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
英検1級Writing無料模試・慶英会独自第48セット。英文要約2題（各90〜110語）、意見英作文2題（各200〜240語）、誤要約修正24問と全解答を掲載します。学校の雨水タンク・希少疾患の国際共同研究・失敗研究の公開・多言語防災情報の4課題で、原文に忠実な要約と根拠のある論述を練習します。
英検協会の現行1級Writingは英文要約1題と意見英作文1題。要約は90〜110語と明記されています（公式試験内容、協会公式の要約指示変更）。本教材は慶英会独自の追加問題であり、公式過去問ではありません。
続きの無料教材：Writing第49セット｜英文要約2題・意見英作文2題・修正24問。初見で解いた後、正答根拠と誤答の理由まで確認してください。
英文要約・意見英作文を得点につなげる手順
- 原文の目的、期待便益、実務上の制約、関係者の懸念、試行・評価を区別する。
- 英文要約は模範を見ずに90〜110語で書き、主語・時制・mayなどの確実性の強さを原文と揃える。
- 意見英作文では立場を示し、複数の独立した理由と現実的な反論への応答を述べる。
- 修正24問で誇張・目的のすり替え・因果の飛躍を確認し、翌日に再演習する。
英文要約1｜学校の雨水貯留タンクと非常時の水利用
次の慶英会独自英文を読み、90〜110語の英文要約を書いてください。原文の事実と主張だけを使います。
A fictional school district is considering installing rainwater tanks at selected campuses. Officials hope the tanks will reduce pressure on drainage systems during heavy storms and supply water for cleaning or maintaining school gardens. The proposal has attracted interest from parents, some of whom also hope the stored water could serve as an emergency reserve when mains supply is interrupted.
Engineers warn that not every intended use requires or permits the same quality of water. Collected rainwater may contain dirt from roofs or microorganisms that require treatment, particularly if it is stored for long periods. A tank suitable for irrigation does not automatically provide safe drinking water. In addition, storage capacity may already be full when a major storm arrives, limiting the amount of additional rainfall the system can capture.
The district is comparing several approaches, including smaller tanks at more schools and a few larger facilities near areas prone to surface flooding. Maintenance staff have raised concerns about pumps, periodic cleaning and who will inspect water quality during school holidays. Teachers want students to use the installations for science lessons, but administrators insist that educational value should not substitute for reliable operation.
A pilot will monitor the volume actually retained during storms, water used for suitable purposes, maintenance costs and failures. Officials will also develop clear labels and procedures so that people do not confuse non-potable reserves with drinking water. Expansion will depend on demonstrated drainage and operational benefits rather than the number of tanks purchased.
模範要約（93語）
A fictional school district is considering rainwater tanks to reduce storm runoff and provide water for gardens or cleaning. Parents also hope for emergency supplies, but engineers caution that stored rainwater is not automatically safe to drink, and full tanks may offer little additional flood capacity. Officials are comparing different locations and sizes while maintenance staff raise concerns about water quality, cleaning and equipment. A pilot will measure actual stormwater retention, appropriate use, failures and costs. Schools must clearly distinguish non-drinking reserves from potable water before deciding whether the systems justify broader installation.
日本語による全体解説：架空の学校区が雨水タンクを設置し豪雨時の流出を減らすとともに清掃や園芸へ使う計画。ただし屋根の汚れ・長期保管に伴う水質、満水時に雨を貯められない問題がある。飲用に使えるとは限らず、設備の清掃・点検費用と実際の貯留量を試行で検証する。
誤要約の修正12問・全解答
Q1 誤：Every school has already installed a rainwater tank. 正：The district is considering installations at selected schools. 解説：計画を実績に変えない。
Q2 誤：Collected rainwater is automatically safe to drink. 正：Rainwater may require treatment and is not necessarily potable. 解説：水質の条件を残す。
Q3 誤：A full tank can absorb unlimited additional stormwater. 正：A full tank may have little spare capacity. 解説：貯留容量の限界。
Q4 誤：The tanks will only be used for drinking water. 正：Cleaning and gardens are among the suggested uses. 解説：原文の用途を保持。
Q5 誤：Roof runoff always remains uncontaminated. 正：Collected water may contain dirt or microorganisms. 解説：汚染可能性を消さない。
Q6 誤：The district has selected one large tank design for every school. 正：Different tank sizes and locations are being compared. 解説：比較中の選択肢。
Q7 誤：Maintenance staff unanimously support the plan. 正：Maintenance staff have raised operational concerns. 解説：関係者の立場。
Q8 誤：Cleaning and inspections are unnecessary. 正：Regular maintenance and water-quality checks may be needed. 解説：持続的費用を残す。
Q9 誤：School science lessons prove the system is effective. 正：Educational value cannot replace operational evidence. 解説：目的と指標を区別。
Q10 誤：Stormwater retention will be measured by the number of tanks. 正：The trial will measure the volume actually held during storms. 解説：実績の指標。
Q11 誤：The water stored in all tanks will carry a drinking-water label. 正：Clear labels must distinguish non-potable reserves. 解説：安全情報の区別。
Q12 誤：Widespread expansion has already been approved. 正：Expansion depends on verified results and cost assessments. 解説：承認段階の正確さ。
英文要約2｜希少疾患の国際共同試験と少数データの評価
次の慶英会独自英文を読み、90〜110語の英文要約を書いてください。原文の事実と主張だけを使います。
A fictional medical research consortium is developing a study of a rare inherited disease. No single hospital treats enough eligible patients to answer certain questions reliably, so researchers hope to coordinate recruitment across several countries. Sharing methods and carefully defined outcome measures could make findings more informative than separate studies using incompatible procedures.
However, the proposed collaboration creates scientific and practical challenges. Hospitals may diagnose the condition at different stages or follow patients for different lengths of time. Treatment availability also varies between health systems, complicating comparisons. If researchers combine records without checking these differences, a seemingly large dataset may still produce misleading estimates.
Patient groups support stronger research but want clear explanations of how identifiable medical information will be protected. Some participants have agreed to local research use without authorizing unrestricted transfer abroad. The consortium is therefore considering consent arrangements and controlled access to data, rather than assuming that scientific value overrides every other obligation.
Researchers also disagree about how to measure progress. One team favors a laboratory marker that changes quickly, while patient representatives prefer outcomes such as mobility and daily functioning that matter directly to families. A short-term improvement in a marker may be promising without establishing a meaningful long-term benefit.
Before launching the wider study, the consortium will test common definitions, independent data checks and methods for handling missing follow-up visits. It will monitor costs and patient burden as well as scientific quality. The goal is reliable knowledge and meaningful outcomes under ethical safeguards, not merely the largest number of patient records.
模範要約（94語）
A fictional international consortium is planning a study of a rare inherited disease because individual hospitals have too few eligible patients. Shared methods may improve evidence, but differences in diagnosis, treatment access and follow-up can distort pooled results. Patient groups seek appropriate consent and controlled use of identifiable data. Researchers also debate whether quick-changing laboratory markers or patients’ everyday functioning better represent progress. Before expansion, the consortium will test consistent definitions, missing-data procedures, independent checks and participant burdens. Its aim is ethical, reliable evidence of meaningful outcomes, not simply assembling the largest possible dataset.
日本語による全体解説：希少な遺伝病の国際共同研究は単一病院では少ない症例を集められる利点がある。一方、診断時期・治療環境・追跡期間が異なると統合データも偏る。医療情報の国外共有には適切な同意が必要。短期の検査数値の改善と患者の生活機能改善を区別し、定義・欠測・負担を試行で評価する。
誤要約の修正12問・全解答
Q13 誤：One hospital already has enough patients for a conclusive study. 正：Hospitals are considering coordinated recruitment because cases are limited. 解説：研究規模の前提を守る。
Q14 誤：All hospitals use identical diagnostic stages. 正：Diagnosis and follow-up can differ across hospitals. 解説：比較可能性。
Q15 誤：Pooling data always eliminates bias. 正：Different methods can still distort combined estimates. 解説：データ量と精度は別。
Q16 誤：Treatment availability is identical in every country. 正：Treatment access differs between health systems. 解説：制度的条件を残す。
Q17 誤：Participants automatically authorize global release of records. 正：Consent may limit the use or transfer of identifiable data. 解説：同意の範囲。
Q18 誤：Patient groups oppose all international research. 正：They support research while requesting clear privacy safeguards. 解説：主体の立場。
Q19 誤：Every researcher agrees on a single outcome measure. 正：Teams debate laboratory markers and daily functioning. 解説：評価指標の争点。
Q20 誤：A better laboratory marker proves long-term benefit. 正：A marker change may not establish meaningful lasting improvement. 解説：代理指標の限界。
Q21 誤：The study has already been launched worldwide. 正：The consortium is testing procedures before a wider study. 解説：時制と進捗。
Q22 誤：Missing follow-up visits have no impact. 正：The team plans methods for handling missing observations. 解説：欠測の重要性。
Q23 誤：Research costs and participant burden will be ignored. 正：Both costs and patient burden will be assessed. 解説：実施費用・倫理。
Q24 誤：The goal is the greatest number of medical records. 正：The goal is reliable, ethical evidence of outcomes that matter. 解説：目的を正しく示す。
意見英作文1｜Should universities be required to make the results of unsuccessful publicly funded studies accessible?
200〜240語で立場と根拠、反論と条件を明確に記述してください。
模範英作文（222語）
Universities should make reliable findings from unsuccessful publicly funded studies accessible, subject to privacy and safety protections. Research that does not confirm an original hypothesis can still produce useful knowledge, while concealing it may lead others to repeat avoidable mistakes.
First, transparent reporting can improve the efficiency of scientific work. If a carefully conducted trial finds no meaningful benefit from a proposed method, other teams can refine their questions instead of investing in an identical approach without knowing the earlier result. Negative outcomes are informative when the methods and limitations are explained clearly.
Second, publication can reduce distorted impressions of evidence. When only successful experiments become visible, readers may overestimate how often a treatment or technology works. Accessible records help reviewers examine the balance of findings rather than relying on an unusually favorable selection.
Third, accountability matters when public money supports investigation. Institutions should explain what was tested, why a conclusion remains uncertain and how the resources were used. This does not mean uploading identifiable participant records or sensitive designs without authorization.
Critics argue that mandatory reporting may burden researchers and reward low-quality projects. Universities can address that concern through proportionate summaries, common reporting formats and careful checks of methods.
Overall, reliable unsuccessful research should not disappear simply because its findings are disappointing. Transparent evidence can strengthen future decisions and public trust.
日本語の論旨：公費で行われた研究で仮説を支持しなかった成果も、個人情報・安全上の例外を設けつつ公開すべきである。同じ失敗の繰り返しを防ぎ、成功研究だけが可視化される出版バイアスを抑え、資金使途を説明できる。事務負担と質の低い研究への対策として報告様式・検証を標準化する。
意見英作文2｜Should cities invest more in multilingual emergency messages than in additional warning devices?
200〜240語で立場と根拠、反論と条件を明確に記述してください。
模範英作文（225語）
Cities should invest in making emergency messages understandable, while maintaining the equipment needed to deliver them. A warning system can contain many devices and still fail if residents cannot interpret what the instructions mean or how they should act.
First, communication during emergencies must be practical. A message that identifies a flood level without explaining which route or shelter is usable may offer little guidance to someone unfamiliar with local geography. Clear language, consistent symbols and reviewed translations can help people make safer decisions.
Second, different users have different access needs. Visitors may not read the local language, while people with hearing or visual difficulties may require alternative formats. Public authorities should include affected users in realistic drills rather than assume that a translated notice is automatically accessible.
Third, attention to comprehension can make infrastructure investments more valuable. Officials should test both signal reception and understanding. Upgrading equipment may be necessary where coverage is poor, but buying more transmitters will not solve inaccurate or confusing instructions.
Critics reasonably warn that translation and community testing involve costs. Those costs should be compared with the consequences of avoidable misunderstanding, and authorities can prioritize messages whose errors present the greatest safety risk.
In conclusion, language and technology should be evaluated together. The goal is warnings that reach people and enable safe action, not simply a higher device count.
日本語の論旨：災害警報は送信機の追加より、住民が安全に行動できる明確な多言語情報も重視すべき。場所と避難経路の区別、多様な言語・障害への配慮、実地訓練が必要。一方で電波が届かない場合は設備更新も必要であり、どちらか一方を無条件に優先する話ではない。
答案の自己校閲｜重要な5点
- 設置・登録・参加の件数を成果や安全の証明と混同しない。
- a pilot / consideringなどを完成・導入済みと書き換えない。
- 限られた標本を全地域・全患者へ不当に一般化しない。
- 保存の許可と公開、国境を越えたデータ移転の同意を区別する。
- 主張を支える根拠にない数字や断定を創作しない。
よくある質問
英検1級の英文要約は何語ですか？
2025年度からの公式指示文は90〜110語です。重要な根拠と反論を落とさず、指定範囲内に圧縮します。
意見英作文は模範と同じ立場にすべきですか？
必要ありません。逆の立場でも一貫した根拠と具体的な説明、文法の正確性を維持すれば成立します。
英文要約で自分の評価を書いてよいですか？
要約では自分の評価を加えず、原文の主張と限定条件を正確に表してください。
関連する無料教材
参考にした公式情報
本教材の英文・問題・模範回答・日本語解説は慶英会が独自作成した非公式教材です。記載した学校区、研究団体等は架空の設定です。
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