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46セット。英文要約2題（90〜110語）、意見英作文2題（200〜240語）、原文の意味を変えてしまう誤要約修正24問と全解答を掲載します。水の再利用、バイオガス、公共施設の修繕情報、オンライン美術館という長期的な社会課題を題材に、条件・因果関係・主張の正確な英語表現を学びます。
英検1級の公式Writingでは英文要約1題と意見英作文1題が出題されます。英文要約は2025年度以降90〜110語と指定されています（英検協会｜試験内容、語数指示の公式文書）。本教材の4課題は慶英会が独自制作した追加演習であり、公式過去問ではありません。
続きの無料教材：Writing第47セット｜英文要約2題・英作文2題・修正24問。初見で解き、解答の根拠と誤答の原因まで確認してください。
要約と意見英作文を解く4ステップ
- 原文の問題意識・利点・制約・代替策・評価方法を抜き出す。
- 模範を見ず90〜110語で要約し、実施予定を成功済みと書き換えていないか確認する。
- 意見英作文は最初に立場を述べ、異なる2〜3の理由と合理的な反対意見を扱う。
- 自分の答案を内容・構成・語彙・文法で校閲し、数日後にもう一度独力で書く。
英文要約1｜半導体工場の再生水利用と地域の水資源
次の慶英会オリジナル英文を90〜110語に要約してください。原文にない断定や具体的数値を加えないこと。
A fictional industrial region is considering encouraging semiconductor manufacturers to reuse treated process water. Chip production can require carefully controlled water quality, and factories often operate systems that purify large volumes before particular manufacturing steps. Supporters argue that suitable reuse could reduce withdrawals from rivers during dry periods and limit competition with households and agriculture.
Engineers caution that the phrase recycled water can conceal several different processes. Water suitable for cleaning one type of equipment may not meet the strict requirements of another. Additional purification, monitoring and storage may consume substantial electricity. If an unexpected contaminant enters a closed-loop system, managers must be able to isolate affected streams and protect product quality. Reuse is therefore not simply a matter of connecting two pipes.
Regional officials have proposed a pilot involving factories with different production methods. The companies would record freshwater withdrawals, recycled volumes, water quality failures, energy use and disposal costs. Municipal water managers also want to distinguish reductions achieved by recycling from changes caused by lower factory output or wetter weather. A decline in total withdrawals alone would not establish that every reuse installation was effective.
Some community groups want the factories to publish understandable information about their demands on local water resources. Businesses respond that disclosing detailed process designs could reveal valuable confidential information. Officials are considering reporting standardized performance measures while allowing independent reviewers to inspect sensitive technical records under appropriate safeguards.
Before supporting widespread adoption, the region will compare costs, environmental impacts and reliability over multiple operating periods. The goal is dependable industrial production with lower pressure on freshwater supplies, not the highest possible percentage of water labeled as recycled.
模範要約（96語）
A fictional region is considering encouraging semiconductor factories to reuse treated process water to reduce pressure on freshwater supplies. Supporters expect lower withdrawals, but engineers warn that different manufacturing stages require different water quality, while extra treatment consumes energy and creates contamination risks. Officials propose a pilot measuring actual reuse, freshwater withdrawals, production levels, failures and operating costs. Community groups seek transparency, although companies want to protect sensitive process information. Standardized reporting and independent review may address both concerns. Widespread adoption will depend on verified resource savings and reliable operations, not a high recycled-water percentage alone.
日本語による全体解説：架空地域が半導体工場での工程用水の再利用を検討。工場の取水量を下げる期待はあるが、工程ごとの水質条件、再浄化に要する電力、汚染時の切り分けが問題となる。工場生産量や天候変動を考慮して取水削減を検証し、企業機密に配慮した標準化情報と独立点検を比較する。
誤要約の修正演習12問
Q1 誤：The region has already mandated reuse in every semiconductor plant. 修正：The region is considering a pilot before wider adoption. 理由：構想と既成事実を区別。
Q2 誤：Reused water meets all manufacturing requirements automatically. 修正：Different stages may require different levels of treatment. 理由：水質条件を維持。
Q3 誤：Purification uses no additional electricity. 修正：Additional treatment may increase energy demand. 理由：隠れた電力費を残す。
Q4 誤：Contamination cannot occur in closed-loop systems. 修正：Managers need procedures for isolating contaminated streams. 理由：故障可能性を消さない。
Q5 誤：Falling withdrawals prove reuse was the only cause. 修正：Production and weather changes can also affect withdrawals. 理由：因果の飛躍を防ぐ。
Q6 誤：All companies use identical processes. 修正：Factories may have different production methods. 理由：適用条件の違い。
Q7 誤：The pilot will count only liters recycled. 修正：It will also examine failures, energy and costs. 理由：複合指標。
Q8 誤：Community groups reject disclosure. 修正：They seek understandable information about water use. 理由：主体の主張を正しく残す。
Q9 誤：Factories are willing to publish all technical details. 修正：They want to protect sensitive process information. 理由：機密保護を残す。
Q10 誤：The proposal eliminates independent verification. 修正：Independent review is one possible safeguard. 理由：第三者検証。
Q11 誤：Only one operating day will be observed. 修正：Results will be compared over multiple operating periods. 理由：長期的な比較。
Q12 誤：The objective is to maximize an advertised percentage. 修正：The objective is reliable production with reduced freshwater pressure. 理由：目的と代理指標。
英文要約2｜自治体の食品残渣メタン発酵と回収ルート
次の慶英会オリジナル英文を90〜110語に要約してください。原文にない断定や具体的数値を加えないこと。
A fictional municipality is examining a small anaerobic digestion facility that would process food scraps collected from public markets and institutional kitchens. Microorganisms can break down organic material in oxygen-free conditions, producing biogas that may be used as an energy source. Supporters hope the project will divert some waste from disposal and provide a local supply of energy.
However, not every food-waste stream can enter the same process without preparation. Packaging, contamination and seasonal variation in material can affect operation. The facility would also require electricity, maintenance and a plan for handling the remaining digestate. If the digestate contains unsuitable substances, it cannot simply be spread on nearby fields. Engineers warn that a project that produces biogas may still have a disappointing environmental balance if collection trucks travel long distances or methane escapes from equipment.
Officials are comparing different collection arrangements. A centralized facility could be easier to manage but might require more transport, while several smaller collection points could complicate sorting and quality control. Restaurant owners are concerned about storage space and additional staff time. Public-market managers want clear guidance on what may be placed in collection bins.
The municipality intends to run a limited trial and calculate the material entering the plant, usable biogas, leakage, transport distances, energy consumption and disposal costs. It also wants to compare the project with other waste-prevention measures. Reducing the amount of edible food thrown away may sometimes be more beneficial than creating energy from scraps that need not have existed.
The proposal will be expanded only if reliable evidence shows practical environmental and financial benefits. The aim is responsible waste management rather than the greatest possible quantity of biogas reported in publicity materials.
模範要約（96語）
A fictional municipality is considering anaerobic digestion of food scraps to reduce disposal and produce biogas. Supporters expect local energy benefits, but contamination, packaging, seasonal variation and safe handling of leftover material complicate operations. Long collection routes and methane leaks could also undermine environmental gains. Officials are comparing centralized processing with smaller collection points while considering the burden on restaurants. A trial will measure usable gas, leakage, transport, energy consumption and disposal costs. The municipality will also compare digestion with preventing avoidable food waste. Expansion depends on verified overall benefits, not the largest possible biogas output.
日本語による全体解説：架空自治体が市場・給食の食品残渣を嫌気性消化しバイオガスを得る計画。包装材や異物、残渣の処分、漏出メタン、回収車両の走行が総効果を左右する。集中処理と小規模回収拠点の違い、事業者の作業負担も考慮し、食品廃棄自体を防ぐ方法とも比較する。
誤要約の修正演習12問
Q13 誤：Every type of food waste can be processed without sorting. 修正：Packaging and contamination can affect digestion. 理由：分別の必要性。
Q14 誤：The facility will definitely provide unlimited energy. 修正：The proposal may produce usable biogas under suitable conditions. 理由：量を保証しない。
Q15 誤：Digestate can always be placed on farmland. 修正：Remaining material must be checked and handled safely. 理由：残渣の条件。
Q16 誤：Methane leakage is impossible. 修正：Leaks are one of the impacts to be measured. 理由：漏出リスクを残す。
Q17 誤：Transport routes have no environmental effect. 修正：Truck distances can affect overall benefits. 理由：全体の排出を評価。
Q18 誤：Every restaurant supports the plan without concern. 修正：Some worry about space and staff time. 理由：事業者の負担。
Q19 誤：Officials have chosen a permanent centralized plant. 修正：Centralized and smaller collection arrangements are being compared. 理由：代替案の比較。
Q20 誤：The trial will focus only on gas volume. 修正：The trial also measures leakage, energy and costs. 理由：出力量と正味成果。
Q21 誤：Biogas generation is always better than preventing waste. 修正：Waste prevention is another option for comparison. 理由：廃棄の回避。
Q22 誤：The facility has already begun commercial operation. 修正：The municipality is examining a limited trial. 理由：時制と意思決定段階。
Q23 誤：Seasonal variation cannot affect operations. 修正：Changing inputs may affect performance. 理由：原料のばらつき。
Q24 誤：The goal is the greatest publicized gas output. 修正：The goal is environmentally and financially sound waste management. 理由：目標のすり替えを避ける。
意見英作文1｜Should cities publish the maintenance backlogs of publicly owned buildings?
200〜240語で自分の立場、独立した根拠、留保と結論を書いてください。模範と逆の立場でも論理が明確なら成立します。
模範英作文（223語）
Cities should publish understandable information about maintenance backlogs in publicly owned buildings, provided that sensitive security details are protected. Residents rely on schools, libraries and community centers, and they deserve to know how essential repairs are prioritized.
First, transparency can improve safety and accountability. A delayed repair may appear minor in a budget document but have significant consequences for people using a facility. Public reporting of the severity, expected timetable and responsible department makes it easier to identify problems that need urgent attention.
Second, disclosure can support better financial planning. When governments record repairs that have been postponed, elected representatives can compare the cost of timely maintenance with the potential expense of larger failures. This encourages decisions based on the useful life of buildings rather than their appearance at an opening ceremony.
Third, residents can contribute practical information. Facility users may notice unreliable elevators, inaccessible entrances or recurring leaks that an occasional inspection misses. A clear route for reporting problems makes the published backlog more useful.
Critics argue that frequent updates require staff time and could reveal vulnerabilities in public infrastructure. These concerns justify proportionate reporting and the exclusion of sensitive operational details, not complete secrecy.
Overall, transparent maintenance records can strengthen public services when they lead to reliable repairs, fair prioritization and realistic budgets rather than merely producing more pages of data.
日本語での論旨：公共建築物の未実施修繕を、機微な安全情報を伏せて公開すべきだ。修繕の緊急性が分かり、放置による将来費用と利用者の声を判断に反映できる。ただし更新作業や保安上の情報開示には比例的な配慮を行う。
意見英作文2｜Should public museums charge a fee for access to online exhibitions?
200〜240語で自分の立場、独立した根拠、留保と結論を書いてください。模範と逆の立場でも論理が明確なら成立します。
模範英作文（214語）
Public museums should generally provide free access to basic online exhibitions, while considering reasonable charges for specialized services. Digital collections can extend education beyond the people able to visit a building, but maintaining them requires real resources.
First, free introductory access supports equal learning opportunities. Students, teachers and people living far from major museums may benefit from reliable images, explanations and historical context. Charging for every page could exclude audiences who already face barriers to cultural education.
Second, broad availability can strengthen the museum’s public mission. Searchable collections help users discover objects and ask new questions. However, online descriptions must distinguish verified facts from interpretations, and publishing material requires appropriate permission from creators and communities.
Third, a mixed funding approach may be sustainable. Institutions could provide core exhibits freely while charging for high-resolution commercial licensing, specialist research support or other optional services. Public grants and partnerships may also help cover preservation and technical maintenance.
Critics reasonably worry that free access will create costs without corresponding ticket revenue. That concern should guide budgeting, but page views alone are not the measure of educational value. Museums should assess actual use, accessibility, reliability and long-term expenses.
In conclusion, public museums should prioritize open basic education while developing transparent, proportionate ways to fund advanced services and protect rights.
日本語での論旨：公共美術館の基本的なオンライン展示は原則無料とし、商用高解像度の利用許諾や専門調査など追加サービスには合理的な料金を検討する。文化アクセスの公平性、著作権・地域の許諾、サーバー・保存費用を両立させる。
英検1級Writingで防ぎたい5つの失点
- consider / propose / pilot を導入済み・効果実証済みと訳す。
- recycling / recovery の表示を全量が有効に再資源化されたと読み替える。
- 費用や電力・輸送などの隠れた影響を消す。
- 許可された範囲を勝手に拡大し、公開権や利用権を創作する。
- 模範答案の語数だけを優先し、因果関係や論旨を変えてしまう。
よくある質問
英検1級の英文要約は何語ですか？
2025年度以降の英検協会指示では90〜110語です。主張の重要点を保ち、指定の範囲にまとめます。
英文要約で自分の意見を加えてよいですか？
要約では加えません。原文が述べる内容・主体・根拠・限定条件を忠実に表現してください。
意見英作文で具体的な統計が必要ですか？
根拠のない数値を創作する必要はありません。機構・利点・実施上の問題を具体的かつ論理的に説明することが重要です。
関連教材
参考にした公式情報
すべての英文・問題・模範回答・解説は慶英会が独自に作成した非公式教材です。事例の自治体・工場等は架空であり、実在する事業の実績ではありません。
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