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36セット。無料で英文要約2題（90〜110語）、意見英作文2題（200〜240語）、意味を変えずに書き直す独自24課題と全解答・日本語解説を練習できます。題材は工具の共有、都市の樹木地図、売れ残り商品の廃棄報告、学生の交通費です。英文は公式過去問ではありません。
英検1級は一次試験に要約1題と意見英作文1題を含みます（協会の1級試験内容）。2025年度以降の要約の指示文は90〜110語と明記されています（英検協会公式通知）。このページは追加の独自練習2セットです。
続きの無料教材：Writing第37セット｜英文要約2題・意見英作文2題・24の修正課題。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
- 要約原文を初見で読み、目的・利点・欠点・判断の4要素をメモする。
- 最初は模範を見ず、90〜110語へ圧縮して内容の脱落や誇張を確認する。
- 意見英作文はTOPICに直接答え、重複しない理由と反対論への簡潔な対応を設計する。
- 翌日に答案を見ずに書き直し、内容・構成・語彙・文法の4観点を検査する。
英文要約1｜地域の工具貸出図書館｜共有で本当に廃棄は減るか
問題：次の英文を90〜110語で要約してください。原文にない統計や架空の成果を書き加えないこと。
A fictional municipality is testing a service that allows residents to borrow tools such as drills, sewing machines and gardening equipment from neighborhood libraries. Supporters say that households need not buy expensive products they use only occasionally. They also hope that shared equipment will reduce waste and allow more people to develop practical repair skills through short workshops.
Yet managers soon discovered that tools were harder to lend than books. Equipment needed safety checks, some machines required instruction, and repairs were costly. Popular items developed waiting lists, while specialized tools were rarely borrowed. People without cars struggled to collect heavy equipment from the main branch. High membership figures therefore did not necessarily show that the scheme was reaching those who could benefit most.
Officials proposed distributing lighter tools through smaller branches and providing brief safety demonstrations. They also considered reserving expensive machines for supervised workshops. Critics warned that these requirements might discourage borrowers and raise operating costs. Rather than impose a single arrangement, managers planned to compare several options.
Before expanding the program, the municipality intends to measure borrowing frequency, maintenance expenses, safety incidents, accessibility and changes in purchasing behavior. Organizers recognize that a sharing service must be judged by its practical use and long-term costs, not simply by how many residents register.
模範答案（100語）
A fictional municipality is piloting a library service that lends household tools and offers repair workshops. Supporters expect lower purchasing costs, less unnecessary consumption, and improved practical skills. However, tools require maintenance and safety guidance, popular items create waiting lists, and heavy equipment can be difficult to collect. High membership figures may therefore hide unequal access. Officials plan to test smaller distribution points and supervised sessions, although critics fear additional rules and costs. They will evaluate borrowing frequency, maintenance, safety, accessibility, and changes in purchasing behavior before expanding the service. The program’s value depends on real use, not registrations alone.
日本語解説：架空の自治体は工具貸出と修理講習を試行する。購入費・廃棄の削減を期待する一方で、点検・講習・修理費、人気工具の待機列、重い工具を運べない利用者の問題がある。小拠点や監督付き講習を試し、登録者数だけでなく実利用、安全、保守費、買い物行動の変化を評価する。
内容を変えない言い換え練習12問
1. 誤：Only books are lent. 正：Tools can also be borrowed. 理由：対象の誤り。
2. 誤：Waste reduction is already proven. 正：Waste reduction is a hoped-for outcome. 理由：予測と実績を区別。
3. 誤：Tools need no safety checks. 正：Some tools require inspection and instruction. 理由：条件の欠落。
4. 誤：The service was equally accessible to all. 正：Heavy tools were hard to collect without a car. 理由：アクセス格差。
5. 誤：Every tool was in equal demand. 正：Popular tools had waiting lists; specialist ones were rarely used. 理由：需要のばらつき。
6. 誤：Registrations prove broad use. 正：Registrations alone may conceal unequal access. 理由：登録と実利用は異なる。
7. 誤：Staff rejected every safety workshop. 正：Staff considered supervised workshops. 理由：反対の意味。
8. 誤：The same rules were imposed everywhere. 正：Officials planned to compare different arrangements. 理由：未決定を確定にしない。
9. 誤：Critics welcomed all new rules. 正：Critics feared inconvenience and higher costs. 理由：反対意見を残す。
10. 誤：The service has expanded nationwide. 正：Expansion is still being evaluated. 理由：時間・対象範囲の誤り。
11. 誤：Only membership will be measured. 正：Safety, expense and borrowing frequency will be considered. 理由：評価軸の欠落。
12. 誤：Shared tools have zero operating costs. 正：Maintenance and staffing can incur costs. 理由：無料と原価なしは別。
英文要約2｜都市の樹木地図｜衛星データと実際の木陰
問題：次の英文を90〜110語で要約してください。原文にない統計や架空の成果を書き加えないこと。
A fictional metropolitan government is developing an online map of tree cover across neighborhoods. Satellite images help planners identify broad patterns quickly. They hope to direct planting funds toward streets where residents experience excessive summer heat and give the public a clearer picture of how green spaces are distributed.
However, the first version of the map confused tree cover with the shade experienced by pedestrians. A tree behind a high wall appeared beneficial in satellite images even when it did not protect the pavement. Pictures taken in different seasons could also exaggerate differences between districts. The map said little about tree health or whether young trees had enough water to survive.
Community groups urged the city to combine aerial observations with street-level surveys, temperature measurements and information about walking routes. They argued that maintenance and the needs of pedestrians and people waiting for buses should inform priorities. Some officials worried about the cost of repeated detailed surveys, while others suggested checking satellite estimates carefully at a sample of locations.
The government has not adopted a final method. It will examine whether the competing approaches identify the same priority streets and whether new planting produces useful shade over time. The debate suggests that a convenient visual indicator can help guide decisions, but should not replace observations of residents’ actual conditions.
模範答案（101語）
A fictional city is developing a satellite-based map of urban tree cover to guide planting funds toward neighborhoods exposed to summer heat. Such mapping is efficient and may reveal unequal access to greenery. However, tree cover seen from above does not necessarily indicate pedestrian shade, and seasonal images overlook tree health and maintenance needs. Community groups advocate street-level surveys and temperature measurements, while officials worry about their recurring costs. The government will test whether satellite maps and on-the-ground evidence identify the same priorities and whether new trees provide lasting benefits. Convenient indicators should support, rather than replace, observation of residents’ experiences.
日本語解説：架空の都市は衛星による樹木地図で植樹先を検討するが、上空で見える樹木が歩道を日陰にするとは限らない。季節差、樹木の健康、維持費、バス停利用者への配慮などが必要である。現地調査と衛星データを比較し、実際の木陰が増えるか検証する。
内容を変えない言い換え練習12問
13. 誤：The satellite map measures every person’s temperature. 正：It maps tree cover, not individual heat exposure. 理由：対象のすり替え。
14. 誤：The project aims to increase parking spaces. 正：It aims to guide tree planting and shade provision. 理由：政策目的の誤り。
15. 誤：Any visible tree shades the adjacent pavement. 正：Visible trees may fail to shade walking routes. 理由：位置関係に注意。
16. 誤：All seasonal photographs are comparable. 正：Seasonal differences can affect visual comparisons. 理由：比較の条件を保持。
17. 誤：The map already verifies all tree health. 正：Tree health is not adequately shown on the map. 理由：未測定の情報。
18. 誤：Community groups oppose satellite images. 正：They propose combining satellite and street-level evidence. 理由：補完と拒否は別。
19. 誤：Repeated surveys are costless. 正：Repeated surveys may be expensive. 理由：費用の省略。
20. 誤：The city has adopted a final method. 正：It is still testing methods. 理由：実施段階を守る。
21. 誤：Every sapling will survive. 正：Water and maintenance influence survival. 理由：確定していない効果。
22. 誤：Bus passengers were not considered. 正：Bus users were included in community concerns. 理由：対象集団。
23. 誤：The project measures satellite launch counts. 正：It compares priority locations and useful shade. 理由：評価指標の誤り。
24. 誤：Ground observations should be replaced. 正：Street-level evidence should complement aerial data. 理由：結論を逆転しない。
意見英作文1｜Should large retailers be required to report how much unsold merchandise they discard?
200〜240語で立場を示し、独立した理由を説明してください。模範答案は唯一の正解ではありません。
模範答案（229語）
Governments should generally require large retailers to disclose how much unsold merchandise they discard. Although reporting rules must be practical, such transparency could improve environmental accountability for three reasons.
First, comparable data would reveal the scale and causes of waste. A company may publicize a successful recycling initiative while discarding large volumes of products elsewhere. Regular reporting could make that imbalance visible and encourage managers to examine inaccurate demand forecasts or restrictive return policies.
Second, disclosure could improve competition on more meaningful grounds. Consumers and investors would be able to compare waste-reduction efforts rather than rely entirely on promotional claims. However, regulators should specify common definitions, since one retailer might classify donated goods as discarded while another does not.
Third, reliable information can help policymakers design proportionate measures. If certain products cannot be safely redistributed, governments should not simply demand that everything be donated. Instead, they can distinguish avoidable waste from legitimate disposal required for safety or quality.
Critics argue that collecting detailed records would be costly and could reveal commercially sensitive information. That is a legitimate concern, particularly for smaller businesses. Reporting requirements should therefore focus initially on large firms and publish aggregated figures rather than private transaction records.
Overall, transparent, standardized waste reporting would not solve overproduction by itself. It would, however, provide a better basis for public scrutiny and targeted improvements than unsupported claims of sustainability.
日本語での論旨：大規模小売店の売れ残り廃棄量報告に賛成する理由は、無駄の可視化、公平な比較、実態に合った政策設計である。安全上の廃棄・企業秘密と記録負担にも配慮し、統一基準による集計情報の開示から開始すべきである。
意見英作文2｜Should public transportation be free for all school students?
200〜240語で立場を示し、独立した理由を説明してください。模範答案は唯一の正解ではありません。
模範答案（234語）
Making public transportation free for school students is an attractive idea, but I would not support a universal program without considering local conditions. Targeted assistance is likely to achieve better results for three reasons.
First, affordability problems are not distributed equally. Students from low-income households or remote communities may face serious transport costs, while others can walk to school or already receive subsidized fares. Directing support toward those with the greatest need could improve access without spending public money on journeys that families could afford.
Second, transport networks have limited capacity. Making every student journey free may encourage additional travel during crowded hours. Without additional buses or trains, a subsidy could reduce reliability for commuters and students alike. Authorities should consider service quality alongside ticket prices.
Third, universal free fares could divert funds from more urgent improvements. In rural areas, the main obstacle may be the absence of safe and frequent routes. Vehicles, accessible stops and reliable schedules could deliver greater educational benefits than reducing a fare that some students rarely pay.
Supporters rightly argue that universal rules are simpler and can reduce stigma. That matters, and in cities with spare capacity, a broad student pass may be reasonable. Nevertheless, governments should compare costs, usage and unmet demand first.
For these reasons, I favor affordable student transport as a public priority, but prefer evidence-based subsidies and service improvements over an automatic nationwide free-fare rule.
日本語での論旨：学生の交通費支援には賛成だが一律無料は慎重に判断すべきだ。世帯間で費用負担は異なり、混雑時の輸送力には制約があり、地方ではそもそも路線がない場合がある。単純な普遍的制度の利点も認めつつ、必要性に応じた運賃支援と交通整備を比較すべきだ。
答案でよくある4つの失点
- 主語を変えない：市の提案を住民の決定と書き換えない。
- mayとwillを混同しない：期待される効果を実績と断定しない。
- 測定と成果を分ける：登録者数や樹木の被覆は、目的の達成そのものではない。
- 英作文の理由は公平性・費用・実施可能性など別の観点から組み立てる。
よくある質問
英検1級の英文要約は何語ですか？
2025年度からの協会指示は90〜110語です。語数だけでなく、原文の中心的主張と条件を残しましょう。
英作文では反対意見を必ず書きますか？
決められた型を機械的に使うより、論点に合った明快な主張と理由が重要です。本教材では立場の説得力を高める方法として反論への応答を示します。
この教材の模範は本番の採点を保証しますか？
いいえ。語数は独自に英単語を計数して確認していますが、得点や合格を保証するものではありません。
関連教材と学習相談
参考公式情報
本記事の英文・模範答案・修正課題は慶英会の独自制作による非公式教材です。登場する自治体や調査内容は架空の設定です。
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