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Readingで正答根拠を見失う場合は、難単語だけでなく、何を測ったか・何と比較したか・原因は証明されたか・実施は決定済みかを明確にすると改善できます。慶英会の第26セットは短文語彙22問、長文空所6問、長文内容一致7問の計35問と全140選択肢を、英文・全解答・和訳・誤答理由付きで公開します。非公式の独自教材で、英検協会の過去問ではありません。
公式1級のReadingは語句空所22・長文空所6・内容一致7の計35問（英検1級公式試験内容）。この構成で練習しますが、設問・文章・難易度・正答率は協会の出題を再現するものではありません。
新たな初見35問へ：英検1級Reading第27セット｜語彙22・空所6・内容一致7。全140選択肢の意味と正答根拠を、別の長文で学習できます。
解き方：5つの確認を設問ごとに繰り返す
- 短文語彙では、語の意味だけでなく名詞との結びつき（cross a threshold、compliance withなど）を見る。
- 空所補充は前後一文だけでなく、段落の対比・理由・条件を読む。
- 内容一致は本文中にある情報だけで選び、最も自然に思える一般論で答えない。
- most / all / only / prove / alreadyなど、選択肢が原文より強くなっていないかチェックする。
- 回答後は正解根拠を本文で特定し、誤答3つが違う理由を説明する。
Part A｜短文の語句空所22問
Q1. The investigation revealed a significant (____) between the published totals and the original records.
- A. consensus
- B. discrepancy
- C. threshold
- D. precedent
Q2. Negotiations reached an (____) after both parties refused to alter their demands.
- A. impasse
- B. incentive
- C. outlier
- D. framework
Q3. The court decision established an important (____) for later disputes involving similar contracts.
- A. bottleneck
- B. attrition
- C. constraint
- D. precedent
Q4. A strict budget (____) prevented the laboratory from purchasing every proposed instrument.
- A. cohort
- B. constraint
- C. consensus
- D. provenance
Q5. The new safety rule applies when measured temperatures cross a specified (____).
- A. threshold
- B. discrepancy
- C. oversight
- D. trade-off
Q6. After weeks of debate, the advisory panel finally reached a broad (____) on the priorities.
- A. attrition
- B. ambiguity
- C. backlash
- D. consensus
Q7. The project required independent (____) because the supplier also evaluated its own results.
- A. incentive
- B. oversight
- C. outlier
- D. resilience
Q8. The sudden policy change provoked a public (____) from groups that had not been consulted.
- A. precedent
- B. compliance
- C. backlash
- D. cohort
Q9. Officials acknowledged a (____) between inexpensive construction and long-term maintenance.
- A. trade-off
- B. provenance
- C. threshold
- D. bottleneck
Q10. Researchers followed the same student (____) from the first year through graduation.
- A. ambiguity
- B. incentive
- C. discrepancy
- D. cohort
Q11. An extreme (____) distorted the average, so analysts also reported the median.
- A. consensus
- B. outlier
- C. oversight
- D. feasibility
Q12. High participant (____) made it difficult to compare the start and end of the trial.
- A. equity
- B. incentive
- C. attrition
- D. resilience
Q13. A shortage of trained reviewers became the main (____) in processing the applications.
- A. bottleneck
- B. precedent
- C. consensus
- D. contingency
Q14. The proposed subsidy gave households an (____) to repair appliances instead of replacing them.
- A. discrepancy
- B. oversight
- C. outlier
- D. incentive
Q15. The wording created (____) about whether the rule applied to visitors as well as staff.
- A. resilience
- B. ambiguity
- C. feasibility
- D. precedent
Q16. A misleading graph can produce a serious (____) of the differences between districts.
- A. threshold
- B. compliance
- C. distortion
- D. cohort
Q17. The emergency plan aimed to improve community (____) after severe storms.
- A. resilience
- B. attrition
- C. impasse
- D. ambiguity
Q18. The regulator audited the firm’s (____) with the newly introduced safety standards.
- A. backlash
- B. cohort
- C. trade-off
- D. compliance
Q19. The archive documented the (____) of every object, including its earlier owners and transfer dates.
- A. consensus
- B. provenance
- C. threshold
- D. incentive
Q20. The research team prepared a (____) plan in case the main field site became inaccessible.
- A. discrepancy
- B. equity
- C. contingency
- D. outlier
Q21. The review examined whether the allocation of public services promoted (____) across different neighborhoods.
- A. equity
- B. attrition
- C. precedent
- D. bottleneck
Q22. Before funding the expansion, officials commissioned a study of its technical (____).
- A. backlash
- B. consensus
- C. discrepancy
- D. feasibility
短文22問の全解答・88選択肢の意味
Q1 正解 B：discrepancy。 discrepancy＝食い違い。published totalsとoriginal recordsが一致しない。 誤答語義：consensus＝合意／threshold＝基準値／precedent＝前例。
Q2 正解 A：impasse。 impasse＝行き詰まり。refused to alter their demandsと合う。 誤答語義：incentive＝動機付け／outlier＝外れ値／framework＝枠組み。
Q3 正解 D：precedent。 precedent＝前例・先例。later disputesと対応。 誤答語義：bottleneck＝障害となる箇所／attrition＝自然減・脱落／constraint＝制約。
Q4 正解 B：constraint。 constraint＝制約。strict budget constraint は典型的な組合せ。 誤答語義：cohort＝集団／consensus＝合意／provenance＝由来。
Q5 正解 A：threshold。 threshold＝基準値・しきい値。cross a specified threshold。 誤答語義：discrepancy＝不一致／oversight＝監督・見落とし／trade-off＝トレードオフ。
Q6 正解 D：consensus。 consensus＝おおむね一致した意見・合意。reach a consensus。 誤答語義：attrition＝脱落／ambiguity＝曖昧さ／backlash＝反発。
Q7 正解 B：oversight。 oversight＝監督・監視。独立した監督が必要。 誤答語義：incentive＝誘因／outlier＝外れ値／resilience＝回復力。
Q8 正解 C：backlash。 backlash＝強い反発。groups not consultedが背景。 誤答語義：precedent＝前例／compliance＝順守／cohort＝集団。
Q9 正解 A：trade-off。 trade-off＝一方を取ると他方を犠牲にする関係。 誤答語義：provenance＝来歴／threshold＝閾値／bottleneck＝障害箇所。
Q10 正解 D：cohort。 cohort＝共通の特徴を持つ集団。同一学生群の追跡。 誤答語義：ambiguity＝曖昧さ／incentive＝誘因／discrepancy＝相違。
Q11 正解 B：outlier。 outlier＝外れ値。meanとmedianの比較が根拠。 誤答語義：consensus＝合意／oversight＝監督／feasibility＝実行可能性。
Q12 正解 C：attrition。 attrition＝参加者・人員の減少や途中脱落。 誤答語義：equity＝公平性／incentive＝誘因／resilience＝回復力。
Q13 正解 A：bottleneck。 bottleneck＝工程の進行を妨げる主要な制約箇所。 誤答語義：precedent＝先例／consensus＝合意／contingency＝不測事態。
Q14 正解 D：incentive。 incentive＝誘因・動機づけ。subsidyが修理行動を促す。 誤答語義：discrepancy＝食い違い／oversight＝監督／outlier＝外れ値。
Q15 正解 B：ambiguity。 ambiguity＝解釈の曖昧さ。visitors vs staffの適用範囲が不明。 誤答語義：resilience＝回復力／feasibility＝実現可能性／precedent＝先例。
Q16 正解 C：distortion。 distortion＝歪曲・ゆがみ。図の誤表示が比較結果をゆがめる。 誤答語義：threshold＝閾値／compliance＝順守／cohort＝集団。
Q17 正解 A：resilience。 resilience＝災害などからの回復力・しなやかな適応力。 誤答語義：attrition＝減少／impasse＝行き詰まり／ambiguity＝曖昧さ。
Q18 正解 D：compliance。 compliance＝規則の順守。compliance with standards。 誤答語義：backlash＝反発／cohort＝集団／trade-off＝兼ね合い。
Q19 正解 B：provenance。 provenance＝品物や史料の来歴・由来。 誤答語義：consensus＝合意／threshold＝閾値／incentive＝誘因。
Q20 正解 C：contingency。 contingency plan＝不測の事態に備えた代替計画。 誤答語義：discrepancy＝不一致／equity＝公平性／outlier＝外れ値。
Q21 正解 A：equity。 equity＝公平・公正な配分。均等とは限らず必要に応じた調整。 誤答語義：attrition＝離脱／precedent＝前例／bottleneck＝隘路。
Q22 正解 D：feasibility。 feasibility＝実現可能性。technical feasibility＝技術的実現可能性。 誤答語義：backlash＝反発／consensus＝合意／discrepancy＝不一致。
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｜長文の空所補充6問
空所補充A｜都市部の熱波避難施設
Paragraph 1. An imaginary city launched a network of air-conditioned public rooms during a summer heatwave. Officials reported that attendance had increased after the program was promoted online. They initially suggested that the higher figures demonstrated improved public protection. Yet a review found that the rooms were concentrated near major transport stations, where residents were already more likely to hear about the service. Therefore, attendance data alone could not establish [23] access for residents who lived farther away.
Paragraph 2. The city also compared electricity costs between rooms, but the buildings operated for different numbers of hours and varied in size. Analysts argued that comparisons would be misleading unless expenses were [24] for these differences. They recommended recording hours, visitor numbers, and indoor conditions rather than ranking each site by a single total.
Paragraph 3. Before expanding the program, the city agreed to monitor whether vulnerable residents could actually reach the facilities during extreme weather. New sites would be selected only after local consultations and a safety review. Thus, the proposed expansion remained [25] the outcome of additional evaluation, not a policy that had already been approved.
Q23. Choose the most appropriate expression for blank [23].
- A. equitable
- B. unrestricted
- C. identical
- D. unverified
Q24. Choose the most appropriate expression for blank [24].
- A. prohibited
- B. adjusted
- C. withdrawn
- D. predicted
Q25. Choose the most appropriate expression for blank [25].
- A. indifferent to
- B. independent of
- C. contingent on
- D. responsible for
空所補充B｜図書館における翻訳の品質評価
Paragraph 1. A fictional regional library introduced automated translations of public-service notices. The new system reduced the time needed to produce drafts, but users occasionally misunderstood important instructions. In one case, a notice stating that visitors might need additional documents was translated as though everyone definitely required them. The reviewers said that this was not a minor style issue; it had changed the [26] of the original claim.
Paragraph 2. To assess the problem, the library asked bilingual staff to review a sample of notices and explain which mistakes could affect users’ decisions. They warned against judging quality solely by the number of translated pages. A system could generate more text while still failing at expressions involving conditions, permission, or uncertainty. The library therefore adopted comprehension checks as an additional [27] of success.
Paragraph 3. Administrators also recognized that professional review would create ongoing costs. Instead of claiming that automation had eliminated the need for translators, they proposed using it to prepare drafts while people checked the most consequential messages. The revised approach aimed to [28] speed with accuracy, particularly where mistakes could delay access to essential services.
Q26. Choose the most appropriate expression for blank [26].
- A. provenance
- B. frequency
- C. certainty
- D. ownership
Q27. Choose the most appropriate expression for blank [27].
- A. obstacle
- B. cohort
- C. anomaly
- D. criterion
Q28. Choose the most appropriate expression for blank [28].
- A. reconcile
- B. conceal
- C. supersede
- D. discard
長文空所補充の全文和訳・全解答
空所補充A｜都市部の熱波避難施設・段落別和訳
第1段落：架空の市は熱波避難の冷房付き公共室を開設した。オンライン宣伝後に参加者は増えたが、施設が交通の便利な駅近くに集中していたため、遠隔地域にも公平に届いたとは言えない。
第2段落：冷房費の比較では開館時間や建物の大きさが違う。条件を調整せず総額だけで比較すると誤解を招く。開館時間、利用人数、屋内状況を記録するよう勧告した。
第3段落：市は弱い立場の住民が実際に利用できるか追跡し、地域協議と安全審査の後に拡大を検討。まだ承認済みの拡大計画ではない。
Q23 正解 A：equitable。 公平なアクセスという論点。equitable＝公正な。unrestricted＝無制限、identical＝同一、unverified＝未確認。
Q24 正解 B：adjusted。 建物の大きさや営業時間の差を調整する必要がある。adjusted for these differences。
Q25 正解 C：contingent on。 contingent on＝〜を条件とする。追加評価次第であり決定済みではない。
空所補充B｜図書館における翻訳の品質評価・段落別和訳
第1段落：架空の図書館は公共案内を自動翻訳した。草案作成は早くなったが、「追加書類が必要な場合がある」を「全員必須」に訳すなど、原文の主張の確実性を変える誤りが起きた。
第2段落：バイリンガル職員が利用者の判断に影響する誤訳を調べた。翻訳量だけでは品質を評価できず、条件や不確実性の理解度を成功指標として追加した。
第3段落：専門家審査には継続費用がかかる。機械翻訳で草案を作り、重大な案内を人が点検することで、速さと正確さの両立を目指した。
Q26 正解 C：certainty。 mightをdefinitelyに変え、確実性の強さが変わった。certainty。
Q27 正解 D：criterion。 criterion of success＝成功の基準。人数・ページ数だけでなく理解度を評価。
Q28 正解 A：reconcile。 reconcile speed with accuracy＝速さと正確さを両立・調整する。
Part C｜長文内容一致7問（Q29〜35）
長文内容一致A｜森林管理と衛星観測の限界
Paragraph 1. At a fictional conservation institute, analysts used satellite photographs to estimate changes in forest cover. New imagery revealed many more small clearings than earlier maps had shown. Some commentators argued that logging must have accelerated dramatically. Researchers noted that the new images had a much finer resolution, meaning that previously invisible gaps could now be detected. A higher count of observed clearings did not by itself establish that new damage had occurred at the same rate.
Paragraph 2. The team compared images taken under similar seasonal conditions and combined satellite observations with field reports. Field workers verified some recently disturbed sites, while other apparent changes were shadows or areas that had been temporarily flooded. The analysts also separated commercial tree removal from damage caused by storms. This distinction mattered because different causes required different management responses. They argued that the provenance of each image, including its date and technical resolution, should accompany any published comparison.
Paragraph 3. An advisory panel proposed using the improved maps to identify areas needing further inspection, not to rank forest managers automatically. Some forests were inaccessible for parts of the year, and field verification could not be conducted equally often in every district. In addition, management policies differed according to conservation aims and the rights of local communities. A single count of detected clearings was therefore an incomplete measure of ecological outcomes.
Paragraph 4. The institute ultimately issued a report highlighting areas of concern while explaining uncertainty in the measurements. It also committed to revising the maps as new evidence appeared. The report called for targeted inspections and discussions with affected communities before any new restrictions were introduced. It did not assert that each apparent clearing had been caused by illegal logging.
Paragraph 5. Public interest in the imagery continued to grow, but the team emphasized that accessibility and interpretability were different goals. Giving residents easy access to photographs was valuable; helping them understand what the photographs did and did not demonstrate required notes on methods, comparisons, and limitations.
Q29. Why did researchers question the claim that logging had accelerated dramatically?
- A. The newer images could reveal previously undetectable gaps.
- B. All the forests had been closed to research permanently.
- C. Satellite imagery cannot record changes in any landscape.
- D. The researchers had already proved that logging had ceased.
Q30. What did the team do to improve the reliability of comparisons?
- A. They counted every dark shape as illegal logging.
- B. They combined seasonally comparable images with field verification.
- C. They refused to compare satellite images at all.
- D. They excluded all areas affected by storms from their records.
Q31. What did the advisory panel recommend?
- A. Automatic rankings of forest managers based only on clearing counts.
- B. Immediate restrictions on every community near a clearing.
- C. Using maps to guide inspection while considering local context.
- D. Replacing all fieldwork with image analysis.
長文内容一致B｜職業研修の成果をどう測定するか
Paragraph 1. An imaginary regional training authority financed short courses for adults seeking new employment. Enrollment rose after the courses were advertised widely, and several officials called the campaign successful. Independent evaluators cautioned that registrations did not establish whether people completed the courses, developed useful skills, or found work. In particular, a large number of applicants had left before final assessments, creating a risk that published success rates would overstate outcomes if those participants were ignored.
Paragraph 2. To understand the problem, evaluators distinguished between the initial cohort of enrolled learners and the smaller group who completed assessment. They also examined whether participants had volunteered because they already possessed advantages, such as better internet access or previous training. Comparing graduates with everyone who had never enrolled could therefore exaggerate the course’s effect. The evaluators suggested following similar groups over time and reporting the number who withdrew.
Paragraph 3. Employers were asked which skills mattered in recruitment. Some valued certificates, but others needed practical demonstrations. The authority consequently introduced assessments in which participants completed realistic workplace tasks. Trainers were also encouraged to explain limitations: performance on a single task could support a judgment about a narrow skill without proving broad professional competence.
Paragraph 4. Another challenge involved regional access. Online materials were convenient for participants with stable connections, but rural learners sometimes needed local facilities or downloadable content. A course attracting many users in urban districts could still leave a serious gap elsewhere. Officials proposed testing whether supplementary study centers improved access, while noting that such centers would create additional fixed costs.
Paragraph 5. The authority commissioned a longer evaluation before renewing the program. It planned to publish enrollment, withdrawal, assessed proficiency, and follow-up employment outcomes separately. It would also compare costs with alternative forms of support. The decision was not that the training had failed; it was that evidence about its effectiveness remained incomplete.
Paragraph 6. Although the public debate often focused on a single percentage, researchers insisted that different measures answered different questions. High registration could indicate interest, while course completion, competence and employment required separate evidence. The authority promised to report those distinctions even if the results were less impressive than the promotional figures.
Q32. Why might the published success rate overstate course outcomes?
- A. Every learner had failed the practical assessment.
- B. The region had never accepted any applications.
- C. Graduates were legally prohibited from seeking employment.
- D. People who left before final assessment could be omitted from calculations.
Q33. What problem did evaluators identify with comparing participants and nonparticipants?
- A. Volunteers might differ beforehand in access and experience.
- B. Training results were identical for every cohort.
- C. All nonparticipants had completed similar courses.
- D. The authority had already measured the programs’ long-term causal effects.
Q34. What did the authority introduce in response to employers’ concerns?
- A. Certificates based only on attendance.
- B. Practical assessments involving realistic workplace tasks.
- C. Automatic employment guarantees.
- D. A policy excluding employers from evaluation.
Q35. Which statement best summarizes the authority’s decision?
- A. It immediately declared the courses a proven success.
- B. It permanently terminated all courses because enrollment was low.
- C. It commissioned longer evaluation with separate measures of participation, skills and employment.
- D. It decided to report registration totals as the only performance measure.
内容一致の解答・本文全文和訳・誤答根拠
長文内容一致A｜森林管理と衛星観測の限界｜全文和訳
第1段落：架空の自然保護研究所が衛星画像で森林被覆を推定し、新画像では小さな伐採地のような箇所が多く見つかった。しかし解像度が向上したため以前見えなかったものが検出されただけかもしれず、実際の新規被害の急増は断定できない。
第2段落：研究者は季節条件を揃え、現地報告で確認した。実際の攪乱地もあれば、影や一時的浸水による見かけの変化もある。商業伐採と暴風被害を区別し、画像の撮影日・技術的解像度・来歴を記録した。
第3段落：助言委員会は自動的な管理者の順位付けではなく、追加検査が必要な場所の選定を提案。地区によってアクセスや検証頻度が異なり、保全目的や地元住民の権利も異なるため、検出数だけでは不完全。
第4段落：研究所は懸念地域を示しつつ不確実性を説明した。新証拠で地図を改訂し、規制前に重点調査と地域協議を行う。すべてが違法伐採と主張したわけではない。
第5段落：画像へのアクセスと画像の正しい理解は別。公開の価値を生かすため、方法・比較条件・限界の注記が必要。
Q29 正解 A：The newer images could reveal previously undetectable gaps. 正答・誤答の根拠：解像度向上で検出件数が増えた可能性。観察増加≠新しい被害の急増。
Q30 正解 B：They combined seasonally comparable images with field verification. 正答・誤答の根拠：季節条件を揃え、現地報告で照合した。
Q31 正解 C：Using maps to guide inspection while considering local context. 正答・誤答の根拠：地図は追加調査の優先地点の把握に使う。自動順位付けや即時規制はしない。
長文内容一致B｜職業研修の成果をどう測定するか｜全文和訳
第1段落：架空の地方研修機関は求職者向け講座を提供し、登録者が増えた。しかし登録だけでは修了・技能・就職を示せず、最終評価前の途中離脱者を除いた成功率は実績を過大評価しうる。
第2段落：登録者全体のコホートと評価を修了した一部を区別した。参加者にはネット接続や経験上の有利さがあるかもしれず、非参加者との単純比較は効果を誇張する。離脱人数も報告し長期追跡する必要がある。
第3段落：雇用主には証明書を評価する人もいたが実践技能の実演を求める人もいた。現実的な業務課題を設ける一方、1課題の成績で職業能力全体を証明したとは言えない。
第4段落：オンライン教材は都市部で便利でも地方の接続には課題がある。補助的学習拠点を試す提案があったが固定費が追加でかかる。
第5段落：制度更新前に登録・離脱・試験上の技能・就職を別々に報告し、代替支援の費用と比較する長期評価を委託した。失敗と確定したのではなく有効性の証拠が不足している。
第6段落：登録数・修了率・能力・就職には別の意味がある。宣伝上の数字が小さくなっても区別して公表すべきだとした。
Q32 正解 D：People who left before final assessment could be omitted from calculations. 正答・誤答の根拠：途中離脱を分母から落とすと修了者の成績が過大に見える。
Q33 正解 A：Volunteers might differ beforehand in access and experience. 正答・誤答の根拠：自己選択・事前の有利さが違うため因果を単純推定できない。
Q34 正解 B：Practical assessments involving realistic workplace tasks. 正答・誤答の根拠：実務課題の遂行を評価し、資格書類だけでは測れない技能を見る。
Q35 正解 C：It commissioned longer evaluation with separate measures of participation, skills and employment. 正答・誤答の根拠：有効性は不確実で、長期評価と複数指標の別々の公表を決めた。
全35問の正答早見表
Q1：B ／ Q2：A ／ Q3：D ／ Q4：B ／ Q5：A ／ Q6：D ／ Q7：B ／ Q8：C ／ Q9：A ／ Q10：D ／ Q11：B ／ Q12：C ／ Q13：A ／ Q14：D ／ Q15：B ／ Q16：C ／ Q17：A ／ Q18：D ／ Q19：B ／ Q20：C ／ Q21：A ／ Q22：D ／ Q23：A ／ Q24：B ／ Q25：C ／ Q26：C ／ Q27：D ／ Q28：A ／ Q29：A ／ Q30：B ／ Q31：C ／ Q32：D ／ Q33：A ／ Q34：B ／ Q35：C
復習：単語・論理・根拠の3段階
- 失点問題は、語義を知らない・論理関係を誤った・情報の範囲を過大にした、の3分類にする。
- 語義問題の誤答を英単語カードにする場合、実際の英文と一緒に覚える。
- 長文は一段落を日本語で要約し、観測、研究者の注意、判断を別々に言えるか確認する。
- 一週間後に同じ問題を解き直すだけでなく、新しい未使用教材でも同じ論点を判別できるか確かめる。
よくある質問
英検1級Readingは今も35問ですか？
英検協会の掲載する1級Readingの設問は、短文語句空所22問・長文空所6問・長文内容一致7問です。受験直前には公式サイトの最新案内も確認してください。
全文和訳は最初から読んでよいですか？
初見の実力を測るときは英文だけで解き、解答後に誤読した条件と根拠を確認するために和訳を使ってください。
衛星の森林被害や研修の事例は実際の調査結果ですか？
いいえ。本文中の研究所・地域・評価はすべて慶英会が作った架空の事例で、実在する調査を報告したものではありません。
関連する英検1級の無料教材
慶英会の英語個別指導では、選択肢の正誤を本文に戻って説明し、初見の文章で再現できるまで学習します。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
本記事に掲載する長文・設問・訳・解答は慶英会の創作教材です。架空事例の内容を実在する政策や研究の事実として紹介していません。
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