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級の英文要約では、長い節を名詞句へ短くまとめる名詞化（nominalization）が役立つことがあります。ただし、圧縮の際に誰が行ったか・因果関係・推定の強さ・対象範囲・否定・逆接を変えると、英文が自然でも不正確な要約になります。本教材では慶英会独自の32問の安全判定・修正演習と、初見長文2題・指定語数内の模範要約2本を掲載しています。
英検1級英文要約は2025年度から『90〜110語で要約する』と指定される表現になっています。公式通知：日本英語検定協会・2025年4月15日の変更案内。本ページの32問と要約長文は協会の過去問ではなく慶英会の独自教材です。語数は自分で書いた答案も確認してください。
名詞化とは？ 英検1級英文要約に使う3つの考え方
- 動作を名詞句へ：Officials revised the rules. → the revision of the rules。重要なら officials’ revision のように行為者を残す。
- 原因を名詞句へ：Because materials were unavailable, repairs were delayed. → Material shortages delayed repairs. 因果の方向を保つ。
- 限定を落とさない：may reduce costs → a possible reduction in costs。mayをwillに変えたり、someをallに変えたりしない。
注意：名詞句を増やしても、必ず語数が減るわけではありません。また動詞がなくなると因果関係が分かりにくくなる場合があります。最初に正確な内容を保つことを優先し、その次に語数と自然さを整えます。
問題編｜32組の言い換えを『意味を保つ／要修正』で判定
主語と行為者を落とさない
Q1 Original: Local officials revised the guidelines after an independent review.
Proposed: The revision of the guidelines followed an independent review.
Q2 Original: Independent reviewers identified several errors when they examined the report.
Proposed: Independent examination of the report revealed several errors.
Q3 Original: The hospital’s management decided to postpone the launch.
Proposed: The postponement of the launch was announced.
Q4 Original: Residents criticized the proposal after the hearings.
Proposed: Residents’ criticism of the proposal followed the hearings.
原因と同時発生を区別する
Q5 Original: Demand rose while the advertising campaign was running, but its cause was unclear.
Proposed: The advertising campaign caused the rise in demand.
Q6 Original: Several students arrived late because the buses were delayed.
Proposed: Bus delays contributed to the students’ late arrival.
Q7 Original: The results improved after the platform changed, but no comparison group was used.
Proposed: The platform change caused the improvement.
Q8 Original: A lack of replacement parts forced the repair team to delay the work.
Proposed: A shortage of replacement parts delayed the repair work.
推定と確実性を変えない
Q9 Original: The preliminary study suggests that the system may reduce costs.
Proposed: The study proves the system will reduce costs.
Q10 Original: The pilot might reduce energy use in similar buildings.
Proposed: The pilot may offer energy savings in similar buildings.
Q11 Original: The evidence has not ruled out other explanations.
Proposed: The findings conclusively exclude alternative explanations.
Q12 Original: The researchers emphasized that their results were preliminary.
Proposed: The researchers emphasized the preliminary nature of their findings.
対象の範囲・人数をすり替えない
Q13 Original: Some rural schools struggled to recruit qualified staff.
Proposed: Nationwide recruitment problems affected every school.
Q14 Original: Several interviewed workers reported concerns about the new schedule.
Proposed: Concerns about the new schedule were reported by several interviewed workers.
Q15 Original: Only one participating centre experienced a serious delay.
Proposed: Serious delays were widespread across the participating centres.
Q16 Original: Many residents supported the plan, although some opposed it.
Proposed: Support for the plan was widespread but not unanimous.
前後関係を入れ替えない
Q17 Original: Staff received safety training before the equipment was installed.
Proposed: Post-installation training preceded the equipment’s use.
Q18 Original: The council revised the policy after receiving the audit.
Proposed: Policy revision followed receipt of the audit.
Q19 Original: A limited trial took place before the nationwide rollout.
Proposed: The nationwide rollout preceded the limited trial.
Q20 Original: The contract expired, and funding ended shortly afterward.
Proposed: Funding ended shortly after the contract expired.
否定・条件・限定を残す
Q21 Original: Not every applicant was eligible for support.
Proposed: No applicant was eligible for support.
Q22 Original: The new policy did not reduce the reported pollution levels.
Proposed: No reduction in reported pollution levels followed the new policy.
Q23 Original: The results do not necessarily show that the programme failed.
Proposed: The results prove the programme was successful.
Q24 Original: The guidelines prohibit publication of identifiable patient details.
Proposed: The guidelines prohibit disclosure of identifiable patient details.
譲歩・反論・対比を消さない
Q25 Original: Supporters welcomed the trial, but critics questioned its cost.
Proposed: There was unanimous agreement that the trial was affordable.
Q26 Original: Although the pilot was expensive, it improved access for some users.
Proposed: The pilot improved access for some users despite its high cost.
Q27 Original: Some experts supported publication, whereas others demanded more review.
Proposed: Experts uniformly supported immediate publication.
Q28 Original: The booking platform was efficient, but it was difficult for some people to use.
Proposed: The platform’s efficiency was accompanied by accessibility limitations for some users.
証拠の強さ・一般化の限界を守る
Q29 Original: A small trial found promising results, but they could not be generalized.
Proposed: The trial conclusively established universal effectiveness.
Q30 Original: Independent tests confirmed the findings under specific laboratory conditions.
Proposed: Independent confirmation was obtained under the tested laboratory conditions.
Q31 Original: Two participants described difficulties, but the wider population was not studied.
Proposed: Widespread difficulties were documented throughout the population.
Q32 Original: Available data are insufficient to judge the programme’s long-term impact.
Proposed: Evidence of the programme’s long-term impact remains insufficient.
全32問の解答と詳しい解説
主語と行為者を落とさない｜解答
Q1：要修正。 誰が改訂したかという行為者が候補文では消えている。行為者が論旨に必要な文脈では所有格で残す。
修正後・模範例：Local officials’ revision of the guidelines followed an independent review.
Q2：意味を保つ。 独立した調査・誤りの発見という論旨を保ち、行為の性質を主語へ変えている。
修正後・模範例：Independent examination of the report revealed several errors.
Q3：要修正。 決定者が消え、発表という本文にない行為が追加されている。名詞化しても事実を創作しない。
修正後・模範例：Hospital management decided to postpone the launch.
Q4：意味を保つ。 Residentsの役割を所有格で保持し、afterをfollowedに置き換えた。
修正後・模範例：Residents’ criticism of the proposal followed the hearings.
原因と同時発生を区別する｜解答
Q5：要修正。 whileは時期の重なりであり、因果関係を立証しない。
修正後・模範例：Demand rose during the campaign, although the reason remained uncertain.
Q6：意味を保つ。 遅延が到着時刻に影響したという因果を維持する。contributed toは唯一原因であると強めない。
修正後・模範例：Bus delays contributed to the students’ late arrival.
Q7：要修正。 前後関係を因果に変えるのは不正確。比較対象がない留保を残す。
修正後・模範例：Improvement followed the platform change, but the absence of a comparison group left causation uncertain.
Q8：意味を保つ。 主語を人から原因となる不足へ移すが、因果の方向を保っている。
修正後・模範例：A shortage of replacement parts delayed the repair work.
推定と確実性を変えない｜解答
Q9：要修正。 suggestsとmayをprovesとwillへ強めてはならない。
修正後・模範例：The preliminary findings suggest a possible reduction in costs.
Q10：意味を保つ。 mightの不確実さをpotentialで表現。実測確認と誤解させない文脈で使う。
修正後・模範例：The pilot may offer energy savings in similar buildings.
Q11：要修正。 否定の範囲を逆転させている。not ruled out は残る可能性を示す。
修正後・模範例：Alternative explanations have not been ruled out by the evidence.
Q12：意味を保つ。 preliminaryを名詞句の修飾へ変えて確実性を保つ。
修正後・模範例：The researchers emphasized the preliminary nature of their findings.
対象の範囲・人数をすり替えない｜解答
Q13：要修正。 some ruralをnationwide/everyへ拡大している。
修正後・模範例：Staff recruitment difficulties affected some rural schools.
Q14：意味を保つ。 複数の調査対象者という範囲を保ち、全国の労働者へ一般化しない。
修正後・模範例：Concerns about the new schedule were reported by several interviewed workers.
Q15：要修正。 only one を widespread に変えるのは事実誤認。
修正後・模範例：A serious delay occurred at only one participating centre.
Q16：意味を保つ。 多数の支持と一部の反対という両方の情報を保つ。ただし比率を創作しない。
修正後・模範例：Support for the plan was widespread but not unanimous.
前後関係を入れ替えない｜解答
Q17：要修正。 beforeをafterに変えているうえ、equipment’s useという本文にない時点を加えた。
修正後・模範例：Safety training preceded the installation of the equipment.
Q18：意味を保つ。 afterをfollowedで自然に名詞化し、時系列を維持する。
修正後・模範例：Policy revision followed receipt of the audit.
Q19：要修正。 precededの主語と目的語を逆にしたため順序が反転。
修正後・模範例：The limited trial preceded the nationwide rollout.
Q20：意味を保つ。 出来事の順番を保ち、因果の有無を勝手に断定していない。
修正後・模範例：Funding ended shortly after the contract expired.
否定・条件・限定を残す｜解答
Q21：要修正。 not every は部分否定であり、no applicantは全体否定。
修正後・模範例：Eligibility for support did not extend to every applicant.
Q22：意味を保つ。 報告された汚染指標が下がらなかったという否定を保つ。
修正後・模範例：No reduction in reported pollution levels followed the new policy.
Q23：要修正。 not necessarilyを成功の証明と取り違えない。
修正後・模範例：The results do not necessarily demonstrate programme failure.
Q24：意味を保つ。 publicationをdisclosureで言い換え、禁止の対象と否定を維持。
修正後・模範例：The guidelines prohibit disclosure of identifiable patient details.
譲歩・反論・対比を消さない｜解答
Q25：要修正。 支持と費用懸念の対比が消え、全会一致という事実が加わっている。
修正後・模範例：Support for the trial was accompanied by concerns about cost.
Q26：意味を保つ。 althoughをdespiteの名詞句へ変え、費用の留保を維持。
修正後・模範例：The pilot improved access for some users despite its high cost.
Q27：要修正。 whereasに表れる対立を消している。
修正後・模範例：Expert opinion was divided over publication and the need for further review.
Q28：意味を保つ。 利点と制約の両方を保つ。some usersの限定も残す。
修正後・模範例：The platform’s efficiency was accompanied by accessibility limitations for some users.
証拠の強さ・一般化の限界を守る｜解答
Q29：要修正。 small trial とnot generalizableを維持。
修正後・模範例：The small trial produced promising but not generalizable findings.
Q30：意味を保つ。 独立確認と実験条件の限定を残す。
修正後・模範例：Independent confirmation was obtained under the tested laboratory conditions.
Q31：要修正。 two participantsをwidespreadへ一般化している。
修正後・模範例：Two participants reported difficulties, but their wider prevalence remained unknown.
Q32：意味を保つ。 証拠不足を言い換え、効果の有無そのものを決めていない。
修正後・模範例：Evidence of the programme’s long-term impact remains insufficient.
初見長文A｜短期資格と職業能力の証明
Short online courses that award narrowly defined credentials have become an attractive option for people who want to develop skills without committing to a full academic programme. In a hypothetical regional employment project, several training providers began offering certificates for practical tasks such as managing digital records or interpreting basic business data. Supporters argued that these courses could help people whose working hours or family responsibilities make longer programmes difficult to attend. Employers could also examine examples of completed work rather than relying solely on the title of a qualification.
However, concerns arose about whether different certificates represented comparable levels of competence. Providers sometimes used different assessments, and some programmes awarded certificates mainly for attendance. A person could therefore hold several credentials without having demonstrated an ability to solve unfamiliar problems. Employers also faced difficulties checking whether assessments had been independently reviewed. The project coordinators emphasized that a rise in the number of certificates issued was not, by itself, proof that graduates had improved their employment prospects.
Rather than recommend that every provider follow a single rigid curriculum, the coordinators proposed clearer descriptions of learning outcomes and public information about assessment methods. They encouraged providers to include practical tasks that students had not previously rehearsed and to invite outside reviewers to examine a sample of the results. The project would also collect feedback from learners and employers over time. Its purpose was to determine when short credentials offered meaningful evidence of skill and when further training was required. Supporters hoped the approach would preserve the flexibility of short courses while reducing uncertainty about their educational value.
この長文を読み、①短期資格がもたらす利点、②修了証の比較可能性の問題、③改善策と未解決の評価課題を整理し、90〜110語で自分の英文要約を書いてください。
長文Aの模範英文要約（100語）
Short online credentials can offer flexible training and help employers examine practical skills without requiring lengthy study programmes. However, certificates may not be comparable because providers use different assessments, and some award them mainly for attendance. More certificates do not necessarily demonstrate stronger skills or better employment outcomes. In response, project coordinators proposed clearer learning outcomes, transparent assessment methods and unfamiliar practical tasks, supported by independent review. They also planned to collect feedback from learners and employers over time. Their aim was to retain the accessibility of short courses while providing more reliable evidence of what participants could actually do.
解説：資格取得件数だけでは技能・就職成果を立証できないという限定を残し、評価法の可視化と外部検証という改善策を対置します。就職率など本文にない統計は加えていません。
初見長文B｜街路樹の市民報告と調査の偏り
Many towns have begun considering public maps that record the location and condition of street trees. In a fictional municipality, planners invited residents to contribute observations about damaged branches, missing shade and areas where new planting might be helpful. Supporters argued that community contributions could identify local problems that a small municipal team might not notice immediately. Open access to the map could also make decisions about maintenance and planting easier for residents to understand.
Yet the planning department discovered that the observations were uneven. Streets with active neighbourhood groups received frequent updates, whereas areas with fewer volunteers had little information. Some reports reflected temporary conditions, and others described a tree as unhealthy without using consistent criteria. Officials therefore warned against treating the number of reports as a measure of the severity of environmental problems. A cluster of complaints might reflect greater participation rather than greater damage. The department was also concerned that publishing precise locations of certain vulnerable sites could create additional risks, requiring decisions about what information should remain general.
The town decided to continue accepting public reports but introduced clear descriptions of what volunteers should record. Municipal specialists would review entries that called for expensive action, and the map would distinguish verified observations from unconfirmed reports. Officials also planned regular inspections in less represented districts. To assess the programme, they would consider response times, the distribution of verified information and whether maintenance decisions were better targeted, not merely the growth of the dataset. The aim was to combine residents’ local knowledge with professional verification while recognizing that an open map could not automatically remove inequalities in data collection.
①住民報告で増える情報、②地域・報告基準の偏り、③専門家確認・低報告地域の点検・結果の評価を要約してください。集計件数を被害の確証に変えないようにします。
長文Bの模範英文要約（108語）
A fictional town considered using residents’ reports to map street trees and identify maintenance needs, potentially improving local knowledge and transparency. However, volunteer observations were unevenly distributed and not always reliable, so high report counts could reflect participation rather than greater damage. Publishing precise locations of vulnerable sites also raised concerns. The municipality retained public contributions but proposed clearer reporting criteria, expert checks for costly decisions and inspections in poorly represented areas. It would evaluate verified coverage, response times and maintenance outcomes rather than the number of entries alone. The plan sought to combine community knowledge with professional review without overstating the accuracy or fairness of the data.
解説：volunteer observationsを使う利点と、参加者が多い地域に偏るという問題を分離しています。専門家による検証や、報告件数以外の指標を示す点を維持します。
要約前のセルフチェック｜32問を実戦答案へ移す
- 主語：行為者の変更・削除によって責任の所在が消えていないか。
- 因果：afterやwhileから、根拠なしにbecauseやcauseへ強めていないか。
- 推定：may, suggests, not necessarilyをwillやprovesへ変えていないか。
- 範囲：some, several, only oneをallやnationwideへ変えていないか。
- 時系列：before / after / followed / preceded の順を逆転させていないか。
- 否定：not everyとnoneを混同していないか。
- 反論：利点の裏にある費用・精度・公平性の限定を全て削っていないか。
- 根拠：調査の小ささ・標本の偏り・未検証という条件を保っているか。
FAQ｜名詞化だけで英検1級の要約が高得点になりますか？
難しい抽象名詞を多く使うほどよいですか？
必ずしもそうではありません。難語を使うことで主語や因果が不明になるなら、平易でも正確な英文を優先します。自分の言葉にするという指示と、原文の意味を保つことを両立してください。
名詞化の問題32問と本番の出題数は関係しますか？
32問は慶英会の練習用の数であり、本番で名詞化問題が32問出るという意味ではありません。公式の英検1級ライティングには英文要約1題と意見論述1題があります。
英検1級の英文要約は何語ですか？
公式の指示は90〜110語です。2025年度以降、従来の『推奨』という表現から、指定された幅でまとめる指示へ変更されています。協会公式通知で確認できます。
次の無料教材と学習順序
慶英会の英検1級添削・個別相談
英語表現を短くした結果、意味が変わったり、要約に必要な限定を落としたりする場合は、答案をもとに一文ずつ誤りの型を整理すると改善しやすくなります。慶英会の最大1か月無料体験・学習相談もご利用いただけます。無料教材は申込不要で閲覧できます。
参考情報：英検協会・英文要約語数表記の変更、英検協会・1級の試験内容、1級過去問。英文・演習・模範回答は慶英会独自制作で、名詞化が公式の単独採点項目であると主張するものではありません。
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