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第16セットの無料教材です。 英文要約2題・意見英作文2題、模範解答4本、要点和訳、独自24問と全解説を収録しました。題材は「災害時の公共図書館」と「反射屋根の省エネ実証」。どちらも慶英会が制作した架空の事例で、英検協会の過去問ではありません。
結論：要約では提案→制約→検証→条件付き結論を残し、英作文では立場→異なる3理由→反対意見への応答→結論を明確にします。2024年度から英検1級Writingは英文要約1題と意見英作文1題です。語数の目安は要約90〜110語、意見英作文200〜240語。Reading・Writingを合わせた筆記時間は100分です。詳しくは英検協会の1級試験内容と問題形式変更の公式案内をご確認ください。
最初に：この無料模試の学習順序
- ① 各長文を読み、90〜110語の要約を書く。原文にない成果や数値を追加しない。
- ② 各TOPICについて自分の立場と理由3つを決め、200〜240語の英作文を書く。
- ③ 下の模範解答を読み、特に否定・条件・主体・観測と予測の違いを比べる。
- ④ 確認12問＋誤文訂正12問を解き、7日後に模範解答を隠して再挑戦する。
Set A｜災害時の図書館利用：英文要約の原文
Task: Read the following original passage and summarize it in English in 90–110 words.
Paragraph 1：In the fictional city of Harbridge, officials proposed turning a network of public libraries into temporary support centers during severe storms. Most branches already had accessible entrances, internet connections, and staff accustomed to assisting residents. The city hoped that people could use the buildings to charge devices, obtain verified information, and contact relatives when transport services were disrupted. Supporters argued that adapting familiar facilities would be faster than constructing entirely new shelters, although the proposal did not assume that every library was suitable for overnight accommodation.
Paragraph 2：Emergency planners welcomed the idea but identified significant limitations. Some libraries stood near flood-prone roads, while others lacked generators or sufficient drinking water. Employees trained to recommend books had not necessarily received instruction in emergency triage or crowd management. In addition, keeping a branch open for emergency services might delay its normal educational activities. The planners therefore proposed a branch-by-branch assessment rather than automatically designating every building as a disaster center.
Paragraph 3：To evaluate the proposal, Harbridge selected three branches for a supervised exercise. Volunteers practiced providing updates, directing visitors, and distributing basic supplies. The exercise revealed that information signs needed translation and that charging stations could become congested. However, the exercise was not a real disaster: participants arrived at scheduled times, and mobile networks remained operational. Officials consequently warned against treating favorable volunteer feedback as proof that the centers would perform equally well in an actual emergency.
Paragraph 4：The council approved a limited expansion conditional on independent safety inspections, staff training, and agreements with regional emergency services. It also required public reports on costs, accessibility, and the effect of emergency duties on ordinary library users. Officials stressed that libraries could complement established shelters and communication systems but could not replace them. The policy would be reviewed after further exercises, with the possibility of withdrawing individual branches that failed safety requirements.
Set A：段落ごとの要点和訳
段落1：架空のハーブリッジ市は、暴風雨などの災害時に公共図書館を一時的な支援拠点として使う案を示した。既存設備を生かせる一方、すべての図書館が宿泊可能な避難所になるとは想定していない。
段落2：防災担当者は、浸水しやすい道路、非常用発電設備、水の不足、職員の専門訓練不足を指摘した。全館一律指定ではなく、館ごとの安全評価が必要だとした。
段落3：3館での訓練では、多言語案内と充電設備の課題が判明した。ただし予定された訓練は実災害ではなく、良い評価がそのまま実災害での成果を保証するわけではない。
段落4：市議会は安全点検、研修、関係機関との協定を条件として限定的な拡大を認めた。既存の避難所を補完する位置付けとし、費用、利用への影響、安全性を継続的に検証する。
Set A：意見英作文の課題
TOPIC: Should local governments use more existing public buildings during emergencies? State your opinion and give THREE reasons in 200–240 words.
Set B｜反射屋根の省エネルギー：英文要約の原文
Task: Read the following original passage and summarize it in English in 90–110 words.
Paragraph 1：The fictional coastal town of Bellmere faced increasingly uncomfortable summer nights. A local university suggested that highly reflective roofs might reduce indoor temperatures in certain buildings by reflecting more sunlight. Property owners were interested because older apartments often had limited cooling equipment. The university published a computer simulation comparing several roof materials and predicted modest reductions in daytime heat accumulation under specified weather conditions. Some local advertisements nevertheless described the simulation as proof that the town would save substantial amounts of electricity.
Paragraph 2：Researchers cautioned that the simulation had not measured household electricity use. The predicted effect depended on insulation, ventilation, building height, and the behavior of residents. A roof that reduced daytime heat could have different effects during colder months, when retaining warmth was desirable. Installing a reflective surface also involved upfront costs, periodic maintenance, and potential glare for neighboring buildings. The team argued that a single average forecast concealed important differences among homes.
Paragraph 3：Bellmere offered a voluntary pilot program in two neighborhoods. Participating households could receive a partial subsidy, and independent inspectors recorded roof conditions before installation. Because volunteers selected themselves, the researchers did not consider the participating homes representative of every property in town. They also emphasized the need to distinguish electricity used for cooling from total household electricity consumption, which might rise or fall for unrelated reasons. A comparison group was recruited, but the research team had not yet completed the monitoring period.
Paragraph 4：The town council postponed a universal installation requirement until the pilot produced reliable evidence. In the meantime, it offered residents clear information about likely benefits, uncertainties, and costs. Officials considered directing assistance toward poorly insulated buildings only if the results justified such a policy. The university’s provisional conclusion was that reflective roofs could be one useful measure among several, but neither the simulation nor early enrollment figures established townwide energy savings.
Set B：段落ごとの要点和訳
段落1：架空のベルミア町で、反射率の高い屋根が室温を下げる可能性を示した大学のシミュレーションが話題となった。しかし、その計算結果は実際の家庭の電力節約量を測定したものではない。
段落2：効果は断熱、換気、建物の高さ、住民の生活行動などによって変わる。寒い季節には不利になる可能性や設置費・維持費・反射光の影響もある。平均的な予測だけでは住宅間の違いを把握できない。
段落3：2地区で任意参加の実証試験を開始したが、参加住宅は町全体の代表とは限らない。冷房用電力と家庭全体の電力を区別し、比較対象を設けて調査を続ける必要がある。
段落4：町議会は十分な検証が終わるまで全戸への設置義務化を見送った。屋根の反射加工は複数ある暑さ対策の一つとして有望だが、町全体の節電効果は未証明とした。
Set B：意見英作文の課題
TOPIC: Should governments test new energy-saving technologies before making them mandatory? State your opinion and give THREE reasons in 200–240 words.
慶英会 塾長｜慶應義塾大学卒・英検1級
塾長の経歴・指導方針
中高一貫校の英語・定期テスト・英検の学習状況を整理し、必要な復習の優先順位を考えたい方は、無料体験・学習相談のご案内をご確認ください。最大1か月完全無料体験の対象・回数・担当講師は、お申し込み時にご案内します。
友だち追加後、学年・教材・困っていることと「学習相談希望（ブログ・記事中盤）」をお送りください。LINEを開くだけでは受付は完了しません。LINEを利用できない方はメールでの学習相談も可能です。料金・無料体験の期間と条件はコース・料金・無料体験のご案内でご確認ください。
模範解答と採点の着眼点
Set A｜英文要約の模範解答（95語）
Harbridge proposed using public libraries as temporary support centers during severe storms, arguing that existing facilities could help residents obtain information and basic assistance. Emergency planners identified risks involving flood access, power supplies, water, and staff preparation. A supervised exercise exposed problems with multilingual directions and charging stations, but its favorable feedback could not establish effectiveness during real emergencies. The council therefore permitted only a conditional expansion, requiring safety inspections, training, coordination with emergency services, and public monitoring. Libraries would supplement rather than replace established shelters, and unsuitable branches could be removed from the program.
解説：「施設活用の提案」から始め、リスク、訓練の限界、条件付きの導入を順に残しています。実証で安全性が証明された、と断定していません。
Set A｜意見英作文の模範解答（215語）
Local governments should make greater use of existing public buildings during emergencies, provided that safety standards and staff responsibilities are clearly defined. I support this approach for three reasons.
First, familiar public facilities can improve access to reliable information. Residents may already know where their neighborhood library is located, making it easier to find instructions when ordinary communication channels are disrupted. However, each site must be checked for physical hazards before it receives an emergency role.
Second, adapting a building that already exists can preserve public resources. Governments may avoid some construction expenses and direct limited funds toward emergency supplies, accessible information, and training. This argument does not mean that conversion is free; maintenance and staffing costs must still be assessed transparently.
Third, cooperation among librarians, emergency professionals, and community volunteers can strengthen preparedness. Joint exercises expose weaknesses before a genuine crisis, allowing officials to revise procedures. Such exercises should be treated as tests rather than conclusive proof of success.
Critics reasonably worry that additional responsibilities could interfere with ordinary public services. To address that concern, authorities should limit emergency duties, provide compensation where appropriate, and publish independent evaluations.
In conclusion, existing public buildings can serve useful supplementary functions during emergencies, but local governments should expand these functions cautiously rather than designating every facility automatically.
解説：理由1＝情報アクセス、理由2＝既存施設の効率的活用、理由3＝訓練と連携による防災力です。費用ゼロ、全施設の安全性といった根拠のない一般化は避けています。
Set B｜英文要約の模範解答（96語）
Bellmere considered reflective roofs as a response to uncomfortable summers after a university simulation predicted lower heat accumulation in some buildings. Researchers stressed that the model had not measured electricity savings and that outcomes could differ with insulation, resident behavior, seasonal conditions, and installation costs. A voluntary neighborhood pilot was launched, but participants were not necessarily representative, and monitoring remained incomplete. Consequently, the council delayed any townwide requirement while explaining uncertainties and costs to residents. Reflective roofing might contribute to heat management, yet neither computer forecasts nor early participation figures demonstrated actual savings across the town.
解説：「シミュレーションの予測」と「実際の節電実測」の区別を維持しています。自発的参加の標本偏り、評価未完了、義務化見送りを落とさないことが重要です。
Set B｜意見英作文の模範解答（211語）
Governments should encourage trials of energy-saving building technologies before imposing universal installation rules. This approach is preferable for three reasons.
First, local conditions influence whether an intervention works. A reflective roof may reduce heat in one building but have a smaller impact in another because of differences in ventilation, insulation, and climate. Pilot studies help policymakers identify where the benefits are most likely to occur instead of relying on a single average estimate.
Second, experiments can reveal costs that initial calculations overlook. Materials require installation and maintenance, and some changes may inconvenience neighboring properties. By measuring actual expenses alongside possible savings, authorities can avoid promoting an apparently inexpensive policy that becomes burdensome over time.
Third, a cautious trial respects residents while generating useful evidence. Voluntary participation and independent inspections can improve trust. Nonetheless, researchers must acknowledge that volunteers may differ from nonparticipants and should use suitable comparison groups before claiming the results apply townwide.
Some argue that extensive trials delay climate action. This objection matters, especially when existing measures are already proven. Yet policymakers can adopt established interventions immediately while testing less certain innovations separately.
Overall, targeted trials allow governments to make more defensible decisions. Public resources should support approaches that demonstrate meaningful benefits without overlooking unequal effects or unanticipated costs.
解説：理由1＝地域・建物条件、理由2＝費用の検証、理由3＝実測と信頼です。賛成の立場でも行動を遅らせる問題を認め、実証中にも既存の確かな施策は進められると述べています。
確認演習12問｜原文に書かれたことだけを答える
Q1. Why did Harbridge initially favor libraries?
Q2. Did the city assume all libraries could house people overnight?
Q3. Name two infrastructure risks found by the planners.
Q4. Why was staff training necessary?
Q5. What weakness did the supervised exercise reveal?
Q6. Why was the exercise not conclusive?
Q7. What were the conditions for expansion?
Q8. What role would libraries play relative to shelters?
Q9. What did Bellmere’s simulation predict?
Q10. Did the simulation directly measure household electricity savings?
Q11. Why were pilot volunteers not representative?
Q12. Why did the council delay universal installation?
誤文訂正12問｜意味を変えてしまった英語を直す
Q13. Every public library in Harbridge was converted into a shelter.
Q14. Library staff had already mastered emergency triage.
Q15. The drill proved that the program would succeed in an actual disaster.
Q16. The council replaced established shelters with libraries.
Q17. Only charging stations required improvement.
Q18. All branches remained in the program regardless of safety findings.
Q19. Bellmere had already verified townwide electricity savings.
Q20. Reflective roofs work equally well in all buildings.
Q21. The technology has no maintenance costs.
Q22. The volunteers were randomly selected from all households.
Q23. The comparison group’s monitoring had been completed.
Q24. The council imposed a universal rule before evaluating the trial.
全24問の解答・理由
Q1：Because existing, familiar facilities could offer assistance without constructing entirely new centers. — 新規施設の建設だけに頼らず、既存の使い慣れた施設を活用できるため。
Q2：No. The proposal explicitly did not assume every branch was suitable for overnight accommodation. — 「すべて宿泊可能」とは述べていない。
Q3：Flood-prone access roads and inadequate backup power or drinking water. — 道路の浸水リスク、発電機不足、水不足など。
Q4：Ordinary library experience did not necessarily include emergency triage or crowd management. — 平常時の業務経験だけでは災害対応の技能を保証しないため。
Q5：Problems with translated signs and congestion at charging stations. — 案内の翻訳不足と充電場所の混雑。
Q6：It took place at scheduled times with operational mobile networks, unlike a genuine emergency. — 予定された訓練条件が実災害と異なるため。
Q7：Safety inspections, training, coordination, and transparent reporting. — 安全点検・研修・関係機関との協定・情報公開など。
Q8：They would complement, not replace, existing shelters. — 既存避難所を補完し、代替しない。
Q9：Lower heat accumulation in certain buildings under specified conditions. — 一定条件下で一部建物の蓄熱が下がる可能性。
Q10：No. Actual household electricity consumption had not been measured by that simulation. — 計算上の室温・蓄熱と実測した節電量は別。
Q11：They selected themselves, so their buildings and behavior could differ from the wider population. — 自発的参加者には選択バイアスがあるため。
Q12：Monitoring was incomplete and townwide benefits had not been demonstrated. — 実測調査未完了で町全体への効果が未証明だったため。
Q13：Harbridge considered a limited, conditional role for selected libraries. — すべての館でも、必ず宿泊用避難所でもない。
Q14：Library staff required additional emergency-response training. — 訓練の必要性が指摘されている。
Q15：The drill identified issues but could not establish real-world effectiveness. — 訓練結果から本番の成功を断定できない。
Q16：The council planned for libraries to complement existing shelters. — replaceとcomplementは逆。
Q17：Both multilingual signs and charging stations required attention. — onlyが根拠のない限定を加える。
Q18：Branches that failed safety requirements could be removed. — 安全条件に不適合なら除外の可能性。
Q19：Bellmere had not verified townwide electricity savings. — シミュレーションと電力実測を混同しない。
Q20：The effects of reflective roofs may vary across buildings. — 住宅の条件差がある。
Q21：The intervention involves installation and possible maintenance costs. — 費用ゼロとは書かれていない。
Q22：Participation was voluntary, so the sample was not necessarily representative. — voluntaryとrandom samplingは異なる。
Q23：Monitoring had not yet been completed. — 時制・完了の有無を厳密に扱う。
Q24：The council postponed a universal rule pending better evidence. — 判断の前後関係が逆。
無料模試の復習を合格につなげる
- 1日目：原文の各段落を10〜15語の英語で要約し、内容の抜けを確認。
- 2日目：模範要約と自分の答案を比較し、削り過ぎた制約や留保を補う。
- 3日目：各英作文の3理由が重複していないかを点検。
- 4日目：誤文訂正12問を全問やり直し。
- 5日目：新しいテーマで自分の理由3つを2分で決める練習。
- 6日目：英作文を語数制限内で書き直し、誤文法や指示語を校閲。
- 7日目：模範解答を隠して要約と英作文を再提出するつもりで解く。
よくある質問
英検1級の要約では原文の数字をすべて残すべきですか？
いいえ。論点を支える数字は残す価値がありますが、個別の細部をすべて転記する必要はありません。原文の事実、主張の方向、制限条件を損なわずに圧縮します。
英作文の模範解答を暗記すればよいですか？
丸暗記よりも、異なる理由を3つ立て、各理由に根拠・具体例・留保を付ける構造を再現することが重要です。答案の賛否は一例であり、筋の通った別解も成立します。
この教材は英検公式過去問ですか？
いいえ。すべて慶英会の独自教材です。公式問題・出題形式は日本英語検定協会の公開情報で別途ご確認ください。
続けて解く英検1級の無料教材
新しい続編の無料教材：Writing第17セット（要約2題・英作文2題・独自24問）。この教材で誤答を整理したら、続編の初見問題に挑戦し、理解の定着を確認してください。
慶英会では、英検1級の英文要約・意見英作文の弱点を整理し、理解度に合わせた個別指導を行っています。最大1か月無料体験・学習相談はこちら。
参考：日本英語検定協会「1級の試験内容」、2024年度問題形式リニューアル。本記事の舞台、団体、状況、演習問題、模範答案は慶英会の独自創作です。
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