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Readingは、22問の語彙だけでなく、長文空所6問・内容一致7問で「実際に測定した結果」と「根拠のない解釈」を分けることが重要です。慶英会の第29セットは、独自の語彙22問・空所6問・内容一致7問の計35問（全140択）を、全解答・選択肢の和訳・独自長文4篇の段落別和訳・根拠解説付きで無料公開します。英検協会の過去問ではありません。
英検1級の現行Reading内訳は短文語句空所22問、長文空所6問、長文内容一致7問です。日本英語検定協会｜1級の試験内容。本記事はこの設問内訳で構成した慶英会オリジナル教材であり、実際の試験の問題文や選択肢・公式難度を再現したものではありません。
新しいReading総合35問：英検1級Reading第30セット｜語彙22・長文空所6・内容一致7と全140択・全文和訳。本文の測定対象と選択肢の断定を照合して初見演習できます。
Readingを正確に読むための4つの基準
- 発見数が増えた理由は、実際の現象の変化か、検出・記録方法の改善か。
- 試行で何を測定したか。水位と被害件数、予約と実利用、検索数と理解度は別の指標。
- 標本が代表的か。参加者・時間帯・場所の偏りを見落とさない。
- 市・機関が承認したのは評価、限定試行、全域展開のどの段階か。
Part A｜短文語句空所22問（全88択）
Q1. The committee requested (____) evidence before concluding that the policy had improved access.
- A. corroborating
- B. contradictory
- C. incidental
- D. obsolete
Q2. A single unusually high measurement was treated as an (____) rather than a typical result.
- A. precedent
- B. outlier
- C. incentive
- D. mandate
Q3. The regulators required an (____) audit because the supplier had evaluated its own equipment.
- A. optional
- B. identical
- C. independent
- D. ornamental
Q4. Researchers cautioned that the new figures could not be (____) to every neighborhood without further sampling.
- A. preserved
- B. assigned
- C. allocated
- D. generalized
Q5. The laboratory had to (____) the measurements before combining records from several instruments.
- A. standardize
- B. deter
- C. renounce
- D. exaggerate
Q6. A sudden decline in volunteers resulted in significant participant (____) during the trial.
- A. reciprocity
- B. attrition
- C. legitimacy
- D. provenance
Q7. The initial report included an explicit (____) about the limited number of respondents.
- A. incentive
- B. endorsement
- C. caveat
- D. threshold
Q8. An improvement in the number of downloads was not (____) proof that the resource was understood.
- A. anecdotal
- B. peripheral
- C. retrospective
- D. conclusive
Q9. The new policy was designed to (____) the environmental damage caused by industrial discharge.
- A. mitigate
- B. substantiate
- C. circumvent
- D. replicate
Q10. The museum’s catalog documented the (____) of each artifact and its earlier owners.
- A. feasibility
- B. provenance
- C. compliance
- D. disparity
Q11. Several witnesses offered (____) accounts of the events, making a careful review essential.
- A. convergent
- B. impartial
- C. conflicting
- D. unequivocal
Q12. The safety review recommended (____) the expansion until the installation could be tested.
- A. accelerating
- B. funding
- C. formalizing
- D. deferring
Q13. The ministry warned that poorly designed subsidies could (____) existing regional inequalities.
- A. exacerbate
- B. preclude
- C. reconcile
- D. ascertain
Q14. The report failed to (____) its central argument with independently verified data.
- A. curtail
- B. substantiate
- C. relinquish
- D. allocate
Q15. The city introduced a (____) schedule in case an inspection forced the main venue to close.
- A. retrospective
- B. unanimous
- C. contingency
- D. pervasive
Q16. The revised rules were meant to make the selection process more (____) to applicants.
- A. opaque
- B. onerous
- C. sporadic
- D. transparent
Q17. The agency could not (____) that the drop in costs was caused by the new software alone.
- A. establish
- B. conceal
- C. withdraw
- D. duplicate
Q18. The proposal was rejected because it lacked technical (____) under existing safety conditions.
- A. liability
- B. feasibility
- C. reciprocity
- D. precedent
Q19. A public (____) followed the announcement that residents would lose access to the only evening bus.
- A. consensus
- B. inference
- C. backlash
- D. mandate
Q20. The researchers compared the findings with several (____) datasets collected using similar methods.
- A. obsolete
- B. hypothetical
- C. incidental
- D. independent
Q21. The selection panel needed to (____) the competing proposals using consistent criteria.
- A. evaluate
- B. conflate
- C. repudiate
- D. fabricate
Q22. A rise in the number of reports may reflect improved (____) rather than more frequent incidents.
- A. consumption
- B. detection
- C. restriction
- D. ownership
短文語彙22問の正答・全88択の語義
Q1 正答 A：corroborating。 結論の証拠を補強するcorroborating evidence。他の形容詞では証拠の役割が逆・無関係。 選択肢：A. corroborating＝裏付けとなる ／ B. contradictory＝矛盾する ／ C. incidental＝付随的な ／ D. obsolete＝時代遅れの
Q2 正答 B：outlier。 a single unusually high measurementが外れ値outlier。 選択肢：A. precedent＝先例 ／ B. outlier＝外れ値 ／ C. incentive＝誘因 ／ D. mandate＝命令・権限
Q3 正答 C：independent。 自己評価による利害の衝突に対しindependent auditが必要。 選択肢：A. optional＝任意の ／ B. identical＝同一の ／ C. independent＝独立した ／ D. ornamental＝装飾的な
Q4 正答 D：generalized。 狭い標本の結果を全地域へgeneralizeは不可。 選択肢：A. preserved＝保存した ／ B. assigned＝割り当てた ／ C. allocated＝配分した ／ D. generalized＝一般化した
Q5 正答 A：standardize。 複数機器の測定値を統合する前にstandardizeする。 選択肢：A. standardize＝標準化する ／ B. deter＝思いとどまらせる ／ C. renounce＝放棄する ／ D. exaggerate＝誇張する
Q6 正答 B：attrition。 participant attrition＝調査参加者の途中離脱。 選択肢：A. reciprocity＝互恵性 ／ B. attrition＝途中脱落 ／ C. legitimacy＝正当性 ／ D. provenance＝来歴
Q7 正答 C：caveat。 人数の限界を記すのはcaveat。 選択肢：A. incentive＝誘因 ／ B. endorsement＝支持 ／ C. caveat＝留保条件 ／ D. threshold＝閾値
Q8 正答 D：conclusive。 ダウンロード増は理解の決定的な証拠（conclusive proof）ではない。 選択肢：A. anecdotal＝逸話的な ／ B. peripheral＝周辺的な ／ C. retrospective＝遡及的な ／ D. conclusive＝決定的な
Q9 正答 A：mitigate。 damageを減らす意味ではmitigate。 選択肢：A. mitigate＝軽減する ／ B. substantiate＝実証する ／ C. circumvent＝規制を回避する ／ D. replicate＝再現する
Q10 正答 B：provenance。 所有履歴と由来＝provenance。 選択肢：A. feasibility＝実現可能性 ／ B. provenance＝来歴 ／ C. compliance＝順守 ／ D. disparity＝格差
Q11 正答 C：conflicting。 矛盾のある証言conflicting accounts。 選択肢：A. convergent＝収束する ／ B. impartial＝公平な ／ C. conflicting＝相反する ／ D. unequivocal＝明白な
Q12 正答 D：deferring。 評価完了まで拡大をdeferする。 選択肢：A. accelerating＝加速する ／ B. funding＝資金提供する ／ C. formalizing＝正式化する ／ D. deferring＝延期する
Q13 正答 A：exacerbate。 不適切な制度は格差を悪化＝exacerbate。 選択肢：A. exacerbate＝悪化させる ／ B. preclude＝妨げる ／ C. reconcile＝整合させる ／ D. ascertain＝確認する
Q14 正答 B：substantiate。 substantiate the argument with evidence。 選択肢：A. curtail＝削減する ／ B. substantiate＝立証する ／ C. relinquish＝手放す ／ D. allocate＝配分する
Q15 正答 C：contingency。 contingency schedule＝非常時の予備日程。 選択肢：A. retrospective＝過去を振り返る ／ B. unanimous＝全会一致 ／ C. contingency＝緊急時の代替 ／ D. pervasive＝広範囲の
Q16 正答 D：transparent。 選考基準が分かる＝transparent。 選択肢：A. opaque＝不透明な ／ B. onerous＝負担の重い ／ C. sporadic＝散発的な ／ D. transparent＝透明な
Q17 正答 A：establish。 因果関係をestablishできない。 選択肢：A. establish＝立証する ／ B. conceal＝隠す ／ C. withdraw＝撤回する ／ D. duplicate＝重複させる
Q18 正答 B：feasibility。 technical feasibility＝技術的に実行できること。 選択肢：A. liability＝法的責任 ／ B. feasibility＝実現可能性 ／ C. reciprocity＝互恵性 ／ D. precedent＝先例
Q19 正答 C：backlash。 交通サービス削減によるpublic backlash。 選択肢：A. consensus＝合意 ／ B. inference＝推論 ／ C. backlash＝反発 ／ D. mandate＝命令
Q20 正答 D：independent。 独立のデータで検証するためindependent。 選択肢：A. obsolete＝時代遅れの ／ B. hypothetical＝仮定の ／ C. incidental＝付随的な ／ D. independent＝独立した
Q21 正答 A：evaluate。 同じ基準で複数案をevaluateする。 選択肢：A. evaluate＝評価する ／ B. conflate＝混同する ／ C. repudiate＝拒絶する ／ D. fabricate＝捏造する
Q22 正答 B：detection。 発見・報告方法の改善はdetectionの増加を生む。 選択肢：A. consumption＝消費 ／ B. detection＝検出 ／ C. restriction＝制限 ／ D. ownership＝所有
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。
Part B｜長文空所補充6問（Q23〜28）
市民が参加する河川監視の集計方法
Paragraph 1. An imaginary river council began collecting reports of unusual water conditions through a mobile application. In the first month, the number of reports was much higher than in the previous paper-based survey. Some officials suggested that environmental problems had suddenly become more frequent. Researchers explained that the application made it easier to submit observations, so the increase might reflect improved (23) rather than a change in the river itself.
Paragraph 2. Most reports came from recreation areas where residents could approach the water safely. Remote stretches were rarely visited, and volunteers did not always use the same description for cloudy water. The team therefore introduced a simple checklist and asked participants to record the time and location of each observation. These steps were intended to make reports more (24) without treating volunteer observations as laboratory measurements.
Paragraph 3. The council decided to continue a limited pilot and compare reports with independently collected samples. It would consider new restrictions on industrial discharges only (25) the results of those checks. Officials explained that an alarming number of reports could justify further investigation but did not automatically establish the cause of pollution.
Q23. Choose the best expression for blank [23].
- A. detection
- B. consumption
- C. legislation
- D. ownership
Q24. Choose the best expression for blank [24].
- A. arbitrary
- B. comparable
- C. anonymous
- D. irreversible
Q25. Choose the best expression for blank [25].
- A. in spite of
- B. regardless of
- C. subject to
- D. rather than
離島への遠隔診療支援と公平性
Paragraph 1. An imaginary island community tested a service allowing residents to speak with medical specialists through a secure video connection at the local clinic. The first month produced many bookings, and some officials described this as proof that access to healthcare had improved. An independent evaluation cautioned that bookings did not necessarily translate into (26) consultations: unstable connections occasionally interrupted sessions, and several patients had to return for an additional appointment.
Paragraph 2. The clinic provided staff support for residents who had difficulty using the system. Nevertheless, a voluntary survey was completed mainly by people whose appointments had proceeded smoothly. Evaluators argued that these responses might be (27), since patients facing the greatest barriers were less likely to be represented. They asked for information about completed consultations, follow-up care, waiting times, and total costs.
Paragraph 3. The island council approved further evaluation and additional technical training. It retained the option of in-person referral for cases unsuitable for remote consultation. Wider adoption remained (28), rather than a permanent commitment, until the service could demonstrate reliable access across different patient groups.
Q26. Choose the best expression for blank [26].
- A. optional
- B. completed
- C. unplanned
- D. unrelated
Q27. Choose the best expression for blank [27].
- A. representative
- B. infallible
- C. biased
- D. mandatory
Q28. Choose the best expression for blank [28].
- A. inevitable
- B. unnecessary
- C. confirmed
- D. provisional
長文空所6問の全文和訳と根拠
市民が参加する河川監視の集計方法
第1段落：架空の河川評議会がアプリで水質報告を集めると紙調査より増えた。これは環境被害の急増ではなく、報告・検出の容易さが原因の可能性もある。
第2段落：利用者は安全に水辺へ行ける公園に偏り、濁りの表現も不統一。チェックリストと時間・場所の記録により報告の比較可能性を高める。
第3段落：限定試行と独立採水を続け、排水規制の変更は検証結果を条件として検討。報告数だけで汚染原因は断定しない。
Q23 正答 A：detection。 報告方法の改善で観察数が増えるという論理からdetection（検出）。
Q24 正答 B：comparable。 記録方法の統一によりcomparable（比較可能な）。
Q25 正答 C：subject to。 only subject to the results＝結果という条件に従って。
離島への遠隔診療支援と公平性
第1段落：架空の離島で診療所から専門家とビデオ相談する仕組みを試行。予約は多かったが通信切断・再来院があり、完了した診療が増えたとは限らない。
第2段落：職員支援はあったがアンケートは順調に診察できた人に偏り、障壁の大きい患者の経験を反映しない恐れ。完了件数・再診・待機・総費用を測る。
第3段落：市は追加評価と研修を承認し、対面紹介も維持。全島への恒久展開は未決定。
Q26 正答 B：completed。 予約数と完了した相談件数の違いからcompleted。
Q27 正答 C：biased。 順調な利用者に偏った調査＝biased（偏りがある）。
Q28 正答 D：provisional。 本格展開前で暫定的＝provisional。
Part C｜独自長文内容一致7問（Q29〜35）
河川流域の湿地保全と洪水対策
Paragraph 1. The fictional region of Elmhaven considered restoring wetlands along a river that frequently overflowed after heavy rainfall. Advocates argued that wetlands could temporarily hold water and provide habitat for wildlife. The council authorized a pilot on a section of unused land, while engineers gathered measurements of water levels upstream and downstream. During the following rainy season, several monitoring stations reported lower peak levels than in the previous year. Local headlines called the change proof that restoration had prevented flooding.
Paragraph 2. Independent researchers advised caution. Rainfall patterns had differed between the years, and a separate drainage channel had been cleared during the same period. The lower peaks could therefore not be attributed entirely to the wetland project. Moreover, the stations measured water levels at selected points, rather than the number of homes protected from flooding. The researchers recommended comparing periods with similar rainfall and recording changes in drainage capacity.
Paragraph 3. Farmers in nearby districts raised concerns about access to fields and the effect of standing water on adjacent roads. Conservation groups wanted a larger wetland area, but engineers said the expansion would require additional studies of soil stability and road safety. Public meetings were arranged at different times so that residents with irregular working hours could participate. Officials also offered paper materials for residents who did not use online consultations.
Paragraph 4. The council extended the limited pilot and commissioned a cost-benefit assessment. It would examine flood risk, habitat changes, maintenance, access, and possible effects on neighboring land. Permanent restoration across the whole river basin was not authorized. The council said a promising trial justified continued investigation, not a guarantee that flooding would disappear.
Paragraph 5. The debate showed why environmental interventions often have several objectives. Reducing peak water levels can be useful, but the distribution of benefits and unintended effects matters as well. Residents needed evidence that distinguished measured outcomes from assumptions about long-term protection.
Q29. Why did researchers question the claim that the restoration alone prevented flooding?
- A. Rainfall differed and another drainage improvement happened during the same period.
- B. The restored land had never received any rain.
- C. No measurements of water levels had been made.
- D. The project had already been expanded throughout the basin.
Q30. What limitation applied to the monitoring data?
- A. It recorded every household’s flood damage.
- B. It measured selected water levels rather than the number of homes protected.
- C. It was collected exclusively by local farmers.
- D. It measured only wildlife populations.
Q31. What did the council actually approve?
- A. A guarantee that no future flood could occur.
- B. Immediate basin-wide permanent restoration.
- C. Extension of the limited pilot and further cost-benefit evaluation.
- D. Cancellation of all environmental monitoring.
手書き原稿の自動文字起こしと研究の信頼性
Paragraph 1. The imaginary university library of Norfield held thousands of handwritten letters from previous centuries. Researchers frequently requested them, but the documents were difficult to search because each letter had to be read manually. The library introduced an automated transcription tool and posted searchable drafts of selected documents. Students welcomed the improved access, and the number of searches rose substantially. Administrators suggested that the project had made historical research more accurate.
Paragraph 2. Professional archivists warned that searchability and accuracy were different outcomes. The transcription system sometimes confused similar handwritten letters and occasionally changed proper names. An incorrect name could lead researchers to connect two unrelated people, while a missing negative word could reverse the meaning of a sentence. The archivists therefore labeled drafts as unverified and linked them to images of the original documents. They encouraged corrections with an explanation of the evidence rather than allowing anonymous changes to overwrite earlier records without a trace.
Paragraph 3. A second issue concerned privacy and ownership. Although the library preserved the manuscripts, some letters included references to families whose descendants were still alive. The institution reviewed conditions attached to donations and restricted online access where necessary. It explained that digital preservation did not automatically grant unrestricted rights to publish every personal detail. Scholars could request controlled access to some records for legitimate research, but public availability remained limited.
Paragraph 4. To test educational value, teachers asked students to compare automated text with scans and identify uncertain readings. Performance improved on some tasks, but the courses also introduced new source-analysis activities during the same term. The library could not attribute every gain to the transcription tool. A voluntary survey also reached mainly frequent archive users, leaving the experiences of people with limited digital access unclear.
Paragraph 5. The library continued the pilot and commissioned independent reviews of transcription accuracy, privacy safeguards, accessibility, and long-term storage costs. Full publication of the collection was postponed. Officials said that responsible access involved maintaining both original evidence and a transparent record of how interpretations changed.
Paragraph 6. The project demonstrated the difference between making information easier to find and ensuring that it could be trusted. A high number of searchable pages might encourage useful investigation, but carefully documented corrections and source comparison remained essential to accurate historical conclusions.
Q32. Why could inaccurate transcription be particularly harmful?
- A. It prevented any handwritten image from being stored.
- B. Incorrect names or missing negatives could change historical interpretations.
- C. The software never generated searchable text.
- D. Every automated transcription was deliberately falsified.
Q33. Why did the library restrict some online access?
- A. It had no legal right to store any historic letters.
- B. All the manuscripts were known forgeries.
- C. Some personal information and donation conditions required review.
- D. The library decided that students should never study history.
Q34. What limited conclusions about the educational benefits of the transcription tool?
- A. The students had not completed any exercises.
- B. The tool was unavailable to all teachers.
- C. The original scans were permanently deleted.
- D. Other source-analysis activities occurred at the same time.
Q35. Which statement best describes the final decision?
- A. Keep a limited pilot while reviewing accuracy and access before full publication.
- B. Publish every letter immediately without verification.
- C. Stop preserving original manuscripts.
- D. Measure success only by the number of searches.
内容一致7問の解答・全文和訳・根拠
河川流域の湿地保全と洪水対策
第1段落：架空のElmhaven地域は洪水が多い河川沿いの湿地復元を試行。翌雨季に一部観測点でピーク水位が下がったが、それだけで洪水防止が証明されたわけではない。
第2段落：雨量の差と同時期の排水路清掃があり、湿地の単独効果とは断定できない。水位測定と実際に守られた住宅数は別指標。
第3段落：近隣農家は道路・農地のアクセスを懸念し、土壌安定性や道路安全の追加調査が必要。仕事の都合で会議に参加しにくい住民へ時間帯や紙資料を工夫した。
第4段落：市は限定試行の延長と費用便益評価を承認。流域全体への恒久拡大は承認していない。
第5段落：洪水リスク・生態系・アクセス・副作用を総合的に評価し、観測と長期の安全の推測を分ける必要がある。
Q29 正答 A：Rainfall differed and another drainage improvement happened during the same period.。 雨量の差と排水路清掃が交絡要因。B/C/Dは事実に反する。
Q30 正答 B：It measured selected water levels rather than the number of homes protected.。 選ばれた地点の水位であり住宅被害・保護件数は測定していない。
Q31 正答 C：Extension of the limited pilot and further cost-benefit evaluation.。 限定試行延長と追加評価、全流域の恒久化ではない。
手書き原稿の自動文字起こしと研究の信頼性
第1段落：架空のNorfield大学図書館は歴史的な手書きの手紙を自動文字起こしし、検索可能な草案を公開。検索数は伸びたが研究の正確性向上を証明したわけではない。
第2段落：筆跡の似た文字や人名が誤認され、否定語の欠落で意味が反転する例もある。草案は未検証と表示し、原本画像と修正根拠をリンクし、訂正履歴を残す。
第3段落：寄贈手紙には存命の家族につながる情報があり、保存と無制限公開の権利は別。必要な資料は限定的な研究アクセスで扱う。
第4段落：学生の史料比較課題は一部改善したが同時期に別の史料分析授業も始まり、単独効果は不明。アンケートも常連利用者に偏った。
第5段落：図書館は文字起こし品質・プライバシー・アクセス・保存費用を独立評価し、全面公開は先送り。
第6段落：検索しやすさと信頼できる歴史理解は別で、原資料と訂正過程の透明性が必要。
Q32 正答 B：Incorrect names or missing negatives could change historical interpretations.。 人名・否定語の誤認により人物関係や主張が変わる。
Q33 正答 C：Some personal information and donation conditions required review.。 機微情報と寄贈条件、保存と一般公開は別。
Q34 正答 D：Other source-analysis activities occurred at the same time.。 同時期の別学習活動が交絡要因。
Q35 正答 A：Keep a limited pilot while reviewing accuracy and access before full publication.。 限定試行継続、独立評価、全面公開延期。
全35問の答えと復習の順番
Q1：A ／ Q2：B ／ Q3：C ／ Q4：D ／ Q5：A ／ Q6：B ／ Q7：C ／ Q8：D ／ Q9：A ／ Q10：B ／ Q11：C ／ Q12：D ／ Q13：A ／ Q14：B ／ Q15：C ／ Q16：D ／ Q17：A ／ Q18：B ／ Q19：C ／ Q20：D ／ Q21：A ／ Q22：B ／ Q23：A ／ Q24：B ／ Q25：C ／ Q26：B ／ Q27：C ／ Q28：D ／ Q29：A ／ Q30：B ／ Q31：C ／ Q32：B ／ Q33：C ／ Q34：D ／ Q35：A
- 1周目：自分で35問を解き、分からない語彙や根拠を記録する。
- 2周目：語彙22問は正答以外の語義まで説明する。
- 3周目：長文4篇で主題・結果・制約・最終判断をそれぞれ一文で説明する。
- 4周目：別の未使用セットでも同じように根拠を示せるか確かめる。
よくある質問
英検1級のReadingは35問ですか？
現在の公式試験内容では短文22問、長文空所6問、内容一致7問の計35問です。受験前に最新版も確認してください。
長文の和訳を先に読んでもよいですか？
初見の実力確認では英文と設問だけを読み、採点後に和訳で誤読や根拠を確認する方法を推奨します。
この湿地や資料館の事例は実在しますか？
いいえ。教材用に作成した架空の研究・行政事例です。英検の公式問題や実際の調査報告ではありません。
次に学ぶ英検1級無料教材
慶英会では長文の正答根拠を自分の言葉で説明できるまで、英語の読解と要約を個別に指導しています。最大1か月無料体験・学習相談はこちら。
参考にした公式情報
問題文、解答、和訳、地名・観測値はすべて慶英会独自制作です。公式過去問の転載ではありません。
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