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49セット。英文要約2題（90〜110語）、意見英作文2題（200〜240語）、誤要約を修正する24問と詳解を収録しました。海水淡水化・外来植物の保全・家電修理可能性・公共空間への住民参加という長期的課題を題材に、主張の根拠と留保を英文で表現します。
英検1級の公式Writingは英文要約1題・意見英作文1題。要約は90〜110語の指定です（日本英語検定協会｜1級試験内容、協会｜要約の指示変更）。本記事は慶英会が独自作成した追加演習であり、公式過去問ではありません。
次の無料教材：Writing第50セット｜英文要約2題・意見英作文2題・修正24問。初見で問題を解いた後、正答の根拠と誤答理由を確認してください。
要約・意見英作文の学習手順
- 原文の結論・利益・問題点・代替策・評価方法を区別する。
- 要約は90〜110語にまとめ、実施予定と実施済みを混同しない。
- 意見英作文では冒頭の立場、異なる根拠、合理的な反対意見への応答を組み立てる。
- 模範と比べて事実の誇張や強すぎる断定を直し、翌日にもう一度書く。
英文要約1｜海水淡水化施設と濃縮塩水の沿岸環境への影響
問題：次のオリジナル英文を90〜110語で要約してください。外部の知識や個人的な意見を加えません。
A fictional coastal region is considering a seawater desalination plant to supplement freshwater supplies during prolonged droughts. Supporters argue that treated seawater could reduce dependence on rivers and reservoirs whose levels fluctuate with rainfall. Several hospitals and food-processing businesses want reliable water supplies, and officials hope a new source would make emergency planning easier.
Engineers caution that desalination is not a costless solution. Removing salt from seawater requires energy and specialized equipment, while the resulting concentrated brine must be managed carefully. The effect of releasing brine depends on local currents, dilution, temperature and marine habitats. An outlet that performs acceptably during one season might behave differently when tides and coastal conditions change.
Another question concerns the proposed plant’s electricity demand. If it draws additional power at times when the grid is already strained, the system may create new infrastructure costs. Using renewable electricity could reduce some emissions, but planners would still need to compare generation, storage and reliability across different operating conditions.
Local fishing groups are concerned about the locations of intake pipes and outfalls, while smaller municipalities worry that water charges could rise. Officials are comparing desalination with leak repairs, water reuse and demand-management programs. They have proposed a limited trial that monitors water quality, marine conditions, energy consumption, operating expenses and the availability of water during droughts.
Before approving a permanent facility, the region wants evidence that additional supply would justify the costs and ecological risks. A large volume of desalinated water is not, by itself, proof that the investment is the most responsible option.
模範要約（98語）
A fictional coastal region is considering seawater desalination to secure water during droughts. Supporters expect greater reliability, but engineers warn that energy demand and the disposal of concentrated brine can create costs and environmental risks. The effects depend on currents, seasonal conditions and nearby habitats. Fishing groups question intake and discharge locations, while municipalities fear higher water charges. Officials are comparing desalination with leak repairs, water reuse and reduced consumption. A trial would monitor water quality, electricity, marine effects and expenses. Permanent investment will depend on demonstrated benefits compared with alternatives, not simply the volume of water produced.
日本語による全体解説：架空の沿岸地域は干ばつ対策で海水淡水化を検討する。海水を飲用可能な水へ変えるには電力が必要で、濃い塩水の排出が潮流・海洋生物へ影響し得る。漁業者や自治体の負担を考慮し、漏水修理・再利用・節水との費用対効果を試行で比較する。
原文の意味を変える誤要約の修正12問
Q1 誤：The plant has already been permanently approved. 正：The region is considering a plant and a limited trial. 理由：検討と決定済みを区別する。
Q2 誤：Desalination uses no electricity. 正：The process requires energy and specialized equipment. 理由：エネルギー費を残す。
Q3 誤：Concentrated brine has no environmental effects. 正：Its impact depends on currents, dilution and habitats. 理由：海洋への影響の条件。
Q4 誤：One seasonal test guarantees safety for every year. 正：Different seasons may produce different outcomes. 理由：調査の一般化を避ける。
Q5 誤：Every fishing group supports the proposed outlets. 正：Some fishing groups have concerns about intake and discharge. 理由：関係者の意見を保持する。
Q6 誤：Renewable electricity eliminates every operating constraint. 正：Even with renewables, reliability and storage require evaluation. 理由：再エネ導入と完全解決は別。
Q7 誤：The plan focuses only on producing more water. 正：Officials will assess environmental and financial outcomes. 理由：評価対象を保持する。
Q8 誤：The region has rejected leak repair programs. 正：Leak repair is one of the alternatives under comparison. 理由：比較案を消さない。
Q9 誤：Smaller municipalities expect water to become free. 正：They worry about possible rises in water charges. 理由：価格への懸念。
Q10 誤：A single outfall design is suitable everywhere. 正：Local coastal conditions influence the effects of brine. 理由：地点ごとの条件。
Q11 誤：No trial has been proposed. 正：A trial will assess several impacts before permanent adoption. 理由：試行の予定を残す。
Q12 誤：The objective is the greatest possible water output. 正：The objective is a justified, reliable supply with acceptable impacts. 理由：目的と代理指標。
英文要約2｜地域の外来植物対策と在来生態系の回復
問題：次のオリジナル英文を90〜110語で要約してください。外部の知識や個人的な意見を加えません。
A fictional regional park authority has begun assessing how to control an invasive plant that spreads rapidly along footpaths and riversides. The species can shade out some native vegetation, and managers hope that reducing its coverage will help local plants recover. Volunteer groups have offered to remove visible stems during weekend events.
Ecologists warn that removing a large number of stems does not automatically restore an ecosystem. Certain invasive plants reproduce from underground fragments or seeds that remain viable in soil. Careless removal could spread the material to new locations. Moreover, exposed ground may erode or become available for another undesirable species if follow-up planting is not planned.
The authority is comparing manual removal, controlled mechanical work and targeted habitat restoration. Some methods require trained personnel or restrictions near waterways. Residents want paths to remain open, while conservation groups prefer limiting access to sensitive areas during particular seasons. A uniform technique may therefore be inappropriate across the entire park network.
Officials intend to establish baseline records of native plant cover, soil conditions and the locations of invasive populations. They also want to measure how quickly the target species returns after removal. Contractors will be asked to explain where collected plant material is transported and how accidental dispersal will be prevented.
A multi-year trial will compare the return of native species, erosion, maintenance costs and the effectiveness of different methods. Managers hope to support durable ecological recovery rather than report the largest number of bags filled with removed plants.
模範要約（95語）
A fictional park authority is examining ways to control an invasive plant that threatens native vegetation. Volunteers have offered to remove stems, but ecologists caution that underground fragments and persistent seeds can cause regrowth, while careless disposal may spread the species. Removing plants may also expose soil to erosion or new invasions. Officials are comparing removal methods and habitat restoration, considering access restrictions, baseline surveys and safe disposal. A multi-year trial will track native vegetation, regrowth, erosion and costs. The objective is lasting ecological recovery, not the number of stems or bags removed at events.
日本語による全体解説：外来植物を除去する計画では、地上部の茎を切るだけでは根茎・種子から再生し得る。除去作業自体が繁殖体を散らす危険、裸地の侵食や次の侵入、利用者の安全と経費を考慮し、在来種の回復と再生を複数年評価する。
原文の意味を変える誤要約の修正12問
Q13 誤：Every volunteer has completed the eradication program. 正：Volunteers have offered to remove visible stems. 理由：参加予定と完了を分ける。
Q14 誤：Removing stems always restores native species. 正：Underground fragments or seeds may cause regrowth. 理由：再生の可能性。
Q15 誤：Disposal cannot spread an invasive species. 正：Careless handling may spread seeds or fragments. 理由：散布の危険を残す。
Q16 誤：All parts of the park require identical methods. 正：Management methods should reflect local conditions. 理由：地点の違い。
Q17 誤：Exposed soil is always harmless. 正：Removing vegetation can increase erosion or allow new invasions. 理由：地表の副作用。
Q18 誤：The authority will rely solely on weekend volunteers. 正：It is comparing manual, mechanical and habitat measures. 理由：複数手段を保持。
Q19 誤：All residents want permanent path closure. 正：Some residents want paths to remain open. 理由：利用者の希望。
Q20 誤：Conservation groups oppose every seasonal restriction. 正：Some prefer restricting access in sensitive periods. 理由：保全団体の立場。
Q21 誤：Original plant cover will not be measured. 正：Baseline surveys of native species are planned. 理由：比較基準を残す。
Q22 誤：Contractors are allowed to dispose of material anywhere. 正：They will explain transport and methods to prevent dispersal. 理由：処分の管理。
Q23 誤：The trial will last only one afternoon. 正：Results will be compared over several years. 理由：長期効果の測定。
Q24 誤：The project’s success is defined by bags collected. 正：It is defined by durable ecological recovery and manageable costs. 理由：指標と目的。
意見英作文1｜Should manufacturers be required to publish repairability information for household appliances?
200〜240語を目安に賛否・独立した根拠・反論と条件・結論を述べてください。
模範答案（207語）
Manufacturers should provide clear repairability information for household appliances, although the requirements should be proportionate to product complexity. Consumers often compare purchase prices without knowing whether a device can be maintained safely or whether replacement components will remain available.
First, useful information can improve purchasing decisions. If buyers understand expected support periods, access to spare parts and likely repair costs, they can compare total ownership expenses rather than assume that the cheapest product is economical in the long run. A simple score is helpful only when its meaning is explained.
Second, transparency can encourage better design. Manufacturers may have stronger incentives to make commonly failing components replaceable when repair arrangements are visible. However, repairability should not be promoted at the expense of electrical safety or reliable performance.
Third, disclosure may support independent repair businesses. Technicians need appropriate specifications and access to parts, while sensitive security or proprietary details may warrant controlled distribution. Well-designed rules can balance these interests.
Critics argue that detailed assessments could impose significant costs on small producers. Common testing standards and proportionate documentation can reduce unnecessary burdens.
In conclusion, repairability information should be encouraged when it leads to safe, affordable maintenance and verified longer product use, not merely another attractive label on the package.
日本語の論旨：家電の修理可能性・部品供給・維持費を分かりやすく公開すべきである。消費者の総費用の比較、製品設計改善、独立修理業者の参加に役立つ。ただし感電・発火等の安全や営業秘密、小規模メーカーの負担を考慮し、単純なスコアだけでなく根拠と条件も示す。
意見英作文2｜Should city governments give residents more influence over the design of public spaces?
200〜240語を目安に賛否・独立した根拠・反論と条件・結論を述べてください。
模範答案（211語）
City governments should give residents meaningful opportunities to influence the design of public spaces, while retaining responsibility for safety and equitable access. Parks, libraries and pedestrian routes affect daily life, and people who use them can identify problems overlooked in technical drawings.
First, local participation can reveal practical barriers. A path may appear accessible on a plan but be difficult for someone using a wheelchair or pushing a stroller. Residents can describe where surfaces become slippery, where lighting is inadequate and which routes people actually use.
Second, consultation may improve trust and long-term maintenance. When authorities explain their constraints and show how comments affect decisions, participants can understand why some proposals are adopted while others are not. However, high attendance at public meetings does not necessarily represent the views of every resident.
Third, fair involvement can help prevent costly errors. Governments should provide accessible meetings, online and offline feedback, and clear information about construction and maintenance budgets. People who work irregular hours or lack digital access should not be excluded.
Critics note that extensive consultation may delay urgently needed repairs. Time-limited, proportionate procedures are therefore preferable to endless discussions.
In conclusion, public participation should improve practical outcomes and fairness without becoming a substitute for engineering evidence, accountable budgets or timely decisions.
日本語の論旨：公園や通路の計画で住民の参加を増やすべき。実際の段差や滑り、照明、利用の仕方が分かり、信頼や長期管理にも役立つ。ただし会議参加者の声が全住民の代表とは限らず、緊急補修を遅らせない期限と費用のルールも必要。
答案で避けたい5つの誤り
- 検討段階の施策を恒久制度として実施済みと書く。
- 一地域・一季節の結果をすべての地域に一般化する。
- 海水の処理量や撤去した植物の量を実際の便益と同一視する。
- 制度の利用者・費用負担者の意見を勝手に逆転させる。
- 原文にない数字・保証・因果関係を加える。
FAQ
英検1級の英文要約は何語ですか？
英検協会の2025年度以降の指示では90〜110語です。語数に合わせる際にも、主体・時制・確実性を保持することが重要です。
意見英作文の模範と逆の立場を取れますか？
はい。自分の立場を一貫して示し、根拠と例外を具体的に説明できれば成立します。
英文要約に出典にない数字を入れてよいですか？
加えません。原文の情報だけで論旨を圧縮してください。
関連教材
公式情報
本記事の英文・問題・模範答案・和訳は慶英会の独自制作による非公式教材です。自治体・事業・調査はすべて教育用の架空設定です。
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