英検1級の長文読解13問【無料】｜空所補充6問・内容一致7問と全文解説

英検1級のリーディング対策では、語彙力に加えて空欄前後の論理・段落の役割・設問と本文の対応箇所を見つける力が重要です。本ページでは慶英会が作成した独自英文3本を使い、長文の空所補充6問＋内容一致7問＝計13問を無料で解けます。問題に必要な本文、4択、正答根拠、復習方法を1ページに集約しました。

英検協会の1級一次試験では長文の語句空所補充6問と長文内容一致7問が出題されます。協会公式の1級試験内容で設問数と形式を確認してください。本教材の3英文・13設問はすべて慶英会の独自作成であり、公式過去問の転載ではありません。

進め方：空所6問→内容一致7問→全問解答と根拠→復習と別解の消去。英文の長さは練習用に調整しているため本試験の長文と同一の語数・難度を保証しません。

1級長文を読む3ステップ

• 第1段階：段落冒頭と逆接・因果を読み、話題の構造をつかむ。
• 第2段階：空所には「直前の指示語・具体例・結論」を見てから選択肢を当てはめる。
• 第3段階：内容一致は設問の言い換えを探し、本文が主張していない強い断定を消去する。

長文の語句空所補充・独自6問（全2英文）

英文1｜「モノの図書館」は資源の浪費を減らせるか

In many cities, residents can borrow power tools, camping equipment, and kitchen appliances from community libraries instead of buying items they expect to use only occasionally. Supporters say these programs can reduce unnecessary purchases while helping people with limited storage space or modest incomes gain access to useful equipment. Yet the environmental effects are not automatic. A borrowed item that needs frequent repairs or has to be transported over long distances may offer less benefit than advocates assume.

Organizers often begin with a simple calculation: one shared drill might serve dozens of households. But ownership is only one part of the equation. Members may be unfamiliar with specialized tools or uncertain about safety procedures. (1) ______ Some programs provide short demonstrations, while others lend clear instructions and protective equipment.

Durability presents a second challenge. Shared equipment is handled by many users with different levels of experience. Staff must inspect items after each return, record damage, and remove unsafe products from circulation. (2) ______ When municipalities help cover these expenses, officials must compare them with other potential uses of public funds.

Finally, organizers have to ask whether borrowing actually prevents purchases. A library might record thousands of loans even when most users would otherwise have borrowed from friends or gone without the item. To evaluate environmental effects, some projects survey participants and estimate how often borrowing replaces buying. (3) ______ A library of things may still have social value even if the reduction in waste is smaller than expected, but its claims should reflect the evidence.

英文2｜沿岸湿地の再生と防災の両立

Coastal wetlands are increasingly discussed as a form of natural protection against flooding. Marsh vegetation can slow water movement and absorb some wave energy, while wetland habitats provide benefits to wildlife. For these reasons, communities facing rising sea levels have considered restoring marshes that were previously drained or damaged.

Restoration can be attractive because a healthy wetland may provide more than one benefit. It can support fish populations, create recreational space, and contribute to local biodiversity. (4) ______ Engineers therefore caution against assuming that a restored marsh will always offer the same level of protection as a floodwall, particularly during extreme storms.

Projects also have social consequences. Land suitable for restoration may currently be used by farmers, businesses, or families. Even residents who support conservation in principle may oppose a plan that threatens their livelihoods or restricts access to familiar areas. (5) ______ Consultation can reveal alternative designs and compensation needs before conflict becomes entrenched.

Measuring success is equally complicated. Planting grasses is easy to count, but the number of seedlings says little about whether a wetland survives, supports native species, and protects nearby communities over time. Researchers may need to track changes in vegetation, sediment levels, flood exposure, and public access for years. (6) ______ The strongest projects combine ecological evidence, engineering judgment, and ongoing participation by local people.

空所（1）〜（6）の選択肢

問1｜空所（1）
A. Users also need training and reliable safety guidance.
B. Consequently, every borrower should purchase their own equipment.
C. Such uncertainty makes technical support unnecessary.
D. The equipment is never returned after it has been borrowed.

問2｜空所（2）
A. Borrowing arrangements remove all administrative expenses.
B. Therefore, no repairs are needed once an item is purchased.
C. These tasks involve costs that membership fees alone may not cover.
D. In fact, damaged tools should remain in circulation.

問3｜空所（3）
A. Environmental impacts can be established simply by counting loans.
B. The programs must prohibit borrowing among friends.
C. Safety training is the only useful measure of success.
D. Such evidence helps distinguish genuine waste reduction from impressive publicity.

問4｜空所（4）
A. Wetlands protect every coastline equally, regardless of storms.
B. However, their protective effect depends on location, vegetation, and weather conditions.
C. Therefore, engineers no longer assess flood risks at the local level.
D. As a result, all floodwalls can immediately be removed.

問5｜空所（5）
A. The most efficient plan is to avoid consulting any residents.
B. Scientific measurements can eliminate all conflicts over land.
C. People who own land rarely notice major changes to its use.
D. Consequently, projects designed without local participation may provoke strong resistance.

問6｜空所（6）
A. A high seedling count always proves that flooding risk has fallen.
B. Local needs should be considered only after a project ends.
C. Long-term monitoring must therefore address ecological outcomes and residents’ needs together.
D. No additional observations are necessary once grasses have been planted.

長文内容一致・独自7問（1英文）

Reading passage: Citizen Science and the Limits of a Data Map　本文を読み、問7〜13の最も適切な選択肢を一つ選んでください。推測だけで選ばず、必ず該当段落を指摘してください。

Paragraph 1. At a public meeting in a riverside town, residents watched a screen displaying hundreds of dots on a map. Each dot represented a water-quality measurement collected by a volunteer using a small sensor or test kit. The local government had traditionally relied on a few professional monitoring stations, which produced highly reliable information but could not cover every street-level waterway. A new citizen-science project aimed to reveal patterns that the existing network might overlook.

Paragraph 2. The project did not assume that every measurement made by a volunteer was equally trustworthy. Participants attended training sessions on where to take samples, how to record time and location, and when to report equipment problems. A university laboratory periodically tested duplicate samples to compare volunteer results with professional measurements. Data that fell outside plausible ranges were flagged for review rather than automatically removed. Organizers wanted to preserve potentially important observations while preventing obvious errors from misleading the public.

Paragraph 3. During the first six months, the number of recorded pollution alerts rose sharply. Several local newspapers initially described the increase as proof that the river was deteriorating. Researchers, however, pointed out that the monitoring network had expanded into tributaries that were seldom tested before. Some newly identified problems were genuine, but a higher alert count did not necessarily mean that pollution itself had increased. The project had become better at finding events that might previously have gone unnoticed.

Paragraph 4. Over time, another limitation became clear. Volunteer participation was highest in neighborhoods with active community associations and residents who had spare time. Industrial districts and areas with fewer public organizations had relatively few sampling locations. The map therefore displayed more information about the places where participation was easiest, not necessarily the places where environmental risks were lowest. To narrow this gap, the town offered evening training sessions, provided shared equipment, and partnered with schools and local workers in underrepresented areas.

Paragraph 5. Officials also faced difficult decisions about communication. Publishing every unusual reading without context could alarm residents unnecessarily. Waiting for exhaustive laboratory confirmation, on the other hand, might delay action when a serious incident occurred. The project adopted a two-stage system: suspicious measurements were labeled provisional and promptly sent to specialists, while confirmed findings were explained publicly with information about what remained uncertain. Health departments used the results to decide where additional testing and advice were most urgent.

Paragraph 6. Supporters argue that the project demonstrates how citizen science can complement professional expertise. Volunteers can expand the geographic reach of observation, but training, independent verification, and fair participation remain essential. The project’s value lies not simply in the number of dots on a map, but in whether those measurements help communities make more informed and equitable decisions.

問7. What was the principal reason for introducing the citizen-science network?
A. To replace all laboratory staff with volunteers.
B. To observe waterways not adequately covered by existing stations.
C. To prove that industrial activity was the town’s main problem.
D. To provide paid employment for community association leaders.

問8. Why did the organizers arrange laboratory checks of duplicate samples?
A. To calculate the number of volunteers needed for each district.
B. To prevent citizens from ever reporting unusual readings.
C. To compare volunteer data with professional results and evaluate reliability.
D. To keep all data secret until the monitoring program ended.

問9. What misunderstanding arose when pollution alerts became more frequent?
A. The increased number of detections was taken as proof of worsening pollution.
B. Volunteers believed the river had stopped flowing.
C. Newspapers assumed professionals no longer operated monitoring stations.
D. Officials concluded that no genuine pollution events had occurred.

問10. Which statement best expresses the author’s assessment of volunteer participation?
A. Volunteers can always collect data without any instruction.
B. Participation in citizen science is equally high in all neighborhoods.
C. Volunteer networks are useful only if they avoid all industrial areas.
D. Volunteers can expand coverage, but their data and participation require safeguards.

問11. In paragraph four, what does “this gap” chiefly refer to?
A. The difference between summer and winter water temperatures.
B. The unequal distribution of monitoring activity across neighborhoods.
C. The time between two professional laboratory tests.
D. The difference between two brands of water sensors.

問12. How did officials attempt to balance rapid warnings against inaccurate public alarms?
A. They posted all measurements as confirmed facts immediately.
B. They permanently withheld suspicious observations.
C. They labeled initial readings provisional and sought expert confirmation.
D. They asked newspapers to publish no river-related information.

問13. Which future policy is most consistent with the passage’s overall argument?
A. Continue expanding measurements while funding verification and outreach in underserved areas.
B. Judge the project’s success only by the total number of map markers.
C. End professional monitoring because volunteers are always equally accurate.
D. Restrict sampling to neighborhoods with the strongest community organizations.

13問の正解と根拠解説

先に根拠となる段落へ戻り、正解の選択肢を選んだ理由を自分で説明した後に開いてください。本文に書かれていない断定を排除することも正解理由の一部です。

問1〜6：空所補充の正答と全解説を表示

問1：A Users also need training and reliable safety guidance.
直前の機器利用の不慣れ・安全不安を受け、直後のdemonstrations/instructionsとつながる。単なる共有の利点ではなく支援が必要という文。

問2：C These tasks involve costs that membership fees alone may not cover.
inspect / record damage / remove unsafe products の業務が市の支援費用へつながる。These tasks が直前の点検業務を受ける。

問3：D Such evidence helps distinguish genuine waste reduction from impressive publicity.
loan countsと実際の代替購入の違いを調べる→証拠に基づく環境効果の検証。Such evidence がsurveys/estimatesを受ける。

問4：B However, their protective effect depends on location, vegetation, and weather conditions.
利点から制約に転じ、後続のEngineers therefore cautionと一致。effects depend on … が地域差・極端な嵐の注意につながる。

問5：D Consequently, projects designed without local participation may provoke strong resistance.
土地利用者の利害→反対が生じる因果、直後のConsultation can reveal…と整合。

問6：C Long-term monitoring must therefore address ecological outcomes and residents’ needs together.
苗の数だけでは不十分→植生・洪水・利用状況を長期観察→複合評価が必要。

問7〜13：内容一致の正答と本文根拠を表示

問7：B To observe waterways not adequately covered by existing stations.
第1段落。専門観測所は信頼性が高いが細かい水路全域は追えず、空白のパターン把握が目的。replace all は言いすぎ。
本文の目印：could not cover every street-level waterway / reveal patterns

問8：C To compare volunteer data with professional results and evaluate reliability.
第2段落。unusual を自動削除せず、独立検証により信頼性を確認。
本文の目印：compare volunteer results with professional measurements

問9：A The increased number of detections was taken as proof of worsening pollution.
第3段落。観測範囲が拡大したため検出数増加と汚染悪化は同義ではない。
本文の目印：a higher alert count did not necessarily mean … increased

問10：D Volunteers can expand coverage, but their data and participation require safeguards.
第2・4・6段落にまたがる統合。訓練、専門検証、地域的な偏りの対処が必要。
本文の目印：training, independent verification, and fair participation remain essential

問11：B The unequal distribution of monitoring activity across neighborhoods.
第4段落直前の工業地域等で採水が少ない問題。指示表現の直前だけでなく段落の論題を確認。
本文の目印：relatively few sampling locations / To narrow this gap

問12：C They labeled initial readings provisional and sought expert confirmation.
第5段落。暫定表示→専門家への送付→確認後に不確実性も説明。
本文の目印：labeled provisional … sent to specialists

問13：A Continue expanding measurements while funding verification and outreach in underserved areas.
第6段落の結論を政策提案へ転用。量だけでなく信頼性、公平性、意思決定への利用。
本文の目印：not simply in the number of dots / informed and equitable decisions

空所補充：誤答が生まれる4パターン

誤答の原因	起こること	直し方
直前だけ読む	文自体は自然でも、次の段落と接続しない	空所の前後1文と段落の最後まで読む
指示語の参照先を誤る	These tasks / Such evidence が何か分からない	直前の複数名詞のうち意味の一致する内容へ戻る
逆接を無視する	However, Yet, Although の転換を取り落とす	主張と制約を左右に書き分ける
極端な断定を選ぶ	always / never / all に引っ張られる	原文の may / can / depend を保持する

内容一致：本文根拠7つの探し方

設問	見る段落	読みの焦点
7	第1段落	目的：既存専門観測の空白を埋める
8	第2段落	方法：重複サンプルによる精度比較
9	第3段落	誤解：検出数増＝汚染増とは限らない
10	第2・4・6段落	総合：市民参加の利点と限界を統合
11	第4段落	指示語：this gap の参照内容
12	第5段落	手順：暫定結果→専門家検証→説明
13	第6段落	推論：信頼性・参加の公平性を今後も維持

7日後までに「初見対応力」を伸ばす復習

• 当日：13問を解き、根拠段落と選択肢の消去理由を記録する。
• 翌日：誤答は本文を読み直し、設問の言い換えを日本語で説明する。
• 3日後：解答の選択肢を隠し、空所6問には自分の英文を入れてみる。
• 5日後：内容一致7問の正答根拠を1文引用ではなく自分の英語で言い換える。
• 7日後：公式過去問の別の長文を初見で解き、同じ根拠探しが通用するか確認する。

独自13問の正答数を公式CSEスコア・合格率へ換算することはできません。1級の実力は、初見の英文で論理の根拠を特定できるか、別のテーマへ転用できるかで確認します。

よくある質問

英検1級の長文の空所補充は何問ですか？

英検協会の公式試験内容では6問です。本教材も6問を再現した独自形式ですが、本試験そのものを転載したものではありません。

長文内容一致は何問ありますか？

公式の設問数は7問です。根拠文を探すことに加え、本文にない断定・因果の逆転・一部の事実を全体に拡大した選択肢を識別する練習が有効です。

分からない単語が出たら必ず辞書を引くべきですか？

初見で解く段階ではまず接続語、対比、因果を使って文全体の意味を推測します。解答後に語義を確認し、前後の語句とセットで復習してください。

英検1級の無料教材を組み合わせる

• 語彙22問・全解説
• 英文要約90〜110語・独自2題
• 意見英作文200〜240語・独自2題
• 二次面接の12テーマ・質疑練習
• 慶英会の級別学習ガイド

長文読解の学習相談・最大1か月無料体験

語彙は知っているのに設問で迷う場合は、本文の根拠行と消去した選択肢を照合すると、意味の取り違えか論理の取り違えかを区別できます。慶英会の学習相談・最大1か月無料体験、英検オンライン個別指導の案内からご相談いただけます。

参考にした主な公式情報・教材の注記

• 日本英語検定協会｜1級の試験内容（長文空所補充6問・内容一致7問）
• 日本英語検定協会｜1級公式過去問（本試験の問題冊子・解答・音源）

確認日：2026年10月26日。英語本文3題・設問13問・正答と解説は慶英会の独自練習教材です。英検協会の監修・保証・公式過去問の転載ではありません。学習の到達度と実際の合否は別に判断してください。

最大1ヶ月無料体験授業受付中！（残り枠わずかです！）

最大1ヶ月の「完全無料」指導体験
平均2~3時間のレッスン ＋ 毎日LINEサポート付き

ご入塾前に、慶英会の圧倒的な指導品質をじっくりご体感ください。

無料体験だけで成績が上がる方も続出!!
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。

⚠️【塾長直接指導の残り枠わずか】
枠が埋まり次第終了となります。お早めにお申し込みください。

最大1ヶ月無料体験（残り枠わずか）Eメールでのお申し込み