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 you do instead?（代わりにどうしますか）」と質問されたら、元の案を批判するだけで終えず、代案→実施条件→費用・副作用→成果の確認を一つの回答で説明することが重要です。慶英会では社会問題10テーマ・独自追質問30問と英語模範回答、改善練習12問、模範スピーチ2題を用意しました。
英検1級二次試験は約10分の英語面接で、1分間の考慮時間後の2分スピーチと関連Q&Aが含まれます（英検協会の公式試験内容）。本教材の追質問は慶英会の教育用想定問答であり、公式出題を予告・再現するものではありません。
代案を説明する4つの順序
- 代案：Instead of banning everything, I would introduce a limited pilot.
- 実施条件：It should be introduced only after suitable alternatives are available.
- 費用・副作用：Officials should consider staffing costs and residents who might be excluded.
- 評価方法：I would measure reliable access and the unintended consequences, not simply the number of installations.
架空の統計や制度を実在するものとして話す必要はありません。わからない数字を無理に挙げず、誰が利益を得るか、誰が費用を負担するか、どの結果で成功を判断するかを具体的に述べましょう。
公共サービスの完全オンライン化｜基本立場：I oppose replacing every service desk with a website.
Q1：What would you do instead of closing all service desks?
Model reply: I would keep a limited number of staffed access points while moving routine applications online. Residents who need help with identity checks or complex cases could use a desk or telephone support. The aim is meaningful access rather than preserving every old procedure.
慶英会の解説：全窓口維持と全閉鎖の二者択一を避ける。
Q2：How would you control the additional operating costs?
Model reply: I would review which services genuinely need in-person help and share facilities where practical. Cost comparisons should include failed applications and repeated visits, not only rent and staffing.
慶英会の解説：人件費だけでなく手続き失敗のコストも比較。
Q3：What would show that your alternative works?
Model reply: I would examine successful completion rates across age groups and access needs, together with costs and waiting times. More website visits alone would not demonstrate inclusive service.
慶英会の解説：アクセス可能性を結果として測る。
都心部の全面的な自家用車禁止｜基本立場：I prefer targeted restrictions to an unconditional ban.
Q4：What would you propose instead of a complete car ban?
Model reply: I would test limited pedestrian priority areas while allowing essential deliveries and accessible transport. The city should expand reliable public transport before imposing restrictions that could leave residents without practical alternatives.
慶英会の解説：必要な例外と先行条件を提示。
Q5：How would you protect small businesses during the trial?
Model reply: I would consult delivery operators and shops, then adjust loading times and access rules. A trial that improves pedestrian safety but makes essential deliveries impossible would need redesign.
慶英会の解説：事業者への不利益と対応策を示す。
Q6：How would you know whether the policy should expand?
Model reply: I would compare pedestrian safety, bus reliability, delivery access, and congestion on neighboring streets. The program should be revised if significant harms merely move elsewhere.
慶英会の解説：成果と副作用を同じ期間で評価。
食品ロスを減らすための強制再配布｜基本立場：I favor prevention and safe voluntary sharing.
Q7：What would you do rather than require all surplus food to be donated?
Model reply: I would encourage shops to improve purchasing forecasts and support safe redistribution where appropriate. Some food cannot be shared safely, so prevention at the source should remain part of the policy.
慶英会の解説：食品安全のため全量再配布を否定。
Q8：Who would cover storage and transportation?
Model reply: Participating organizations and local authorities could agree on limited funding where the benefits justify it. Before expansion, the city should estimate refrigeration, collection, and staff requirements.
慶英会の解説：輸送・冷蔵の費用を含める。
Q9：How would you measure success?
Model reply: I would assess avoidable waste actually prevented, food safety, and the cost of operation. The number of redistributed meals would be informative but not sufficient on its own.
慶英会の解説：配布件数と廃棄削減成果を区別。
学校での生成AI全面禁止｜基本立場：I favor clear assessment rules over a universal ban.
Q10：What alternative would you suggest to banning AI everywhere?
Model reply: I would restrict AI assistance for tasks meant to test independent performance, but permit supervised use for explanation and practice. Students should also learn to verify AI-generated claims against reliable information.
慶英会の解説：独力の評価と支援付き練習を区別。
Q11：Would this policy be unfair to students without paid AI tools?
Model reply: It could be, so schools should provide equivalent access to approved resources where AI is part of the activity. Tasks should not require families to purchase expensive subscriptions.
慶英会の解説：費用・アクセスの不公平を扱う。
Q12：What evidence would tell you that this approach helps learning?
Model reply: Teachers should evaluate whether students can explain unfamiliar problems without assistance after guided practice. More AI-generated answers would not demonstrate stronger understanding.
慶英会の解説：独立した理解の測定が必要。
再生可能エネルギー設備の急速な一律導入｜基本立場：I support staged expansion with grid planning.
Q13：What would you do instead of ordering the same technology everywhere?
Model reply: I would assess local demand, generation conditions, transmission capacity, and maintenance needs. Then I would expand suitable systems alongside grid improvements and other reliable supply options.
慶英会の解説：地域条件に適した段階的導入。
Q14：How would you address reliability concerns?
Model reply: I would plan for periods when generation is low and test storage or alternative supply arrangements. The specific mix should follow local evidence rather than a claim that one technology is always sufficient.
慶英会の解説：発電量と需要の時間差を考慮。
Q15：What measures would you use to evaluate the investment?
Model reply: I would examine reliable energy delivered, lifetime costs, emissions, and effects on local communities. The number of new installations alone would not be a suitable measure.
慶英会の解説：設備数と実際の供給成果を区別。
文化財をすべて同じ方式で保存する｜基本立場：I favor priorities set with local communities.
Q16：What would you propose instead of preserving every item in the same way?
Model reply: I would work with communities to identify which records, practices, and objects face irreversible loss. Digital archives may help protect some materials, while living traditions may require teaching and participation.
慶英会の解説：資料と生きた文化の違いを認識。
Q17：How would you decide which projects deserve funding?
Model reply: I would consider cultural significance, community priorities, risks of loss, and realistic maintenance costs. Popularity alone should not determine whether a tradition has value.
慶英会の解説：人気や閲覧数だけで順位を決めない。
Q18：What would successful preservation look like?
Model reply: It would mean that knowledge can be used and passed on responsibly, not merely stored out of sight. I would examine community participation and access alongside the condition of preserved materials.
慶英会の解説：保存数ではなく利用と伝承も評価。
住宅問題への新築一辺倒｜基本立場：I support a mix of new supply and existing-home improvement.
Q19：What alternative would you offer to constructing only large new developments?
Model reply: I would evaluate renovating usable homes, improving transport to existing neighborhoods, and adding suitable new housing where demand is strong. No single approach will fit every location.
慶英会の解説：既存住宅と新規供給の併用。
Q20：Would renovation always be cheaper than construction?
Model reply: Not necessarily. Unsafe or inefficient properties can require expensive work. Officials should compare full lifetime costs, safety, and whether a dwelling meets residents’ needs.
慶英会の解説：購入費・修繕費・安全性を比較。
Q21：How would you check whether the policy increases affordability?
Model reply: I would consider housing costs relative to household resources, access to essential services, and the number of suitable homes. A higher construction total does not automatically mean that those most in need can afford housing.
慶英会の解説：住宅戸数と家計が負担できるかは別。
治安向上のための監視カメラ一律増設｜基本立場：I prefer targeted prevention with accountability.
Q22：What would you try instead of adding cameras everywhere?
Model reply: I would identify specific safety problems, improve lighting or street design where appropriate, and use proportionate monitoring only when there is a clear purpose. Privacy safeguards would be essential.
慶英会の解説：安全対策を具体的な危険に合わせる。
Q23：How would you address the argument that surveillance deters harm?
Model reply: It may do so in some settings, but effectiveness should be tested rather than assumed. I would compare actual incidents and unintended effects while ensuring independent oversight.
慶英会の解説：便益を全面否定せず効果を検証。
Q24：When would you revise the program?
Model reply: If it failed to reduce the relevant harm or imposed disproportionate privacy costs, I would reconsider the design. More installed cameras alone would not prove success.
慶英会の解説：機材数と安全成果を区別。
研究データの無条件公開｜基本立場：I favor tiered access rather than unrestricted release.
Q25：What alternative would you offer to publishing every dataset immediately?
Model reply: I would release appropriately documented general data while requiring additional review for sensitive personal or ecological records. Independent researchers could request controlled access for legitimate purposes.
慶英会の解説：全公開と全非公開の中間策。
Q26：Doesn’t restricted access undermine scientific transparency?
Model reply: It can limit some forms of scrutiny, so the criteria should be explicit and appeals possible. Responsible access should protect sensitive information without treating every request as a threat.
慶英会の解説：制限の副作用も認識。
Q27：How would you evaluate the success of this system?
Model reply: I would examine reproducible research, reasonable access times, and whether privacy safeguards work. Counting downloaded files alone would not measure responsible scientific value.
慶英会の解説：再現性・審査時間・プライバシーを評価。
全職種に同一の職業再訓練プログラム｜基本立場：I support programs adapted to different job requirements.
Q28：What would you do instead of offering one course to every worker?
Model reply: I would identify the skills needed for different occupations and provide several pathways, including technical practice and guided study. Learners should be able to choose training suited to realistic opportunities.
慶英会の解説：職種と学習目標に応じて異なるコース。
Q29：Wouldn’t specialized courses be more expensive?
Model reply: Some would require costly equipment, so a shared training facility or employer partnership might be appropriate. The cost should be compared with actual skill development rather than only enrollment totals.
慶英会の解説：設備共有など現実的な費用対応。
Q30：What would demonstrate that the training was useful?
Model reply: I would evaluate completion, practical skill assessments, and whether participants accessed suitable employment. I would also check who was unable to participate because of fees or transport.
慶英会の解説：登録数・技能・雇用を分けて測る。
独自12問｜代案が不十分な回答を改善する
修正1：不十分：Ban the entire system. →改善：Pilot a limited version with safeguards. 理由：全面禁止と限定試行を区別する。
修正2：不十分：Give everyone exactly the same support. →改善：Target support according to practical needs. 理由：同一配分が公平なアクセスを保証しない。
修正3：不十分：Just spend more money. →改善：Set priorities and evaluate life-cycle costs. 理由：投入額だけでなく成果を見る。
修正4：不十分：Use the same technology everywhere. →改善：Select technology according to local constraints. 理由：地域条件の違いを説明する。
修正5：不十分：The scheme should work immediately. →改善：Test the approach and revise it using outcomes. 理由：即時の確実な成功を保証しない。
修正6：不十分：Every resident will benefit. →改善：Some residents may benefit if key barriers are removed. 理由：対象と条件を限定する。
修正7：不十分：Remove all safeguards. →改善：Use proportionate oversight and clear accountability. 理由：危険の管理を条件として残す。
修正8：不十分：More equipment means better outcomes. →改善：Assess the relevant outcomes and unintended effects. 理由：設備数と便益を混同しない。
修正9：不十分：The policy is useless because it is costly. →改善：Compare its benefits, costs, and feasible alternatives. 理由：費用の存在だけで結論を出さない。
修正10：不十分：The same training fits every job. →改善：Match instruction and assessment to job requirements. 理由：職務に応じた技能評価を示す。
修正11：不十分：Data should all be secret. →改善：Allow transparent, tiered access to appropriate data. 理由：全面非公開にしない。
修正12：不十分：We should not do anything. →改善：Begin with a limited, measurable intervention. 理由：非行動のままでなく検証可能な代案。
模範スピーチ2題と独自追質問4問
スピーチ1｜Should cities require every public service to become digital?
慶英会独自英文（163語）
Cities should expand useful digital services, but I oppose requiring every essential service to be available only online. The objective should be access for residents, not digitalization for its own sake.
First, digital systems can handle routine requests conveniently. However, a website does not guarantee that everyone can complete a complicated application. People with limited connectivity or digital skills may need support.
Second, an online-only system can become vulnerable during technical failures. Maintaining a limited staffed alternative could help essential services continue when an application system is unavailable.
Third, some requests require individual explanations. In those cases, trained staff may prevent misunderstandings and repeated unsuccessful submissions.
Admittedly, operating more than one channel requires funding. I would therefore review demand and consolidate facilities where practical instead of retaining every old procedure unchanged.
For these reasons, I favor a mixed system in which routine applications are digital while meaningful alternatives remain. I would judge success by completion rates, reliability, and access for people facing barriers.
Follow-up: What would you do instead of closing the desks?
Answer: I would keep targeted in-person and telephone support for complex cases while digitizing routine applications.
Follow-up: How would you justify the additional expense?
Answer: I would compare operating costs with failed applications, repeat visits, and the benefit of service continuity.
スピーチ2｜Should all cities ban private cars in central districts?
慶英会独自英文（154語）
I support safer and more accessible city centers, but an unconditional ban on private vehicles may create unnecessary difficulties. I would favor targeted restrictions that are tested before expansion.
First, pedestrian-focused areas can make crowded streets more comfortable. Yet essential deliveries and travelers with limited mobility require realistic alternatives.
Second, public transport must be reliable before people are expected to stop driving. A cheaper bus ticket is not enough when services do not reach the right places or run at suitable times.
Third, cities should monitor the consequences of changing traffic patterns. Restrictions in one district might simply move congestion or noise into nearby residential streets.
A reasonable objection is that gradual changes may deliver benefits slowly. Nevertheless, a careful trial could identify problems before they become widespread.
For these reasons, I support limited pedestrian-priority zones, accessible exemptions, and investment in alternatives. Expansion should depend on evidence of improved safety without unacceptable harm elsewhere.
Follow-up: What would you propose instead of a complete ban?
Answer: I would begin with selected pedestrian-priority streets while protecting necessary deliveries and accessible travel.
Follow-up: What could make you revise your policy?
Answer: I would reconsider it if congestion shifted significantly to residential streets or essential access became unreliable.
7日間の反復練習
- 1日目：Q1〜6。全オンライン化と車の全面禁止に対する代案を説明する。
- 2日目：Q7〜12。食品ロスと学校AIの実施条件・費用を説明する。
- 3日目：Q13〜18。エネルギー・文化保存を地域条件と結び付ける。
- 4日目：Q19〜24。住宅・安全の代案を成果指標まで述べる。
- 5日目：Q25〜30。研究データと職業訓練の代案を提案する。
- 6日目：不十分な12例を修正し、反論のあとに具体策を提示する。
- 7日目：模範2スピーチを1分で構成し、2分以内を目指して録音して改善する。
よくある質問
英検1級面接で代案が思いつかなかったらどうすべきですか？
無理に複雑な政策を作らず、対象の限定、段階的試行、例外措置、評価という基本的な設計要素から一つ選びましょう。質問へ直接答えることが優先です。
元の主張に反対しないと代案を述べられませんか？
必ずしもそうではありません。元の目的を支持しながら、実施方法を改善する代案を示すことができます。
実際の面接で30問すべて聞かれますか？
いいえ。実際の面接は選んだトピックに関連するQ&Aです。本記事の30問は慶英会が作成した練習用です。
関連する慶英会の無料教材
代案を即答できない場合は、慶英会の最大1か月無料体験・学習相談で立場と理由を組み立てる練習をご相談いただけます。
参考にした主な公式情報
全ての質問・回答・英文は慶英会の独自制作であり、公式問題や実在の調査結果ではありません。
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