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級の長文で主語と動詞を見失うときは、英文を左から順番にすべて訳さず、主節の骨格（主語・述語動詞・補語・目的語）を先に確認します。関係詞節・後置修飾・同格・分詞句・名詞節が長くても、主語と主動詞を区別すれば論点が見えやすくなります。慶英会では、独自30構文の骨格抽出と、初見長文2篇・内容一致8問・全選択肢の解説を無料公開します。
英検1級Readingは短文の語句空所補充22問、長文空所補充6問、長文内容一致7問です（英検協会公式の1級試験内容）。本教材の30構文と8問は、主節の読み取りを集中して鍛える慶英会の独自教材で、英検協会の出題数や過去問を再現したものではありません。
主節を見つける5つのルール
- 1：関係代名詞who・which・that以下の述語を、主節の述語と取り違えない。
- 2：分詞句（based on / offered withoutなど）は名詞を説明する場合がある。名詞の後の動詞形を主動詞だと決めつけない。
- 3：ダッシュやカンマで挟まれた同格・挿入を一時的に取り除き、主語と動詞をつなぐ。
- 4：What / Whether / That / Howなどの名詞節そのものが主語になる文もある。無理に短い名詞へ置換しない。
- 5：Not until / Only after / Rarelyなどの倒置は通常語順に戻して確実性・否定の範囲を確認する。
「骨格」欄は意味の補足を一時的に取り除いて主節を見せるための練習用表記です。元文の修飾や限定条件を無視して最終的な解釈をするためではありません。骨格が取れたら修飾語句を戻し、本文の主張の範囲を正確に読みましょう。
独自30構文｜まず主語と主動詞を探す
関係詞節を外して主節を探す
構文1：The report that the committee released last week challenged the earlier claim.
構文2：Researchers whose original model attracted criticism revised their estimates.
構文3：A service which seems convenient to regular users can still exclude some residents.
構文4：Evidence that was collected from two villages may not represent the whole region.
構文5：The proposal to which several residents objected remained under consideration.
構文6：The people who could not use the online form were offered printed alternatives.
分詞・不定詞などの後置修飾を外す
構文7：A report based on incomplete responses cannot establish nationwide demand.
構文8：The city, having reviewed the trial, extended it for another month.
構文9：A service offered without telephone support may exclude older residents.
構文10：Students asked to analyse unfamiliar evidence often require clear instructions.
構文11：Measures intended to reduce energy use may create additional maintenance needs.
構文12：Written before the latest survey, the memorandum describes an earlier concern.
同格・挿入句に惑わされない
構文13：The proposal, an attempt to widen access, requires further evaluation.
構文14：Dr Evans, the lead evaluator, questioned the announcement.
構文15：One major limitation—the absence of a comparison group—remained unresolved.
構文16：Several measures, including printed alternatives and staff guidance, were considered.
構文17：The finding that participation had increased did not establish better learning.
構文18：Managers, according to the published minutes, agreed to revise the timetable.
名詞節が主語・目的語になる
構文19：What matters most is whether residents can actually use the service.
構文20：That attendance increased does not prove that understanding improved.
構文21：Whether the programme should expand remains uncertain.
構文22：The central question is whether the benefits justify the costs.
構文23：The review suggests that the result might not generalise.
構文24：How the data were collected affects the reliability of the conclusion.
譲歩節・倒置でも骨格を見抜く
構文25：Although the evidence was limited, the council approved a second trial.
構文26：Because the records were incomplete, researchers avoided broad claims.
構文27：Not until the second survey did analysts recognise the measurement error.
構文28：Only after reviewing the costs did officials revise their proposal.
構文29：Rarely have the registers provided a complete picture of informal trade.
構文30：Even though the pilot was popular, its long-term effectiveness remained unproven.
全30構文の骨格と和訳のポイント
関係詞節を外して主節を探す｜解説
構文1の主節骨格：The report challenged the earlier claim.
理由：that the committee released last weekはreportの修飾。主語はThe report、主動詞はchallenged。
構文2の主節骨格：Researchers revised their estimates.
理由：whose original model attracted criticismはresearchersを説明。主動詞はrevised。
構文3の主節骨格：A service can still exclude some residents.
理由：which節はserviceを修飾し、can excludeが主節の動詞句。
構文4の主節骨格：Evidence may not represent the whole region.
理由：that節を外してもEvidence may not representの主節が残る。
構文5の主節骨格：The proposal remained under consideration.
理由：to whichはobjected toの前置詞付き関係詞。remainedが主動詞。
構文6の主節骨格：The people were offered printed alternatives.
理由：who could not use…は人の限定。were offeredが主節の受動態。
分詞・不定詞などの後置修飾を外す｜解説
構文7の主節骨格：A report cannot establish nationwide demand.
理由：based on以下がreportを修飾。cannot establishが主節。
構文8の主節骨格：The city extended it for another month.
理由：having reviewedは従属的な分詞句。主動詞はextended。
構文9の主節骨格：A service may exclude older residents.
理由：offered…はserviceの受動的修飾。may excludeが主節。
構文10の主節骨格：Students often require clear instructions.
理由：asked to analyse…はstudentsの修飾。requireが主動詞。
構文11の主節骨格：Measures may create additional maintenance needs.
理由：intended to…はmeasuresの目的・性格の説明。
構文12の主節骨格：The memorandum describes an earlier concern.
理由：文頭のWritten…はmemorandumを修飾。describesが主動詞。
同格・挿入句に惑わされない｜解説
構文13の主節骨格：The proposal requires further evaluation.
理由：an attempt…はproposalの同格。requiresが主動詞。
構文14の主節骨格：Dr Evans questioned the announcement.
理由：the lead evaluatorは人物の補足説明。
構文15の主節骨格：One major limitation remained unresolved.
理由：ダッシュで挿入された同格を外すと主節が見える。
構文16の主節骨格：Several measures were considered.
理由：including…は例示で、were consideredが主節の受動態。
構文17の主節骨格：The finding did not establish better learning.
理由：that participation had increasedはfindingの内容を表す同格節。did not establishが主節。
構文18の主節骨格：Managers agreed to revise the timetable.
理由：according to…は情報源を示す挿入句。
名詞節が主語・目的語になる｜解説
構文19の主節骨格：[What matters most] is [whether residents can actually use the service].
理由：What節が主語全体、whether節が補語となる。isを見失わない。
構文20の主節骨格：[That attendance increased] does not prove [that understanding improved].
理由：先頭のthat節が主語、後のthat節はproveの目的語。
構文21の主節骨格：[Whether the programme should expand] remains uncertain.
理由：whether節が主語全体、remainsが主動詞。
構文22の主節骨格：The central question is [whether the benefits justify the costs].
理由：whetherは疑問の名詞節で、条件ifとは別。
構文23の主節骨格：The review suggests [that the result might not generalise].
理由：suggestsが主動詞、that節は目的語。
構文24の主節骨格：[How the data were collected] affects the reliability of the conclusion.
理由：How節が主語全体。affectsが主節の動詞。
譲歩節・倒置でも骨格を見抜く｜解説
構文25の主節骨格：The council approved a second trial.
理由：Although節は従属する譲歩、approvedが主動詞。
構文26の主節骨格：Researchers avoided broad claims.
理由：Because節は理由、主動詞はavoided。
構文27の主節骨格：Analysts did not recognise the measurement error until the second survey.
理由：否定語句前置による倒置。did analysts recogniseが主動詞構造。
構文28の主節骨格：Officials revised their proposal only after reviewing the costs.
理由：Only after…の前置による倒置を通常語順に戻す。
構文29の主節骨格：The registers have rarely provided a complete picture of informal trade.
理由：Rarely前置による倒置。助動詞haveと主語が逆転。
構文30の主節骨格：Its long-term effectiveness remained unproven.
理由：Even thoughは譲歩節、remainedが主動詞。
独自2長文｜主節を見つけて内容一致8問を解く
独自長文A｜騒音モニターの観測数は生活環境の改善を示すか
A fictional municipality introduced portable sound monitors to understand noise near roads and schools. Officials reported that the number of measurements had increased substantially, a result they described as a step toward more responsive urban planning. The monitors, installed at a variety of locations, could record fluctuations throughout the day. However, the published summary offered few details about how the devices had been calibrated or whether their readings were directly comparable.
An independent reviewer, invited after residents questioned the report, found that some monitors had been placed near construction sites while others were operating in quiet residential streets. The difference in location, although relevant to understanding local exposure, made a simple citywide average difficult to interpret. What concerned the reviewer most was not the decision to collect more data but the assumption that a growing dataset automatically represented greater accuracy.
The municipality subsequently introduced common calibration checks and clearer descriptions of each location. Some officials proposed installing even more monitors, whereas others argued that maintaining existing equipment and explaining uncertain readings deserved priority. Both positions assumed that information could improve decisions, but they differed over which next step would provide greater value. Not until the revised procedures had been tested did the council agree to consider wider deployment.
The report’s author concludes that monitoring technology can contribute to better environmental management without by itself establishing that residents face less harmful noise. A defensible evaluation needs to distinguish the number of recordings, the reliability of measurements and any actual change in conditions. These related questions require different evidence, and an improvement in one is not necessarily proof of progress in the others.
日本語要旨：架空の自治体は騒音測定件数を増やしたが、機器校正・測定地点が異なり全市平均の比較は難しい。研究者はデータ数と精度を区別。自治体は校正・地点説明を改善してから拡張を検討した。筆者は測定数・精度・住民の環境改善は別々に検証すべきと結論づける。
Q1：What was the independent reviewer’s main concern?
- （A）More measurements were being treated as if they necessarily meant more accurate information.
- （B）The city had permanently removed every monitoring device.
- （C）Residents had already experienced identical noise reductions.
- （D）No one had reported any measurement results.
Q2：What made a simple citywide average difficult to interpret?
- （A）All devices were installed in one quiet classroom.
- （B）The review relied only on a single online questionnaire.
- （C）The monitors operated in substantially different local conditions.
- （D）No monitor could record measurements at different times.
Q3：When did the council agree to consider expansion?
- （A）Immediately after the first announcement, without further checks.
- （B）Only after revised monitoring procedures had been tested.
- （C）Before the city began any calibration work.
- （D）When all residents had reported lower noise.
Q4：What is the report author’s final distinction?
- （A）More data automatically prove that noise levels fell.
- （B）The city should abandon all measurement technology.
- （C）Only the total number of devices matters when judging success.
- （D）Recording volume, measurement reliability and environmental outcomes require separate evidence.
独自長文B｜地域の種子保存制度と収穫の安定性
In a fictional farming district, local cooperatives established a seed bank intended to preserve varieties that commercial suppliers rarely stocked. The programme, supported by small grants, initially attracted praise for making a wider range of seeds available. An annual report stated that distribution had increased and suggested that farmers were becoming better prepared for uncertain growing conditions. Several officials interpreted these figures as evidence of improved agricultural resilience.
A subsequent investigation found a more complicated situation. Some farmers had received seeds but had been unable to use them before the appropriate planting season. Other households lacked the storage space needed to protect the seeds from humidity. A programme that records successful distribution, the researchers explained, does not necessarily show that the material remains viable or that it contributes to stable harvests. What the original report had measured was primarily the number of packages sent.
The cooperative’s director acknowledged these limitations while defending the project’s conservation goals. She proposed adding storage guidance and a small trial comparing germination rates under different conditions. Researchers welcomed that proposal but noted that short-term germination was still different from long-term agricultural resilience. Weather patterns, soil quality and farming practices could affect actual outcomes, even when the seeds themselves were viable.
Rather than discontinue the programme, the regional council approved an additional evaluation period. Only after considering storage outcomes, planting success and farmers’ circumstances would it decide whether to increase funding. The author argues that a system created to preserve biological diversity may be valuable without every recorded shipment delivering the same agricultural benefit. The strongest conclusion is conditional: distribution is a useful first step, but sustainable results depend on what happens afterward.
日本語要旨：架空の種子バンクは配布数増を成果として評価したが、播種期・保管状況に問題があり配布と発芽・収穫安定は同じではない。保管支援・発芽率・農家事情を含む追加検証後に拡充の可否を決めるという結論。
Q5：What did the initial programme statistics principally measure?
- （A）The long-term stability of all regional harvests.
- （B）The precise effect of soil quality in each farm.
- （C）The number of seed packages distributed.
- （D）The percentage of seeds that remained viable for a decade.
Q6：Why were some farmers unable to benefit fully from receiving seeds?
- （A）Every seed was proved to be genetically defective.
- （B）Planting schedules and storage conditions created additional obstacles.
- （C）The cooperative prohibited all farmers from planting.
- （D）The programme distributed no seed packages.
Q7：How did the director respond to the limitations?
- （A）She proposed better storage guidance and tests of germination under different conditions.
- （B）She declared every prior shipment entirely useless.
- （C）She argued that germination and harvest stability were identical.
- （D）She requested an immediate end to all conservation work.
Q8：What does the author ultimately argue?
- （A）More distributed packages automatically guarantee better harvests.
- （B）Only seed-bank closure can protect biodiversity.
- （C）Short-term germination completely determines regional resilience.
- （D）Distribution is a useful beginning, but lasting benefits depend on conditions after delivery.
内容一致8問の正解一覧と4選択肢の理由
Q1（A）／Q2（C）／Q3（B）／Q4（D）／Q5（C）／Q6（B）／Q7（A）／Q8（D）
Q1｜正解（A）
正解の英文：More measurements were being treated as if they necessarily meant more accurate information.
- （A）正解：第2段落の assumption that a growing dataset automatically represented greater accuracy。
- （B）誤答：監視装置は運用継続している。
- （C）誤答：騒音低減の一致・実証はされていない。
- （D）誤答：測定数の増加が報告されている。
Q2｜正解（C）
正解の英文：The monitors operated in substantially different local conditions.
- （A）誤答：工事現場も住宅地も含まれる。
- （B）誤答：現場モニターの測定と較正が対象。
- （C）正解：工事現場と静かな住宅街という測定地点の差を考慮する必要。
- （D）誤答：昼間を通じて変動を記録できる。
Q3｜正解（B）
正解の英文：Only after revised monitoring procedures had been tested.
- （A）誤答：即時拡張ではなく試行後の検討。
- （B）正解：Not until revised procedures had been tested did the council agree。
- （C）誤答：校正作業を追加している。
- （D）誤答：住民の騒音低下は実証されていない。
Q4｜正解（D）
正解の英文：Recording volume, measurement reliability and environmental outcomes require separate evidence.
- （A）誤答：データ数と環境改善は別。
- （B）誤答：技術の潜在的な有用性は認める。
- （C）誤答：端末数だけで価値は測れない。
- （D）正解：最終段落のnumber of recordings／reliability／change in conditionsが3つの指標。
Q5｜正解（C）
正解の英文：The number of seed packages distributed.
- （A）誤答：長期収穫は未確認。
- （B）誤答：土壌は追加要因として挙げられた。
- （C）正解：What the original report had measured was primarily the number of packages sent。
- （D）誤答：長期の種子寿命を測ったとは記載なし。
Q6｜正解（B）
正解の英文：Planting schedules and storage conditions created additional obstacles.
- （A）誤答：全種子の欠陥とは言っていない。
- （B）正解：appropriate planting seasonとhumidityへの保管能力が障壁。
- （C）誤答：栽培禁止の記述はない。
- （D）誤答：実際に種子は配られた。
Q7｜正解（A）
正解の英文：She proposed better storage guidance and tests of germination under different conditions.
- （A）正解：storage guidanceとtrial comparing germination ratesを提案。
- （B）誤答：保全目的の有用性は支持している。
- （C）誤答：研究者は短期発芽と長期安定を区別。
- （D）誤答：計画の中止ではない。
Q8｜正解（D）
正解の英文：Distribution is a useful beginning, but lasting benefits depend on conditions after delivery.
- （A）誤答：自動保証を否定する主題。
- （B）誤答：保全自体の価値は認める。
- （C）誤答：土壌・天候など追加要因がある。
- （D）正解：distribution is useful first step, but sustainable results depend on what happens afterward。
7日間の英検1級長文復習法
- 1日目：構文1〜6の関係代名詞節を囲み、主語と主動詞を取り出す。
- 2日目：構文7〜12の分詞句・後置修飾を除き、主節を読む。
- 3日目：構文13〜18の同格・挿入を取り出し、情報の役割を確認。
- 4日目：構文19〜24の名詞節を主語や目的語として扱う。
- 5日目：構文25〜30の倒置・譲歩節を元の通常語順に戻す。
- 6日目：長文A・Bに初見のつもりで取り組み、4択のすべての理由を確認。
- 7日目：英検協会の未使用過去問で主節の発見と正答率を確認する。
よくある質問
修飾節をすべて無視して読めばよいですか？
いいえ。主節の骨格を見つけるために一時的に外し、その後必ず条件・時期・対象などの修飾を戻して理解します。主節だけで選択肢を判断すると限定条件を落とすおそれがあります。
英検1級では何語の英文を読むと合格できますか？
英文の一文の長さや語数だけで合否が決まる公式ルールはありません。句構造・段落の論旨・選択肢の根拠を、初見素材で説明できるかを重視します。
この8問は本番の内容一致7問と同じですか？
いいえ。語順・構造と本文の根拠をまとめて学ぶ独自8問です。本番は英検協会が公表している形式で練習してください。
次に取り組む英検1級の無料教材
慶英会では、難構文の骨格から主張・修飾・選択肢の対応まで復習できます。最大1か月無料体験・学習相談はこちら。本教材は登録不要で利用できます。
参考にした主な公式情報：英検1級の試験内容、英検協会の公式過去問。本記事の構文・長文・架空事例・解説は慶英会の独自制作です。
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