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39セット。英文要約2題（各90〜110語）、意見英作文2題（各200〜240語）、要約の意味を守る修正24題と全解答を無料公開します。山間部の移動診療、地域の修理スペース、AIによる従業員監視、少数言語の保存を通じて、期待・制約・代案・結論を正確に英語で表現する練習ができます。
英検1級のWritingは英文要約1題と意見英作文1題です（日本英語検定協会｜1級試験内容）。英文要約は2025年度以降、90〜110語と明記されています（公式通知）。本記事では独自練習として各2題を扱い、公式の過去問とは区別します。
続きの無料教材：Writing第40セット｜要約2題・意見英作文2題・修正24問。初見演習のあと、解答の根拠と誤答の原因まで確認してください。
実力を伸ばす解答手順
- 英文要約は原文の各段落から目的・利点・障害・比較対象・未解決事項を拾い、肯定と留保を両方残す。
- 模範を見る前に90〜110語で答案を作り、実施済み・試行予定・反対意見の主体を変えていないか点検する。
- 意見英作文は立場を冒頭に明示し、性質の異なる理由を3つ程度示す。反対意見の妥当な部分は条件付きで認める。
- 解答後は翌日、最初の答案を見ずに再作成し、内容・構成・語彙・文法を見直す。
英文要約1｜山間部の移動診療車｜利用者数と医療アクセスの違い
次の慶英会オリジナル英文を90〜110語で要約してください。重要な留保や今後の検証事項も含めます。
A fictional mountainous prefecture is considering a mobile medical clinic that would visit isolated villages twice a month. Residents currently travel considerable distances to reach routine appointments, and severe weather can interrupt the limited bus service. Supporters say a vehicle equipped for basic examinations could reduce unnecessary journeys and encourage people who postpone checkups to seek advice earlier.
However, running a mobile clinic involves more than buying a vehicle. Qualified staff would need to travel, sensitive equipment would require maintenance, and medical records would have to be shared securely with existing hospitals. Some treatments cannot be performed in a small vehicle, so patients would still need referral arrangements. The proposed timetable could also disadvantage people whose work or caring responsibilities prevent them from attending on particular days.
Officials are comparing the vehicle with other options, including transport subsidies, rotating visits by doctors to community buildings and remote consultations supported by local nurses. Each alternative addresses different obstacles. An online consultation may save travel time, for example, but it cannot replace a physical examination when one is necessary. Similarly, transport funding may be ineffective if buses are unavailable when patients need them.
Before adopting a permanent scheme, the prefecture plans a one-year pilot. It will record completed consultations, waiting times, referral outcomes, travel burdens and total operating costs. Organizers want to know which residents actually gain access, not simply how many names appear on a registration list. The proposal illustrates why reliable healthcare depends on coordinated services rather than one attractive piece of equipment.
模範要約（100語）
A fictional mountainous prefecture is considering a mobile clinic to improve healthcare access in villages with limited transport. Supporters expect fewer journeys and earlier consultations. However, staffing, equipment maintenance, secure records, referrals and inflexible visiting days could restrict its usefulness. Officials are comparing the vehicle with transport subsidies, community appointments and nurse-supported remote consultations, recognizing that each option addresses different needs. A one-year pilot will examine completed visits, waiting times, referrals, travel burdens and operating expenses. The aim is to establish whether residents receive practical care rather than merely increase registrations. Coordinated services, not the vehicle alone, determine long-term access.
日本語での内容理解：架空の山間部で移動診療車が検討される。移動負担の削減が期待されるが、医療従事者・機器・記録・紹介先・訪問日が課題となる。交通補助、集会所での診療、看護師支援の遠隔診療などと比較し、登録者数ではなく実受診・紹介・時間・費用で試行を評価する。
原文の意味を変えない修正練習1｜独自12題
Q1 誤：The mobile clinic is already permanent. 修正：A one-year pilot is planned before permanent adoption. 解説：試行と正式導入を区別。
Q2 誤：Buying the van solves every medical problem. 修正：Staffing, equipment and referral systems are also needed. 解説：手段だけでは機能しない。
Q3 誤：Remote consultations replace all physical examinations. 修正：Some conditions still require in-person examinations. 解説：オンラインの限界。
Q4 誤：Registration totals prove improved access. 修正：Completed consultations and travel burdens are more informative. 解説：利用登録と実利用の違い。
Q5 誤：The plan excludes existing hospitals. 修正：Secure records and referrals should connect the mobile service with hospitals. 解説：連携の必要性。
Q6 誤：Every patient can attend on the proposed day. 修正：Fixed visiting dates may exclude people with other commitments. 解説：日時の制約。
Q7 誤：Transport subsidies are always effective. 修正：They may fail when suitable buses are unavailable. 解説：交通供給を考慮。
Q8 誤：Mobile visits eliminate all travel. 修正：Some referrals will still require travel. 解説：残る移動を認める。
Q9 誤：The vehicle has no ongoing costs. 修正：Staffing and maintenance create recurring expenses. 解説：維持費を残す。
Q10 誤：Officials have rejected every alternative. 修正：They are comparing several service models. 解説：複数案の比較。
Q11 誤：The program guarantees earlier treatment. 修正：Earlier consultations are a hoped-for benefit. 解説：効果を断定しない。
Q12 誤：Success will be judged solely by vehicle ownership. 修正：Success will depend on access, outcomes and operating costs. 解説：評価の主眼。
英文要約2｜地域の修理スペースと家電廃棄｜ボランティア依存の限界
次の慶英会オリジナル英文を90〜110語で要約してください。重要な留保や今後の検証事項も含めます。
A fictional city has opened a community repair space where residents can bring small household appliances and learn basic maintenance skills. Local volunteers help visitors identify loose connections, replace simple parts and understand when an item should be handled by a qualified technician. Supporters hope the initiative will reduce unnecessary disposal while giving people greater confidence in repairing everyday products.
The project’s early publicity emphasized the number of objects brought to the center. Managers soon realized that this was a misleading measure of environmental success. Some devices were too damaged to repair safely; others were returned to storage and never used again. Even a successful repair could generate little benefit if the appliance was inefficient or likely to fail again immediately. Staff began recording whether items actually remained in use after several months.
Safety and staffing introduced further challenges. Volunteers had different levels of experience, and some electrical repairs required specialist supervision. A busy Saturday workshop was encouraging, but the center could not depend indefinitely on a few people donating their free time. Organizers considered paid coordination, clear boundaries for high-risk repairs and partnerships with local technicians. Critics worried that operating expenses might exceed the value of the items repaired.
The city also examined whether a lending service for tools could complement the workshops. This might avoid unnecessary household purchases, although shared tools would bring their own inspection and maintenance requirements. Before expanding the program, officials plan to assess repeat use, safety incidents, volunteer retention, total costs and the actual reduction in discarded appliances. The goal is not to maximize repairs on paper, but to make responsible reuse practical and durable.
模範要約（102語）
A fictional city operates a community space where volunteers help residents repair household appliances and learn maintenance skills. Supporters hope to reduce waste, but the number of items brought in does not show whether repairs are safe or products stay in use. Different volunteer abilities, risky electrical work and dependence on unpaid labor create further difficulties. Organizers are considering paid coordination, specialist supervision and a tool-lending service, which would require maintenance of its own. Before expansion, officials will assess repeat use, safety, staffing, expenses and actual disposal reductions. Sustainable reuse depends on long-term outcomes rather than workshop attendance or impressive repair totals.
日本語での内容理解：架空都市の修理スペースでは住民が家電の維持管理を学ぶ。持込数は廃棄削減を保証せず、修理後に使い続けられるか、電気的安全、専門家の指導、ボランティアの継続などを確認する必要がある。工具貸出も検討するが保守費用が必要。再利用の実績と総費用で事業を判断する。
原文の意味を変えない修正練習2｜独自12題
Q13 誤：Every item brought to the workshop was repaired. 修正：Some appliances could not be repaired safely. 解説：持込と修理完了を区別。
Q14 誤：Repair totals prove reductions in waste. 修正：Continued use and disposal reductions must be measured. 解説：代理指標の限界。
Q15 誤：Every volunteer was equally qualified. 修正：Volunteers differed in experience. 解説：人的能力の差。
Q16 誤：Specialist supervision was prohibited. 修正：High-risk repairs may require qualified technicians. 解説：安全上の条件。
Q17 誤：The program already has permanent paid staff. 修正：Paid coordination is being considered. 解説：提案と実施を区別。
Q18 誤：All repaired appliances stayed in use. 修正：Managers plan to examine use after several months. 解説：検証予定である。
Q19 誤：Tool lending has no maintenance requirements. 修正：Shared tools also need inspection and maintenance. 解説：保守コスト。
Q20 誤：The organizers rejected safety checks. 修正：Safety incidents are among the planned measures. 解説：安全評価を残す。
Q21 誤：Volunteer retention is irrelevant. 修正：Continued participation matters for operations. 解説：人員の継続性。
Q22 誤：All electrical repairs can be performed without training. 修正：Some repairs require specialist oversight. 解説：資格・技能の制約。
Q23 誤：Expansion is already approved. 修正：Officials will evaluate the program before expansion. 解説：未確定事項を守る。
Q24 誤：The project aims only to increase attendance. 修正：It aims to support safe, sustained reuse. 解説：本来の目的。
意見英作文1｜Should governments require transparency about AI-based employee monitoring?
200〜240語で立場・理由・具体的な仕組み・例外条件と結論を書いてください。
模範答案（221語）
Governments should require employers to explain when and how automated monitoring systems materially influence workplace decisions. Such tools can help organizations manage operations, but employees should not have to guess how their performance is being judged. Three reasons support reasonable disclosure.
First, transparency allows workers to challenge mistakes. A monitoring system may misinterpret a period of inactivity as poor performance even when an employee is solving a difficult problem away from the keyboard. Clear explanations and a review process would help prevent incomplete data from determining important outcomes.
Second, openness strengthens managerial accountability. Employers should identify which measures are relevant to the job and examine whether those measures disadvantage particular groups. A simple numerical dashboard can be useful, but it should not replace professional judgment or contextual information.
Third, disclosure can encourage better systems. When employees understand the intended purpose of monitoring, they can point out misleading indicators and suggest alternatives. This feedback may improve both productivity and trust.
Critics argue that extensive disclosure could reveal confidential methods or increase administrative costs. Those concerns justify proportionate requirements rather than secrecy. Employers could explain the categories of information collected, retention periods, significant uses and avenues for appeal without publishing every line of proprietary software.
Overall, meaningful transparency would protect workers while giving companies a clearer basis for responsible use of monitoring technology.
日本語での論理構成：自動的な従業員監視が評価や処遇に影響する場合は、収集する情報、利用目的、保存期間、異議申立ての道筋を説明すべきである。誤判定の修正、管理職の説明責任、指標の改善につながる。企業秘密は守りつつ透明性を確保する。
意見英作文2｜Should countries invest in preserving historical languages even when few people speak them?
200〜240語で立場・理由・具体的な仕組み・例外条件と結論を書いてください。
模範答案（204語）
Governments should provide reasonable support for endangered languages when their speaking communities want that assistance. The number of current speakers should not be the only measure of cultural value. However, preservation programs must respect individual choice and competing public needs.
First, languages carry knowledge that may be difficult to recover after everyday use disappears. Oral traditions, local ecological descriptions and historical expressions can reveal ways of understanding the world that are not fully captured by translations.
Second, language support can strengthen cultural participation. Community-led classes, recordings and bilingual materials may help younger people explore their heritage without forcing them to abandon widely spoken languages needed for work or education. The objective should be to expand opportunities, not impose an identity.
Third, preservation can benefit scholarship and future generations. Well-documented archives allow researchers and community members to revisit earlier interpretations and correct transcription errors. Consent and appropriate control over sensitive recordings are essential.
Critics reasonably argue that limited budgets should prioritize urgent healthcare or infrastructure. This is a genuine trade-off. Governments should use proportionate grants, partner with communities and evaluate whether the materials are actually used.
Ultimately, carefully designed language preservation can protect cultural knowledge and choice without treating every recording project as automatically successful.
日本語での論理構成：話者が少なくても当事者が希望する言語保存には文化記憶、参加の機会、将来の研究資産という利点がある。ただし強制的な文化継承でなく、公開同意と公共予算の優先順位に配慮する。
要約の修正課題で特に気を付けたい4点
- 登録者数や持込件数が増えたことと、実際に医療や再利用が改善したことを区別する。
- could / may / mightなどの可能性を断定へ強めない。
- 試行中・検討中・正式導入済みを混同しない。
- 費用・安全性・人的制約といった否定的要素を、肯定的な部分だけ残すために削らない。
よくある質問
英検1級の英文要約は何語ですか？
2025年度から公式の指示文は90〜110語です。原文の内容を正確にまとめ、語数内に収めることが重要です。
模範答案と違う表現は不正解ですか？
要約や英作文には複数の適切な言い方があります。原文の重要な事実関係・留保・主張が維持されているかを優先してください。
英作文で数字を入れるべきですか？
裏付けのない数字を作る必要はありません。論理的な理由と具体的な事例を示すことに集中してください。
関連する英検1級教材
参考公式情報
英文・設問・模範答案・解説は慶英会の独自制作による非公式教材です。地域や施設は架空の設定であり、実在する研究結果や事業成果の引用ではありません。
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