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・慶英会独自第35セット。英文要約2題、社会問題の意見英作文2題、内容を変えずに直す24課題と全解答を収録しました。要約は各90〜110語、意見英作文は各200〜240語の模範答案を実際に数えています。英検協会の公式過去問ではなく、初見練習用の完全オリジナル教材です。
2025年度から英文要約の指定は「Summarize it between 90 and 110 words.」と明確化されました（英検協会公式通知）。1級の一次試験はReading・Writing計100分で、Writingには要約1題と意見英作文1題があります。実際の形式と最新の過去問は公式試験情報で確認してください。
この無料教材の使い方
- まず要約1題を原文だけで解き、主張・利点・条件・結論の4点を拾う。
- 模範答案を読む前に90〜110語へ圧縮し、誰の主張か・実施済みか提案段階かを確認する。
- 英作文は立場を冒頭で明示し、重複しない3理由を200〜240語で説明する。
- 24の修正課題で、原文の内容を変えてしまう誤要約を見抜く。
- 英検協会の採点観点（内容・構成・語彙・文法）を参照し、翌日と1週間後に別の答案を再作成する。
無料英文要約A｜大学の無料デジタル教科書と品質管理
問題：次の慶英会オリジナル英文を読み、主要な内容を90〜110語の英語で要約してください。統計・意見・将来計画を混同しないこと。
At a fictional university, rising textbook costs prompted several departments to replace commercial course books with freely accessible digital editions. Lecturers could revise examples during the semester, while students no longer needed to decide whether to purchase an expensive book. Advocates praised this flexibility, particularly in courses where research changes quickly.
However, the absence of a purchase price did not mean the material was costless to produce. Authors needed time to review new research, editors checked consistency across chapters, and accessibility specialists prepared descriptions of diagrams for students using screen readers. When these tasks were assigned to volunteers, some chapters were updated promptly while others remained untouched. Students also occasionally cited passages from an obsolete edition because multiple versions circulated online.
The university considered two responses. One proposal was to pay a small permanent editorial team and publish clearly numbered editions, including a record of corrections. Another was to allow each instructor to maintain a separate version, thereby preserving maximum flexibility. Supporters of the first approach argued that common standards would improve reliability and prevent conflicting page references. Critics warned that centralized approval could delay urgent revisions and discourage teachers from adapting material to their students.
Eventually, the university decided to test a hybrid model: a common edition would undergo scheduled review, but instructors could add clearly labeled supplements. The pilot would measure not only downloading figures and student expenses but also error correction, accessibility and learners’ ability to identify the edition they were using. Its success would depend less on whether the textbooks were free than on whether the institution could maintain them responsibly.
模範英文要約・解答と日本語解説
模範答案（103語）： Universities are adopting free digital textbooks to reduce students’ expenses and let instructors update material. However, free access does not eliminate production costs: authors, editors and accessibility specialists must maintain accuracy and usability. Volunteer-led revisions can be uneven, and competing versions may confuse students. A fictional university therefore plans to test a hybrid system with a reviewed common edition and clearly labeled instructor supplements. The pilot will assess costs, corrections, accessibility and version identification rather than downloads alone. Supporters expect more reliable teaching materials, while critics fear that centralized review could delay changes. Sustainable editorial responsibility is essential to open textbooks’ long-term value.
要点：無料公開の利点／制作・更新費／複数版の混乱／折衷案と評価指標。
全文の要旨（日本語）：架空の大学では、教材費を抑え、内容を更新しやすくするため無料のデジタル教科書を導入した。ただし執筆・校閲・アクセシビリティ対応には継続的な費用がかかり、担当が任意のボランティアだと更新のばらつきや版の混同が起こる。共通版を専門家が確認し、教員は補足資料を追加できる折衷案を試し、ダウンロード数だけでなく正確性や利用可能性も評価する。
意味を変えない修正練習A｜独自12課題
次の英文は元の説明を誤って言い換えています。どこが違うか考え、右側の修正答案で照合してください。
1. 誤：Free textbooks have no production costs. → 修正：Free access does not remove editing, accessibility or maintenance costs. 理由：無料と制作費ゼロは別。原文第2段落の重要な留保。
2. 誤：The institution replaced all books immediately. → 修正：Several departments began replacing commercial books. 理由：対象範囲をallへ拡大しない。
3. 誤：Students needed to pay for every digital chapter. → 修正：Digital editions were freely accessible. 理由：有料と無料の逆転を修正。
4. 誤：Volunteer teams updated every chapter equally. → 修正：Volunteer updates were uneven. 理由：一様な品質保証は原文にない。
5. 誤：Multiple editions were harmless. → 修正：Different online editions sometimes confused students. 理由：旧版引用という問題がある。
6. 誤：The editorial team had already been hired. → 修正：The university considered funding a permanent editorial team. 理由：提案を実行済みと誤記しない。
7. 誤：Individual supplements were prohibited. → 修正：Labeled instructor supplements would remain possible. 理由：一律禁止ではなくハイブリッド。
8. 誤：Central review would definitely slow every revision. → 修正：Critics feared it might delay urgent updates. 理由：懸念を確定結果にしない。
9. 誤：Downloads were the only success measure. → 修正：The pilot also examined accuracy and accessibility. 理由：評価指標のすり替えを防ぐ。
10. 誤：The policy was tested across all universities. → 修正：The proposal concerned one fictional institution. 理由：舞台と一般化の区別。
11. 誤：Only price determines a textbook’s usefulness. → 修正：Editorial reliability matters as well as affordability. 理由：最終主張を残す。
12. 誤：The university had proved the project successful. → 修正：The hybrid pilot was intended to assess its success. 理由：予定と実績の時制に注意。
無料英文要約B｜食品廃棄物の分別回収と地域差
問題：次の慶英会オリジナル英文を読み、主要な内容を90〜110語の英語で要約してください。統計・意見・将来計画を混同しないこと。
A fictional coastal city is considering a separate collection service for household food scraps. Officials hope to divert organic waste from landfills and turn it into compost for public gardens. They suggest that separating food from other rubbish might also encourage households to notice what they throw away. Some residents welcome the proposal because it would offer a practical way to reduce waste.
Yet the scheme would require special containers, additional collection routes and workers to remove inappropriate materials. If plastic packaging enters the food-waste bins, the resulting compost may be unsuitable for some uses. The city also has neighborhoods with very different housing arrangements. Families with gardens may have space for secure bins, while people in small apartments may lack convenient places to store scraps between pickups.
One council member argues for a uniform weekly service, claiming that a single rule would be easier to explain. Another recommends several small trials. In densely populated areas, residents could use monitored communal drop-off points; in quieter districts, curbside pickup might be more practical. Each trial would record participation, contamination, operating expenditure and transport emissions. The second member warns that tonnage collected alone cannot demonstrate environmental success.
The council has not chosen a final design. Before expanding the program, it wants to compare the actual quality of compost with the costs and inconvenience experienced by residents. The debate illustrates a broader dilemma: a policy that sounds environmentally beneficial in principle may require local adaptation and careful measurement to deliver worthwhile results.
模範英文要約・解答と日本語解説
模範答案（100語）： A fictional coastal city is considering collecting food scraps separately for composting and waste reduction. Although residents may become more conscious of what they discard, the scheme requires extra containers, routes and sorting, and contamination can damage compost quality. Housing differences complicate implementation: apartment residents may lack storage that households with gardens possess. One council member favors a simple uniform service, while another proposes trials using different collection methods. The trials would assess participation, contamination, expenses and transport emissions, not merely the volume collected. The city will compare environmental benefits with local costs and inconvenience before deciding whether to expand.
要点：堆肥化の意図／回収費用と異物混入／住宅事情／方式比較と実測。
全文の要旨（日本語）：架空の沿岸都市で生ごみ分別回収が議論されている。廃棄削減と堆肥化の効果が期待される一方、専用容器や回収コスト、プラスチック混入、小さな集合住宅での保管の難しさが障害となる。全域で同一制度にするか、地域別に方式を試すかが論点であり、回収重量だけでなく汚染率、輸送排出、費用などの評価が必要である。
意味を変えない修正練習B｜独自12課題
次の英文は元の説明を誤って言い換えています。どこが違うか考え、右側の修正答案で照合してください。
13. 誤：The city’s program had already expanded nationwide. → 修正：The fictional city had not yet chosen a final design. 理由：検討段階を確定へ変えない。
14. 誤：Compost quality would never be affected by plastics. → 修正：Plastic contamination could undermine compost quality. 理由：原文の制約を反転させない。
15. 誤：Extra collection routes would be free. → 修正：The program required containers, routes and sorting costs. 理由：負担を削らない。
16. 誤：Every neighborhood had equally convenient storage. → 修正：Apartment residents could face greater storage difficulties. 理由：地域差を必ず残す。
17. 誤：A council member demanded citywide composting without exception. → 修正：One member advocated a uniform weekly collection service. 理由：均一方式の主張を正確に。
18. 誤：The other council member opposed trials. → 修正：The other recommended trials of different methods. 理由：反対と提案を区別。
19. 誤：Communal collection was compulsory for every family. → 修正：Shared drop-off points were one option for dense areas. 理由：条件付き代案を全面実施にしない。
20. 誤：Collected tonnage alone proves environmental success. → 修正：Tonnage alone is insufficient to judge the scheme. 理由：測定の限界を残す。
21. 誤：Transport emissions were irrelevant. → 修正：The trials would record transport emissions. 理由：評価対象の欠落を修正。
22. 誤：The program’s economic benefits were already established. → 修正：The council planned to compare benefits against costs. 理由：仮説と実証を分ける。
23. 誤：Food scraps would be converted into fuel. → 修正：The plan proposed compost for public gardens. 理由：用途を創作しない。
24. 誤：One design was suitable everywhere. → 修正：Local adaptation might be required. 理由：結論の一般原則を残す。
意見英作文A｜行政判断へのAI利用は説明義務を課すべきか
慶英会独自TOPIC：Should governments be required to explain how automated systems influence decisions about public services?
3つの異なる理由、明確な立場、導入・本文・結論を備え、200〜240語の英文を書きます。
模範解答
模範答案・212語：
Governments should explain how automated systems influence decisions about public services. The algorithms themselves need not always be published in full, but citizens deserve an understandable account of their role. Three considerations support this position.
First, explanations make it possible to challenge mistakes. A person denied a benefit should be able to learn which information influenced the decision and how to request a review. Without that opportunity, an error may remain invisible precisely because the process appears technical.
Second, disclosure improves accountability. Officials who must describe a system’s purpose, limitations and human oversight have stronger incentives to examine whether it treats different groups fairly. Technical efficiency cannot substitute for responsibility to the people affected.
Third, transparency can improve the quality of public policy. Researchers and community organizations may identify confusing rules or unexpected consequences that internal teams overlook. Their feedback can lead to better services rather than simply greater suspicion.
Opponents reasonably worry that releasing sensitive details could enable fraud or compromise privacy. Those risks justify protecting personal data and security-critical code, not withholding every explanation. Agencies can publish plain-language criteria, error-correction procedures and independent audit findings without exposing private records.
For these reasons, governments should require meaningful explanations, accessible appeals and regular independent scrutiny whenever automated tools materially influence public decisions.
日本語での論旨：行政が自動判定を用いる場合、国民に分かる説明と異議申立て制度が必要だ。理由は誤りの発見、公的説明責任、外部検証による制度改善の3点である。詳細なコードの全面公開は機密とプライバシーに配慮しつつ、判断基準、訂正手続き、監査結果を公開すべきだ。
- 賛成：誤りの異議申立てと救済
- 賛成：公的説明責任と公平性
- 賛成：第三者の検証が制度改善につながる
添削の観点：立場が一貫しているか、3つの理由が重複していないか、反対意見を過大に描いていないか、確証のない統計を作っていないかを確認しましょう。
意見英作文B｜既存集合住宅の改修を新築より優先すべきか
慶英会独自TOPIC：Should governments prioritize renovating existing apartment buildings over subsidizing new construction?
3つの異なる理由、明確な立場、導入・本文・結論を備え、200〜240語の英文を書きます。
模範解答
模範答案・229語：
Governments should give substantial priority to renovating existing apartment buildings before subsidizing additional construction. This approach is not suitable for every city, but it offers three advantages that deserve serious consideration.
First, renovation can preserve homes in neighborhoods where residents already have access to schools, transport and essential services. Demolishing usable buildings may displace households and weaken local communities. Improvements to insulation, ventilation and safety could make those homes more comfortable without forcing families to relocate.
Second, extending a building’s useful life may reduce demand for new materials. Construction consumes resources, and replacing an entire structure can create considerable waste. Renovation is not automatically greener, however; its benefits must be evaluated against the condition of the building and the efficiency of any proposed replacement.
Third, public spending can be targeted at people who are least able to finance necessary repairs themselves. Well-designed grants could prioritize dangerous defects and poor thermal performance rather than reward owners for cosmetic changes. Transparent eligibility rules would be essential.
Critics argue that new construction is necessary when housing is scarce or a structure cannot be made safe at reasonable cost. That is a valid exception, not a reason to favor demolition everywhere. Governments should compare lifecycle costs, housing supply and residents’ needs case by case.
Overall, renovation-first funding, combined with selective new construction, can improve living conditions while limiting displacement and unnecessary resource use.
日本語での論旨：原則として改修を優先する理由は、住民を転居させず生活環境を改善できる可能性、資材や建築廃棄物を削減する可能性、支援を必要とする住宅への資金配分である。ただし住宅不足や構造上の安全性に問題がある場合は新築の優先もあり得るため、ライフサイクルコスト等の比較が必要だ。
- 賛成：住民の生活基盤と居住継続
- 賛成：建設廃棄物・新資材の削減可能性
- 賛成：修繕費を負担しにくい世帯への配分
添削の観点：立場が一貫しているか、3つの理由が重複していないか、反対意見を過大に描いていないか、確証のない統計を作っていないかを確認しましょう。
英検1級Writingで失点しやすい4つの誤り
- 要約で主語・責任主体を変える：自治体の計画を住民の決定と書かない。
- may / might / could を will に強める：可能性を確定事実へ変えない。
- 要約を自分の意見で締める：原文の範囲を超える新しい主張を足さない。
- 英作文の3理由を「安い・節約できる・費用が減る」の言い換えだけにしない。公平性・実現性・社会的影響など別軸で説明する。
よくある質問
英検1級の英文要約は何語ですか？
公式の2025年度以降の指示文は90〜110語です。模範答案の語数だけではなく、本文の重要情報を歪めず伝えられたかを確認してください。
英検1級の意見英作文は何語で書きますか？
公式の標準的な指定は200〜240語で、理由を3つ挙げて導入・本文・結論で組み立てます。語数達成だけで内容点が保証されるものではありません。
模範解答を暗記するだけで十分ですか？
異なる題材の初見問題を解き、原文の主張と条件を保持する練習が必要です。模範解答は唯一の正解ではありません。
次の英検1級無料教材
公式情報・著作権上のご案内
本記事の英文・トピック・解答例・修正課題は慶英会が独自制作した教材で、英検公式過去問や実在する研究の引用ではありません。語数は半角英単語を基準に数えた教材上の概数です。
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