。
Q18：What evidence would support adaptive reuse?
慶英会の英語回答例：I would look for structural assessments, credible cost estimates and a practical plan for public use. For example, converting part of a building into an educational facility could preserve important features while serving residents. The plan should also include realistic maintenance requirements.
日本語の解説：用途変更の効果と持続可能な運営を検証。
医療予約のデジタル化
独自スピーチTOPIC：Should hospitals move most appointments online?
基本立場の例：Online booking can improve routine access, but hospitals should retain practical support for patients who need it.
Q19：What would persuade you that telephone booking was unnecessary?
慶英会の英語回答例：I would need evidence that patients with different needs could consistently obtain suitable appointments without telephone assistance. That includes people with accessibility or language barriers. I would not rely only on the percentage of bookings completed online, because some unsuccessful attempts might never appear in that figure.
日本語の解説：予約成功数と失敗した利用者を分ける。
Q20：Would a high operating cost make you abandon the online platform?
慶英会の英語回答例：Not immediately. I would compare the platform’s running costs with the staff time it saves and the quality of appointments it supports. If an alternative delivered better access at lower overall cost, I would reconsider the current design. Financial evaluation should consider the whole service.
日本語の解説：オンラインの支援自体は全面否定しない。
Q21：What evidence would reveal hidden exclusion?
慶英会の英語回答例：I would examine abandoned booking attempts, repeated calls for help and feedback from patients who could not complete forms. It would also be useful to check whether different groups obtain appropriate appointments. A rising total of online transactions could conceal these difficulties.
日本語の解説：未完了の予約が可視化される必要。
気象警報と避難
独自スピーチTOPIC：Should governments invest more in advanced flood forecasts?
基本立場の例：Better forecasts are valuable, but warnings must be linked to realistic evacuation support.
Q22：What might make you oppose additional forecasting investment?
慶英会の英語回答例：I would reconsider if independent evaluation showed that the new equipment offered little improvement over existing forecasts while urgent evacuation barriers remained unaddressed. I would compare the alternatives rather than assume that more advanced technology is always the best use of public funds.
日本語の解説：予測精度の改善幅と避難障壁の優先度を比較。
Q23：If one resident could not evacuate, would that prove the system failed?
慶英会の英語回答例：It would show that the overall response did not work for that resident, and we should investigate the reason. However, one case would not by itself establish that the forecast was inaccurate. We need to distinguish the quality of a warning from the availability of safe routes and assistance.
日本語の解説：予測技術と避難対応の効果を分ける。
Q24：What result would persuade you to expand the project?
慶英会の英語回答例：I would look for reliable evidence of improved forecasts, clear communication and an increased ability for residents to reach safety. That includes people with limited mobility. Costs should also be compared with alternative measures. Expansion would be justified only if the combined system demonstrated meaningful benefits.
日本語の解説：予測・伝達・移動可能性と費用の総合評価。
英検1級の2分スピーチ練習用｜独自モデル2題
模擬TOPIC1：Should governments make more public services available online?
自分で考慮1分間、メモを取らずに理由を組み立てた後、2分を目標に声に出してください。語数は公式採点基準ではなく、各自の発話速度で調整する必要があります。
独自スピーチ英文例（190語）
I believe governments should continue making public services available online, but I would not support removing practical alternatives before evidence shows that residents can obtain the help they need.
First, digital systems can reduce routine administrative work. For example, an online form may allow people to update a straightforward application outside office hours. This could leave staff more time for complicated requests.
Second, online information can help residents prepare for decisions. Clear descriptions of eligibility and required documents may prevent unnecessary visits. However, these benefits depend on accurate instructions and suitable access.
Third, public agencies can use service data to identify problems. Repeated unsuccessful applications may reveal confusing questions or accessibility barriers. Officials should examine those failures rather than count completed transactions alone.
Critics may argue that keeping telephone and face-to-face assistance increases costs. That concern is reasonable. I would support testing different arrangements and comparing overall costs with practical access for various groups.
My position would change if repeated, reliable evaluations showed that one channel could meet those needs more effectively without excluding vulnerable users. Until then, a carefully managed mixture of services is preferable to a digital-only policy.
模擬TOPIC2：Should public funding for environmental programmes depend on measurable outcomes?
自分で考慮1分間、メモを取らずに理由を組み立てた後、2分を目標に声に出してください。語数は公式採点基準ではなく、各自の発話速度で調整する必要があります。
独自スピーチ英文例（197語）
I support evaluating publicly funded environmental programmes through measurable outcomes, but I do not believe every important benefit can be reduced to a single figure.
First, clear measurements can help governments distinguish promising ideas from ineffective implementation. A project may report many installed devices while producing little change in actual resource use. Monitoring results makes that difference easier to identify.
Second, published evidence can improve accountability. Residents deserve to know why one programme receives funding instead of an alternative. Cost estimates should include maintenance and the limits of the available data.
Third, evaluation can encourage practical improvements. If a trial shows that participation is low because collection sites are inconvenient, officials could test better locations before abandoning the entire initiative.
Critics may argue that numerical targets overlook educational or cultural value. I understand that concern. Evaluations should therefore combine appropriate measurements with carefully documented qualitative evidence, without inventing facts that were never observed.
I would reconsider expanding a programme if credible independent reviews showed that its benefits were consistently outweighed by costs or harms. I would also consider what could be improved. The goal is responsible learning from evidence, not the automatic cancellation of every imperfect project.
独自8問｜話したあとにさらに聞かれた場合
発展Q1：What is the difference between a weak result and no useful result?
回答例：A weak result may still reveal a specific limitation or a need to change the design. No useful result would mean the evaluation tells us little about the decision. I would examine what was actually measured before deciding which description is fair.
発展Q2：Would a single counterexample disprove your position?
回答例：It could disprove an absolute statement, but my position is usually conditional. One case should be investigated carefully; broader decisions require considering how common and serious the problem is.
発展Q3：How much evidence is enough to change a policy?
回答例：It depends on the cost, the seriousness of the risks and whether the decision can be reversed. High-risk decisions may require stronger evidence than a small, reversible trial.
発展Q4：Would you accept an opposing argument if it came from a political opponent?
回答例：I would evaluate the evidence rather than judge it only by who presented it. I might still disagree with the conclusion, but credible data and sound reasoning deserve consideration.
発展Q5：What if the data contradicted your personal experience?
回答例：I would examine how the data were collected and whether my experience was typical. Personal experience can be informative, but it may not represent everyone affected by a policy.
発展Q6：Could a policy succeed for some groups and fail for others?
回答例：Yes. Access, costs and practical benefits can differ between groups. I would ask which people were included in the evaluation and whether suitable alternatives were available.
発展Q7：Would you support a temporary trial if you opposed permanent adoption?
回答例：Possibly, if the trial had clear safeguards and a meaningful way to assess results. A reversible trial is different from a permanent commitment, but it still needs justification.
発展Q8：How would you explain your final position in one sentence?
回答例：I support the proposal under conditions that protect access and justify its costs, and I would reconsider expansion if reliable evidence showed that those conditions were not met.
14日間の二次面接練習
- 1〜4日目：Q1〜12を1日3問。結論→根拠→条件の順で答える。
- 5〜8日目：Q13〜24を1日3問。反論を一部認めても主張に戻る練習。
- 9〜10日目：独自スピーチ2題を考慮1分・発話2分で練習。
- 11〜12日目：初見TOPICを使い、聞き返しや言い直しにも対応する。
- 13日目：発展8問で『どの証拠が必要か』を異なる立場から説明。
- 14日目：公式バーチャル面接や未使用の公式問題を参考に、実際の2次形式で練習する。
よくある質問
反論を受けたら自分の意見を変える必要がありますか？
必要ありません。別の意見に耳を傾け、なぜ自分はその判断を支持するのかを根拠とともに説明できれば、立場を維持する回答も成立します。
社会問題について統計を暗記していなければ答えられませんか？
架空の統計を事実として作る必要はありません。政策が誰にどう作用するか、どの指標で検証するか、条件が変わるとどう判断するかを説明できます。
英検1級の2次には毎回この質問が出ますか？
いいえ。公式の追質問はスピーチ内容やTOPICに基づき、具体的な質問を慶英会が予測・保証するものではありません。本記事は論理的な応答力を高めるための独自演習です。
関連する無料教材
慶英会の英検1級二次面接・無料体験
英語での発話が続かない、質問の焦点を外してしまう、反論を受けると沈黙する場合は、理由を自分の言葉で組み立てる練習が有効です。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。独自24問は申込み不要で閲覧できます。
公式情報：英検協会1級の公式出題形式、公式バーチャル二次試験。本記事のTOPIC・質問・模範回答は慶英会のオリジナル教材で、英検協会の監修教材ではありません。
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