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
慶英会独自の英検1級Writing第41セット。英文要約2題（90〜110語）、意見英作文2題（200〜240語）、意味を変えない要約修正24問を全解答付きで掲載しました。社会問題を読み、事実・利点・制約・結論の関係を保ちながら英語でまとめる無料総合教材です。
英検協会の1級Writingは英文要約1題と意見英作文1題を出題し、英文要約の指示は90〜110語です（1級試験内容、2025年度以降の要約指示）。意見英作文は200〜240語です（英検協会の1級英語版案内）。このページの本文と問題は慶英会オリジナルで公式過去問ではありません。
続きの無料教材：Writing第42セット｜要約2題・英作文2題と修正24問。初見演習の後、根拠・誤答理由まで確認してください。
英文要約と英作文の使い方
- まず要約本文を読んで、目的・期待する効果・課題・対策・評価の5つを抜き出す。
- 原文の将来予定を確定的な結果に変えない。may、could、mightの意味の強さを維持する。
- 模範要約を隠し90〜110語で作成してから、内容・構成・語彙・文法を照合する。
- 意見英作文は立場を明示し、独立した理由と反論への応答で200〜240語にまとめる。
英文要約1｜地域の移動図書館とデジタル利用格差
課題：次の慶英会独自英文を、原文にない事実を加えず90〜110語で要約してください。
A fictional county plans to expand a mobile library service to settlements far from its main branches. The vehicle would carry books, basic learning materials and devices that residents could borrow for short periods. Supporters argue that the program could help older adults and families without reliable transport, especially where broadband connections make digital collections difficult to use.
However, planners have found that one route cannot meet everyone’s needs. Some communities have many children who need afternoon stops, while others include workers who can visit only in the evening. A timetable designed to maximize total visitors could miss residents who need the service most. Staff must also arrange secure handling of borrowed devices, protect lending records and maintain the vehicle during harsh weather.
Officials are considering several alternatives. Partnering with existing community halls might provide local pickup points without sending a large vehicle everywhere. A telephone reservation system could help residents unable to use online booking, while smaller deliveries might serve people with mobility difficulties. Critics warn that each additional arrangement would complicate staffing and raise operating costs.
The county plans a one-year pilot before expanding permanently. It will measure successful loans, repeat use, unmet requests, travel burdens and total expenses rather than registration totals alone. The objective is equitable access to learning resources, not simply an impressive number of stops on a map.
模範要約（106語）
A fictional county is considering expanding mobile library services to remote settlements, offering books and learning devices to residents with limited transport or internet access. Supporters expect broader educational opportunity, but a single timetable may overlook people with different schedules or mobility needs. Device security, vehicle maintenance and staffing add further challenges. Officials are comparing mobile visits with community pickup points, telephone reservations and smaller deliveries. Although these alternatives could improve access, they may increase operating costs. A one-year pilot will examine actual borrowing, repeat use, unmet needs, travel burdens and expenses before permanent expansion. Success depends on meaningful access rather than registrations or stops alone.
全体の日本語解説：架空の郡は遠隔地の住民向けに移動図書館と学習端末貸出を検討する。交通・ネット環境による格差を縮められるが、住民の生活時間・移動の困難、貸出端末の安全、車両維持、人件費が問題。集会所受取・電話予約・小口配送と比較し、登録数より実貸出や未充足需要を1年間検証する。
意味を変えない修正演習12問
Q1 誤：The county has permanently expanded the service. 修正：A one-year pilot is planned before permanent expansion. 理由：将来の試験を実績に変えない。
Q2 誤：All residents have reliable internet. 修正：Some residents cannot easily use digital collections. 理由：ネット環境の格差を保持。
Q3 誤：Every community needs identical opening hours. 修正：Schedules and needs differ among communities. 理由：対象者の違い。
Q4 誤：More visitors automatically means fairer access. 修正：Visitor totals may conceal underserved residents. 理由：利用者数と公平性は別。
Q5 誤：The service lends only printed books. 修正：It may also lend learning devices. 理由：内容の脱落を防ぐ。
Q6 誤：Devices require no security measures. 修正：Secure handling and data privacy are necessary. 理由：情報保護。
Q7 誤：Maintenance is unnecessary. 修正：Vehicle upkeep is an operating challenge. 理由：継続費用。
Q8 誤：Community halls have already replaced all mobile stops. 修正：Pickup points are among the alternatives being considered. 理由：検討段階の区別。
Q9 誤：Everyone can book online. 修正：Telephone reservations may support offline users. 理由：別の申込経路。
Q10 誤：The plan has no staffing implications. 修正：Additional arrangements may increase staffing needs. 理由：反論を残す。
Q11 誤：Success will be judged by registrations alone. 修正：Actual loans and unmet requests will be measured. 理由：最終指標。
Q12 誤：The only purpose is to increase vehicle stops. 修正：The purpose is equitable access to learning resources. 理由：手段と目的。
英文要約2｜透水性舗装と都市の大雨対策｜見た目の浸透性をどう評価するか
課題：次の慶英会独自英文を、原文にない事実を加えず90〜110語で要約してください。
A fictional city is considering permeable pavement for sidewalks and small parking areas that regularly collect rainwater. Unlike conventional surfaces, these materials contain spaces through which some water can pass into underlying layers. Supporters hope the pavement will reduce runoff, limit temporary surface flooding and help the city make better use of land already covered by roads.
Engineers caution that performance depends on the soil beneath the pavement and how the surface is maintained. Fine sediment can clog the openings, lowering infiltration over time. If groundwater is already high or underlying layers cannot drain, water may still accumulate. Some locations also contain underground cables or pipes that require special care. Therefore, installing a material described as permeable does not by itself guarantee useful drainage.
The city considered pairing pavement replacement with targeted pipe repairs and designated rainwater storage areas. Some officials favored an identical design everywhere to reduce purchasing costs. Others argued that local surveys would be needed to determine which treatments suited different streets. Shop owners worried about disruptions during construction, while accessibility advocates asked that the completed surfaces remain stable and safe for wheelchairs.
Before wider adoption, the municipality will test several sites over multiple seasons. It plans to measure infiltration rates, surface flooding, maintenance expenses and effects on adjacent streets. A single successful rainfall event would not establish long-term value. The project illustrates that a drainage intervention should be evaluated throughout its usable life rather than only when it is newly installed.
模範要約（101語）
A fictional city is considering permeable pavement to reduce stormwater runoff on sidewalks and parking areas. Supporters expect less surface flooding, but engineers warn that clogged pores, unsuitable soil and high groundwater can reduce its effectiveness. Underground infrastructure, construction disruption and accessibility also require attention. Officials are comparing standardized installation with site-specific designs and complementary drainage repairs. They will test several locations across seasons, measuring infiltration, flooding, maintenance costs and effects on nearby streets. One successful storm would not establish lasting performance. The material’s value depends on local conditions and upkeep rather than the fact that it is marketed as permeable.
全体の日本語解説：架空都市は歩道や駐車場に透水性舗装を導入して流出雨水を減らしたい。ただし細かい土砂で目詰まりし、地盤や地下水位によって性能は変わる。地下配管、施工時の営業障害、車椅子の通行にも注意が必要で、複数季節にわたり浸透率・道路冠水・維持費を比較して判断する。
意味を変えない修正演習12問
Q13 誤：The city has already replaced every sidewalk. 修正：Several sites will be tested before expansion. 理由：導入決定と試験を区別。
Q14 誤：Permeable materials always prevent flooding. 修正：Their performance depends on soils, maintenance and drainage. 理由：条件付きの効果。
Q15 誤：Clogging improves water infiltration. 修正：Sediment can block pores and reduce infiltration. 理由：方向を反転しない。
Q16 誤：Groundwater level is irrelevant. 修正：High groundwater can limit drainage. 理由：地下水条件。
Q17 誤：Underground cables never matter. 修正：Existing infrastructure may constrain work. 理由：施工条件。
Q18 誤：One standard design is universally suitable. 修正：Local conditions may require different designs. 理由：地域差。
Q19 誤：Business owners welcome all construction disruptions. 修正：Some shop owners worry about disruption. 理由：利害関係者の意見。
Q20 誤：Accessibility is ignored in the proposal. 修正：Advocates requested safe wheelchair surfaces. 理由：通行条件を保持。
Q21 誤：Pipe repairs have been prohibited. 修正：Complementary pipe repairs are under consideration. 理由：比較案の存在。
Q22 誤：Only the purchase price will be examined. 修正：Long-term maintenance expenses will be measured. 理由：費用の期間。
Q23 誤：One storm proves durability. 修正：Repeated observation across seasons is planned. 理由：検証の継続性。
Q24 誤：Marketing descriptions prove performance. 修正：Site measurements and upkeep determine value. 理由：宣伝と成果の区別。
意見英作文1｜Should public institutions be required to provide accessible versions of important notices?
200〜240語で自分の立場を表明し、異なる理由・具体的な仕組み・妥当な例外条件を説明してください。
模範答案（218語）
Public institutions should be required to make important notices accessible in formats that meet different users’ needs. Publishing a document online does not necessarily mean that everyone can understand or act on it. Clear communication is particularly important when services, rights or safety are involved.
First, inaccessible notices can create unfair barriers. A person who uses a screen reader may struggle with an image containing text but no usable description. Others may need a printed copy, plain-language explanations or support in a language they understand. Offering practical alternatives can make participation more equal.
Second, clear notices can improve public decisions. Residents who understand a proposed rule can identify local problems, question assumptions and provide relevant feedback. Consultation is far less meaningful when essential information is buried in technical language that only specialists can interpret.
Third, accessible communication can reduce costly misunderstandings. When instructions explain deadlines, eligibility and required documents unambiguously, staff may spend less time correcting incomplete applications or resolving avoidable complaints.
Critics worry about translation costs and the difficulty of supporting every format immediately. Those concerns are reasonable. Agencies should prioritize essential services, consult intended users and evaluate which approaches actually work.
Overall, accessibility should be a core requirement of public communication, implemented proportionately and reviewed through real user experience rather than the number of notices published.
日本語での論旨：公的通知は単にネットに載せるだけでなく、読み上げ可能な形式、わかりやすい表現、紙の代替手段などで実際に理解・行動できるようにするべきだ。公平性、住民参加、誤申請の減少につながる。すべてを一度に網羅せず重要なサービスから優先的に整備する。
意見英作文2｜Should cities prioritize maintenance of existing infrastructure over constructing new landmarks?
200〜240語で自分の立場を表明し、異なる理由・具体的な仕組み・妥当な例外条件を説明してください。
模範答案（223語）
Cities should generally give essential maintenance priority over constructing new landmark projects when public budgets are limited. New buildings can be valuable, but impressive architecture should not distract officials from the condition of services residents already depend on.
First, neglected infrastructure can create safety risks. Bridges, water systems and public facilities need inspections and repairs even when they do not attract media attention. Delaying maintenance may allow relatively small defects to develop into costly failures that disrupt everyday life.
Second, maintaining existing assets can improve financial sustainability. A city may celebrate a new facility’s opening while underestimating future staffing, energy and repair expenses. Comparing lifecycle costs helps policymakers understand whether an investment can be operated reliably after construction.
Third, maintenance often protects access for people who have few alternatives. Residents may depend on a local library, clinic or transport connection that appears ordinary but is difficult to replace. Public value should therefore be judged by practical service rather than novelty alone.
Critics correctly argue that some new projects respond to growth or replace structures that cannot reasonably be repaired. This is a genuine exception. Governments should evaluate safety, demand and alternatives instead of imposing a blanket ban on construction.
Overall, essential maintenance deserves a strong presumption in budget decisions, while new projects should proceed when their long-term benefits and costs are convincingly demonstrated.
日本語での論旨：限られた予算では新しい目立つ施設より重要なインフラの保守を優先したい。安全、ライフサイクル費用、代替手段のない住民のアクセスを守るため。ただし人口増加や修理不能な設備では新設も合理的で、一律禁止ではない。
失点を防ぐ4つのチェック
- more usersとbetter accessは同義ではない。実際に必要な人が利用できたか検討する。
- 技術的な素材名や商品説明では長期性能を証明できない。維持・検証を確認する。
- 制度への反対意見を原文から勝手に消さない。費用や公平性が主論点なら残す。
- 確実性と時制を変えない。計画中の試験を実証済みと書くと内容が歪む。
よくある質問
英検1級英文要約は何語ですか？
英検協会の2025年度以降の指示文は90〜110語です。本文の重要点を保ったまま範囲内に収めます。
模範要約に使われていない単語を使っても大丈夫ですか？
適切な語彙で原文の事実関係と条件を維持できれば、別の表現も成立します。
意見英作文は反対意見に必ず触れますか？
固定の反論段落を必ず作るという単純な規則ではありません。主張の一貫性と根拠の明瞭さを優先し、必要な場合に反論へ対応してください。
関連する無料教材
参考にした公式情報
本ページの英文・設問・模範解答は慶英会が独自制作した非公式教材です。地域・自治体・施策は架空の設定であり、実在の事業実績を示す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