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・第24セットです。慶英会オリジナルの英文要約2題・意見英作文2題・模範英文4本、段落別要点和訳と内容理解・誤文訂正24問の全解答を公開します。今回の題材は『海岸砂丘の回復と住民のアクセス』『図書館のモバイル通信機器貸出』です。公式過去問ではありません。
2026年の英検1級Writingは英文要約1題（90〜110語）と英作文1題（200〜240語）です。ReadingとWritingの合計100分。英検協会の公式1級試験形式を参照してください。ここでは各種2題の追加演習を用意しました。
結論｜要約と意見英作文を分けて伸ばす
- 要約は原文の結論・根拠・反論・実施条件を残し、原文にない数字や意見を入れない。
- 意見英作文は立場を述べ、独立した3つの理由・反論への対応・結論を組み立てる。
- 環境とデジタルの両題で、参加数・予約数を本当の成果と混同しない。
- 模範答案を隠して自作してから語数・意味・文法を比較する。
Set A｜英文要約の独自原文：海岸砂丘の保全と住民の利用
Task: Read the following passage and summarize its content in English between 90 and 110 words.
Paragraph 1. The fictional coastal town of Seabrook proposed restoring a damaged system of sand dunes along its public beach. Environmental advisers argued that vegetation and properly managed paths could help protect fragile habitats and reduce some erosion. Local businesses also welcomed the possibility of improving the area’s appearance. An early engineering model suggested that the restored dunes might withstand certain storms more effectively than the damaged landscape. Several councillors described the forecast as evidence that the town should close every beach access route immediately and install the same protective barriers along the entire coast.
Paragraph 2. Independent researchers questioned this interpretation. Dune conditions varied considerably along the shoreline, and the model did not evaluate every storm intensity. Some sections were close to homes, while others were used by residents who needed step-free routes to reach the beach. Completely restricting access might protect certain areas but could also exclude people with limited mobility. The research team proposed a comparison of different path designs, vegetation survival, and maintenance costs instead of treating the number of planted grasses as the main indicator of success. It also recommended consulting residents who rarely visited the beach because current access was difficult.
Paragraph 3. Seabrook began a trial in three locations with different levels of erosion. Engineers measured changes in sand movement, vegetation growth, and damage after storms. Staff recorded whether temporary paths remained safe and how much maintenance was required. The first few months produced encouraging observations in one location, but the period had been unusually calm. Researchers therefore avoided crediting every improvement to restoration work. At another site, a separate drainage project had altered surface-water movement, making the effects of the dune measures difficult to isolate. Community groups helped identify problems with signs and barriers that were hard for some visitors to understand.
Paragraph 4. After a year, the council retained restoration work where there was credible evidence of environmental benefit and safe access. Some pathways were redirected while others were improved rather than closed. Officials acknowledged that the program would require long-term monitoring and that restoring vegetation could not guarantee protection from every coastal hazard. The final report argued that success should be measured by verified habitat conditions, realistic maintenance costs, and practical public access. The number of planted grasses or newly erected fences was not sufficient evidence of either ecological improvement or coastal safety.
Set A｜段落別要点和訳
第1段落：架空のシーブルック町は傷んだ海岸砂丘の回復を提案した。植物・通路管理によって生息地と浸食対策に役立つ可能性はあるが、初期モデルだけで全海岸の一律閉鎖・同一の柵を正当化できない。
第2段落：砂丘の条件や嵐の強さは場所で異なり、段差のない通路が必要な人もいる。植物の植え付け本数ではなく、生存率・浸食・管理費・多様な住民のアクセスを評価する。
第3段落：条件の異なる3地点で砂の移動、植物の成長、嵐の後の損傷や通路の安全を測った。穏やかな天候や別の排水工事が同時に影響し、すべてを砂丘回復の成果とは断定できない。
第4段落：環境便益と安全なアクセスが確認できる地点で継続し、閉鎖だけでなく通路の変更・改善を使い分けた。あらゆる災害への万能策ではなく、実測した生態系と利用可能性、維持費で判断する。
Set A｜意見英作文のTOPIC
Should coastal towns restrict beach access to protect fragile natural habitats? Give THREE reasons. Suggested length: 200–240 words.
Set B｜英文要約の独自原文：図書館のモバイル通信機器貸出とデジタル格差
Task: Read the following passage and summarize its content in English between 90 and 110 words.
Paragraph 1. The fictional city of Ashfield introduced a public-library program that lent portable internet devices to residents who lacked reliable connections at home. Officials hoped that temporary access could help students complete assignments, job seekers submit applications, and families reach public information. Each loan came with simple instructions and telephone assistance. During the first two months, reservations for the devices exceeded expectations, and some councillors claimed that the scheme had already solved the city’s digital-access problems. Library staff challenged this conclusion, noting that a booking did not guarantee a successful connection or that the borrower could complete an intended task.
Paragraph 2. The library network faced several practical limitations. Portable devices depended on mobile coverage, and some neighborhoods had poor reception. Data allowances and battery life varied, while residents with disabilities sometimes required accessible instructions or direct assistance. The first borrowers were mainly established library members living close to branches, so the pilot provided limited evidence about residents who could not easily visit a library. The system also involved continuing costs for subscriptions, technical support, repairs, and lost equipment. The project team decided to measure completed activities and unmet requests rather than focus exclusively on the number of devices circulated.
Paragraph 3. During a six-month evaluation, librarians tracked connections established, technical problems, and whether users reported completing essential activities. They compared usage patterns across districts and surveyed people who had not borrowed a device. Some borrowers said the program helped them attend online classes or file forms, but researchers avoided claiming that this automatically improved school grades or employment outcomes. A separate community center had also started offering free computer access during the same period, complicating attribution of changes in library demand. Privacy specialists recommended collecting only information necessary to maintain equipment and evaluate the program, since detailed browsing records could reveal sensitive personal behavior.
Paragraph 4. At the end of the trial, Ashfield continued loans at branches where access and technical support were reliable. It introduced additional outreach for residents with limited mobility and kept alternatives such as library computers and printed information. Officials rejected the idea that lending devices could replace investment in wider communication infrastructure. The final report emphasized usable connections, successful participation, fairness, privacy, and realistic operating costs. A high reservation count was encouraging, but it was not evidence that every household had obtained meaningful digital access.
Set B｜段落別要点和訳
第1段落：架空のアシュフィールド市は自宅のネット環境が不十分な人に図書館からモバイル通信機器を貸し出した。予約数は多かったが、接続の成功や学習・申請の完了とは別であり、デジタル格差解消を証明しない。
第2段落：電波が弱い地区、通信量・電池の制限、アクセシビリティへの配慮があり、最初の借り手は図書館の近くに住む既存利用者に偏っていた。契約・保守・紛失にも継続費が発生する。
第3段落：6か月で実際の接続、機器故障、課題の完了を調べ、借りなかった住民にも確認した。授業参加や申請に役立つ例はあるが成績・就職の改善とは直接言えず、同時期の別の無料PC利用サービスも影響した。閲覧履歴などの機微な情報は必要最小限の収集とした。
第4段落：技術支援が成立する図書館で貸出を継続し、移動が難しい人への支援や館内PC・紙の案内も残した。広い通信インフラ整備の代替ではなく、実際の接続・参加・公平・プライバシー・費用で判断する。
Set B｜意見英作文のTOPIC
Should public libraries lend portable internet devices to residents without reliable connections? Give THREE reasons. Suggested length: 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。
要約・英作文の模範4答案と解説
Set A｜要約模範（99語）
Seabrook proposed restoring damaged coastal dunes to support habitats and reduce erosion. Some officials favored uniform barriers, but researchers noted differences among sites and warned that closures could exclude residents with mobility limitations. A trial assessed vegetation, sand movement, storm damage, maintenance, and safe pathways. Initial results were complicated by unusually calm weather and a separate drainage project, preventing simple causal conclusions. The town continued work where benefits and access could be verified, redirecting or improving paths rather than closing them all. Officials concluded that ecological conditions, practical accessibility, and long-term costs mattered more than planting or fencing totals.
要点：統一閉鎖への批判、地形と公平性、穏やかな天候・別事業による交絡、限定的な拡大。
Set A｜英作文模範（202語）
Coastal towns should protect fragile habitats, but they should avoid closing every beach access route without careful local assessment. Three reasons support a balanced policy.
First, damaged dunes and other coastal habitats deserve protection. Well-managed vegetation and pathways may reduce some disturbance and support wildlife. However, environmental benefits vary with local conditions, so decisions should rely on observation rather than assumptions about every beach.
Second, public access has social value. Residents may depend on beaches for recreation, education, or connection with their communities. Complete closures can disproportionately affect people with limited mobility, especially when there are no suitable alternative routes. Authorities should consult these users before introducing restrictions.
Third, practical monitoring can make conservation more effective. Engineers and ecologists can compare erosion, plant survival, costs, and safety over time. Redirecting a path may protect sensitive areas while retaining access, whereas additional fences may achieve little if they are poorly maintained.
Critics argue that any access can damage delicate habitats. This concern is reasonable. Temporary closures may be necessary in particularly vulnerable locations, but they should be proportionate and reviewed as conditions change.
Overall, coastal conservation should combine environmental evidence, safe accessibility, and long-term maintenance. The goal is lasting protection without unnecessary exclusion.
構成：生態系の保護・住民のアクセス・監視に基づく改善、反論に対して比例的な一時閉鎖を提示。
Set B｜要約模範（97語）
Ashfield introduced library loans of portable internet devices to assist residents lacking home connections. Reservations were high, but staff warned that bookings did not prove successful use or completed tasks. Coverage gaps, data limits, accessibility barriers, and recurring expenses constrained the program. A pilot examined connections, technical problems, and users’ activities while surveying nonparticipants. Separate free-computer services complicated evaluation, and privacy specialists urged limited collection of personal data. The city retained loans where support was reliable and preserved other access options. It concluded that usable connections, fairness, privacy, and sustainable costs mattered more than device reservations alone.
要点：予約と実利用の違い、電波・費用・アクセス、別のPC支援とプライバシー、条件付き継続。
Set B｜英作文模範（203語）
Public libraries should lend portable internet devices where residents have genuine difficulties obtaining reliable connections. I support carefully managed programs for three reasons.
First, digital access can affect education and public services. Students may need online materials, while job seekers and families may need to complete essential applications. A temporary connection could help people participate when their home service is unreliable or unaffordable.
Second, libraries can combine equipment with practical support. Borrowers may need help understanding data limits, connecting devices, or identifying suitable online resources. Clear instructions and alternative assistance can make lending more useful than simply distributing hardware.
Third, small pilots can reveal which communities remain underserved. Officials can examine connection reliability, completed activities, accessibility, and operating expenses. However, the number of reservations alone does not prove improved grades, successful employment, or equal internet access.
Critics argue that subscriptions, repairs, and lost devices make lending costly. Others worry that libraries might collect unnecessary information about users. These are important concerns. Programs should have realistic budgets and strong privacy safeguards, while working alongside broader improvements to communications infrastructure.
Overall, portable-device lending can complement other public services. Its value should be judged through practical access and fair outcomes, not the number of devices circulated.
構成：学習・行政の機会・実務支援・非利用者の発見、反論として費用・個人情報への対応。
原文理解12問
Q1. Seabrookが砂丘を回復する目的の二つは。
Q2. 全海岸を同じ方法で閉鎖できない理由は。
Q3. 住民の公平性について指摘された問題は。
Q4. 試行で観測した主要な項目は。
Q5. 試行の結果を砂丘回復のみの効果にできない理由は。
Q6. 市議会が最後に採用した方針は。
Q7. Ashfieldが通信機器貸出を始めた目的は。
Q8. 予約数だけでは成功を評価できない理由は。
Q9. 一部の地区で機器の貸出が有効でない理由は。
Q10. 最初の参加者が市全体を代表しない理由は。
Q11. 新たなネット利用支援に加えて実施されていた別の支援は。
Q12. 最終的に重視された評価指標は。
英文の誤った意味を訂正する12問
Q13. Every part of Seabrook’s coast had the same conditions.
Q14. Restoration was proven effective during every possible storm.
Q15. Closing every route was the only way to protect habitats.
Q16. Calm weather had no effect on the early results.
Q17. The drainage project had no relationship to observed changes.
Q18. The number of fences proved the dunes were safe.
Q19. Every device reservation resulted in a successful internet connection.
Q20. Mobile coverage was equally strong in every district.
Q21. All early borrowers had previously been excluded from public libraries.
Q22. The pilot proved that devices improved employment and school grades.
Q23. The library collected unlimited browsing histories for assessment.
Q24. The city eliminated all other internet support after the trial.
全24問の模範解答と理由
A1：生息地の保護と浸食の軽減。
A2：砂丘条件、嵐、周辺住宅、利用者の移動条件が異なるため。
A3：通路の完全閉鎖が移動に制約のある住民を排除する可能性。
A4：砂の移動、植物の生存・成長、嵐の後の損傷、通路の安全、保守費。
A5：穏やかな天候と別の排水工事が同時に影響したため。
A6：有効性を確認した場所で保全を続け、通路の迂回や改良でアクセスを維持する。
A7：自宅に安定したネット回線がない住民の学習・就職・行政利用を助けるため。
A8：予約しても接続できない、あるいは必要な作業が完了しない可能性があるため。
A9：携帯回線の電波が弱く、通信量や電池にも制限があるため。
A10：図書館に近い既存利用者が中心だったため。
A11：地域センターによる無料のコンピューター利用。
A12：実際に利用できる通信、必要な活動の完了、公平なアクセス、プライバシーと総費用。
A13：Dune conditions, access needs, and storm exposure differed across the coast. — 一律の前提を除く。
A14：The pilot provided evidence under limited observed conditions, not every possible storm. — 観測範囲を限定。
A15：Some paths could be redirected or improved while protecting sensitive areas. — 代替案を保持。
A16：Unusually calm weather complicated the interpretation of early results. — 交絡要因。
A17：Separate drainage work could also have affected surface-water movement. — 別事業の効果。
A18：Verified habitat conditions, access, and long-term maintenance were needed. — 設置数と安全性は別。
A19：Reservations did not establish reliable connections or completed activities. — 予約と実利用の違い。
A20：Coverage varied, and some districts had unreliable signals. — 地域差。
A21：Many early borrowers were existing library members near branches. — 参加者の偏り。
A22：Some activities were completed, but broader educational and employment effects were not established. — 成果の強さを区別。
A23：Privacy specialists advised collecting only information necessary for operations and evaluation. — 個人情報最小化。
A24：The city retained library computers, printed resources, and other complementary services. — 併存する支援手段。
7日間の作文修復
- 1日目：Set Aの要約と意見英作文を初見で書く。
- 2日目：Set Bを初見で書き、語数と主張の一貫性を確認する。
- 3日目：要約に残した重要条件と抜けた反論を比較。
- 4日目：誤文訂正12問を白紙で作り直す。
- 5日目：両TOPICについて逆の立場の3理由を考える。
- 6日目：文法・語彙・構成を修正し不明確な主語を減らす。
- 7日目：模範を隠して両分野を時間内に再解答する。
よくある質問
英検1級の英文要約は90〜110語ですか？
はい。英検協会が公表する現行の指示は90〜110語です。範囲内で原文の意味と留保を守って要約しましょう。
英作文は模範答案の立場に合わせるべきですか？
いいえ。別の立場でも根拠が適切であれば答案は成立します。自分が具体的に説明できる立場を選んでください。
次の無料英検1級教材
最新の続編・無料教材：Writing第25セット｜要約2題・英作文2題・模範4本。直前セットで間違えた内容を復習し、新しい初見問題に進んでください。慶英会独自の非公式演習です。
英文要約と英作文の個別添削・学習相談については慶英会の最大1か月無料体験・学習相談をご利用ください。
形式の参考：日本英語検定協会・英検1級公式概要。英文原文・答案・設問・和訳は慶英会が独自作成しました。
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