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42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問を全解答付きで公開します。都市の公衆トイレ改修、森林火災監視ドローン、大学教材のアクセシビリティ、参加型予算を題材に、具体的な利点と実行上の留保を正確に伝える練習ができます。
英検1級Writingの公式形式は英文要約1題と意見英作文1題です。英文要約の指示語数は90〜110語で、英検協会の通知に明記されています。1級試験内容の公式ページも併せて確認してください。以下は慶英会の独自練習で公式過去問の転載ではありません。
次の無料教材：Writing第43セット｜英文要約2題・意見英作文2題・修正24問。初見で解き、解答根拠と誤答理由まで確認してください。
解答の順序｜情報抽出・執筆・自己校閲
- 要約原文を読み、目的、期待効果、制約、対案、検証予定を取り出す。
- 模範を隠して90〜110語に圧縮し、原文にない数字・断定・実績を追加していないか点検する。
- 意見英作文は冒頭に賛否を明示し、異なる理由と具体的な条件・反論への対応を組み立てる。
- 内容、構成、語彙、文法の4観点で見直し、翌日に同じ題を独力で再演習する。
英文要約1｜都市の公共トイレ改修｜設置数ではなく利用可能性
問題：次の慶英会オリジナル英文を90〜110語に英語で要約してください。
A fictional city is planning to modernize public toilets near markets, transport stops and parks. Supporters believe that cleaner facilities with step-free entrances will make the city more welcoming to older residents, families and visitors with disabilities. Officials initially proposed counting the number of refurbished buildings as the principal indicator of success.
Maintenance workers warned that attractive renovations would accomplish little if facilities frequently ran out of supplies or were locked during the hours people needed them. Some toilets had entrances that appeared accessible but lacked enough space for a wheelchair to turn. Others were located beside routes that became difficult to use after rain. The city therefore invited different users to test the sites rather than judging accessibility from drawings alone.
Budget officers suggested installing identical equipment everywhere to simplify purchasing. Local staff argued that busy markets might require more frequent cleaning, while remote parks needed durable fixtures and dependable inspection schedules. A common design could reduce some costs, but it might also ignore substantial differences in demand and operating conditions.
The city plans to renovate a limited selection of sites first. Evaluators will monitor functioning hours, cleanliness, repair delays, accessibility and total expenses. They will also seek feedback from people who previously avoided the facilities. The project illustrates that usable public infrastructure depends on maintenance and thoughtful location, not merely the number of buildings renovated.
模範要約（100語）
A fictional city plans to refurbish public toilets to improve cleanliness and accessibility. Supporters expect benefits for families, older residents and people with disabilities, but staff warn that attractive facilities may remain unusable because of closures, poor maintenance or inadequate wheelchair space. Officials disagree over standardized equipment and designs tailored to local demand. The city will first renovate selected sites and examine operating hours, cleanliness, repairs, accessibility and costs. Feedback from people who previously avoided the facilities will also matter. The project emphasizes that practical access and reliable maintenance, rather than renovation totals alone, determine the public value of infrastructure.
本文の日本語要旨：架空都市は公衆トイレを整備し、清潔さと段差のない利用を改善したい。ただし建物改修件数だけでは実際の利用可能性を測れない。清掃、施錠時間、車椅子の転回スペース、道路状況、地域ごとの需要が重要。一律設計と地域に合わせた設計の長所短所を比較し、試行で稼働時間・費用・利用者の経験を検証する。
要約の意味を守る修正課題1｜12問・解答付き
Q1 誤：Every public toilet has already been renovated. 正：The city is planning a limited renovation trial. 解説：計画と実施を区別する。
Q2 誤：More renovated buildings guarantee better access. 正：Operating hours and maintenance affect access. 解説：建物の件数は成果と同義ではない。
Q3 誤：A step-free entrance guarantees full wheelchair accessibility. 正：Adequate space and the route to the facility also matter. 解説：アクセシビリティの複数条件を残す。
Q4 誤：All facilities must be open around the clock. 正：Operating hours should be evaluated against actual needs. 解説：無条件の24時間化を加えない。
Q5 誤：Maintenance workers support appearance alone. 正：They warn that poor maintenance can make facilities unusable. 解説：職員の主張を正確に残す。
Q6 誤：Standardized designs have no potential advantages. 正：Common designs may simplify procurement. 解説：対案の利点を消さない。
Q7 誤：Every neighborhood has identical demand. 正：Local usage and conditions differ. 解説：地域差を保持する。
Q8 誤：Users were excluded from evaluations. 正：The city plans practical testing with different users. 解説：当事者を含める。
Q9 誤：The pilot measures only construction cost. 正：It will also measure cleanliness, repairs and accessibility. 解説：評価指標を狭めない。
Q10 誤：Rain never affects routes to the toilets. 正：Some approach routes are difficult after rain. 解説：立地条件を保持する。
Q11 誤：Feedback will come only from frequent users. 正：People who previously avoided the facilities will also be consulted. 解説：非利用者を含める。
Q12 誤：The project is primarily a publicity campaign. 正：The goal is practical and reliable public access. 解説：手段と目的の区別。
英文要約2｜森林の火災監視ドローン｜発見速度と誤警報の均衡
問題：次の慶英会オリジナル英文を90〜110語に英語で要約してください。
A fictional regional forestry service is considering drones equipped with thermal cameras to identify possible wildfires in remote areas. Supporters argue that aerial monitoring could detect unusual heat before observers on the ground notice smoke. The service also hopes to reduce the time staff spend traveling long distances to investigate reports that turn out to be harmless.
However, thermal images do not automatically identify the cause of a heat signal. Sun-warmed rocks, industrial equipment or controlled activities may generate readings that resemble fire. Weather can restrict drone flights, and batteries limit how long each aircraft can remain airborne. Forestry officers therefore propose using aerial information to guide inspections rather than treating every alarm as confirmed danger.
Privacy concerns have also emerged. Some flight paths pass near homes, and residents want clear rules about what images are stored, how long they remain available and who may examine them. Technology providers favor broad data collection to improve detection systems, while community representatives call for limits that reflect the service’s public-safety purpose.
Before expanding operations, the forestry service plans a trial comparing detection times, missed incidents, false alarms, staffing needs and operating expenses with existing patrols. It will publish procedures for confirming alarms and handling personal information. A successful technology program would improve timely decisions without creating unnecessary surveillance or diverting resources from training and emergency response.
模範要約（103語）
A fictional forestry service is considering thermal-camera drones to identify potential wildfires more quickly and reduce unnecessary travel. Yet heat signals may have harmless causes, while weather and limited battery life can restrict flights. Staff want drones to guide verification rather than produce automatic declarations of fire. Residents also seek limits on imagery collected near homes, despite providers’ interest in extensive data. A trial will compare detection times, missed incidents, false alarms, staffing and costs with existing patrols. The service will also set rules for confirming alerts and protecting personal information. Useful monitoring requires reliable decisions, accountable data practices and practical emergency preparation.
本文の日本語要旨：架空の森林当局は熱画像ドローンで火災を早期発見したい。ただし日射で温まった岩などで誤警報が起き、天候や電池で飛行が制限される。住居の近くで撮影する画像の保存・利用も問題となる。既存パトロールと発見時間・見逃し・誤報・運用費を比較し、技術を確認手順の補助として利用する。
要約の意味を守る修正課題2｜12問・解答付き
Q13 誤：Every heat signal proves a wildfire. 正：Harmless objects can produce similar heat readings. 解説：検出と確定を区別する。
Q14 誤：Drones can fly continuously in all weather. 正：Weather and battery capacity restrict their operation. 解説：運用条件を保持する。
Q15 誤：The forestry service already replaced all patrols. 正：Drones are being considered alongside existing patrols. 解説：比較案の存在を残す。
Q16 誤：The system automatically confirms every alarm. 正：Officers plan procedures for verifying alerts. 解説：人手確認の役割。
Q17 誤：The sole aim is to collect images. 正：The main purpose is better fire detection and response. 解説：目的を正しく表す。
Q18 誤：Residents support unlimited recording. 正：Residents have requested privacy safeguards. 解説：対立する立場を残す。
Q19 誤：Images near homes present no privacy issues. 正：Flight paths near homes raise legitimate concerns. 解説：個人情報を無視しない。
Q20 誤：Technology providers oppose data collection. 正：Providers favor broader collection for model improvement. 解説：事業者の立場を正確に示す。
Q21 誤：False alarms are excluded from the trial. 正：False alarms are an explicit evaluation measure. 解説：重要な失敗指標。
Q22 誤：The technology has already proved superior. 正：The pilot will compare it with existing patrols. 解説：結果を創作しない。
Q23 誤：Staffing costs are fixed and irrelevant. 正：Staffing requirements and expenses will be evaluated. 解説：人的費用を含める。
Q24 誤：Emergency training can be abandoned. 正：The service wants to avoid diverting resources from response readiness. 解説：技術と訓練は補完。
意見英作文1｜Should publicly funded universities guarantee an accessible format for all compulsory course materials?
200〜240語で立場を明らかにし、異なる根拠と例外条件を述べてください。
模範英作文（219語）
Publicly funded universities should ensure that compulsory course materials are accessible to students with different needs. Making a document available for download is not sufficient if its contents cannot be used with assistive technology or understood in a practical learning setting.
First, accessible materials support fair participation. A student relying on a screen reader may struggle with a scanned page that contains no searchable text. Others may need captions, clear diagrams or alternatives to color-based instructions. These changes can allow students to demonstrate their knowledge instead of being limited by the format of a resource.
Second, designing accessible materials in advance can reduce delays. When lecturers prepare usable files and consistent descriptions, students do not have to request emergency conversions before every assignment. This also helps teaching staff avoid repetitive work that could have been prevented through a common process.
Third, accessibility can improve educational quality more broadly. Clear headings, accurate transcripts and well-structured explanations are useful to many learners, including those studying in a second language.
Critics point out that adapting older specialist materials can be expensive and technically difficult. That concern deserves attention. Universities should prioritize compulsory resources, provide expert assistance and offer equivalent alternatives when immediate conversion is impractical.
Overall, accessibility should be treated as a normal component of educational delivery rather than an occasional exception.
日本語での論理構成：公費を受ける大学は必修教材のアクセシビリティを確保すべきである。読み上げできない画像PDFや字幕なしの映像は学習機会を妨げる。事前に整備すれば緊急の個別変換を減らし、見出しや説明の質も上がる。古い専門資料の変換負担には優先順位と代替手段で対応する。
意見英作文2｜Should cities use participatory budgeting to decide how some local public funds are spent?
200〜240語で立場を明らかにし、異なる根拠と例外条件を述べてください。
模範英作文（214語）
Cities should use carefully designed participatory budgeting for a limited share of local public funds. Inviting residents to help choose projects can improve decisions, but it should complement rather than replace professional planning and elected accountability.
First, residents possess practical knowledge that may be missing from official reports. People using a park, bus stop or library can explain barriers that a map or expenditure table does not reveal. Their experience may help identify small improvements with high everyday value.
Second, participation can make spending more understandable. When people compare proposals and discuss trade-offs, they see that money devoted to one project cannot be used elsewhere. Clear information about costs and maintenance can encourage more realistic expectations.
Third, a transparent process may increase trust in local decisions. Publishing selection criteria, voting rules and the reasons projects were approved or rejected enables citizens to question inconsistencies and learn from later outcomes.
Critics reasonably worry that organized groups will dominate meetings while residents with little time or internet access remain unheard. This risk requires accessible participation methods, outreach and protections against unfair representation.
Therefore, participatory budgeting is worthwhile when its scope is clear, technical safety standards remain in place and projects are evaluated after implementation. Its goal should be better public services, not merely high voting totals.
日本語での論理構成：自治体予算の一部について住民参加型の配分を支持する。現場利用者の知識、費用と機会費用への理解、意思決定の透明性が高まる。声の大きな集団やオンライン環境のよい人が有利にならぬよう参加手段を確保し、安全に関わる専門判断は維持する。
書き換えで特に注意する4つの誤り
- 事業の予定を実施済みの結果に書き換える。
- 設置・登録などの活動指標を、そのまま公共的な成果と解釈する。
- 技術を全面否定または無条件賛成に置き換え、原文の留保を落とす。
- 小集団の調査結果を全地域に一般化する。
よくある質問
英検1級の英文要約は何語ですか？
2025年度から協会の問題冊子指示は90〜110語と明記されています。重要内容と限定条件を残して書いてください。
模範答案以外の要約表現も正解になりますか？
なります。原文の事実、比較、可能性の強さが維持され、英文として自然であれば、複数の表現が可能です。
Writingの答え合わせは何から始めますか？
まず原文にない事実を作っていないか、主張の方向が変わっていないか、語数を満たすかの順に確認します。
次の無料教材
参考にした公式情報
設問、英文、答案、解説は慶英会が独自制作した非公式教材です。自治体・森林当局などの事例は架空であり、実在の成果を報告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