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22セットです。独自の英文要約2題、意見英作文2題、語数確認済みの模範英文4本、長文の段落別要点和訳、理解・誤文訂正24問と全解説を掲載。慶英会が「夜空の保全」「公共サービスの多様な意思疎通」を題材に制作しました。公式過去問ではありません。
英検1級Writingは英文要約1題（90〜110語）と意見英作文1題（200〜240語）。ReadingとWritingの合計100分です。日本英語検定協会の公式1級概要を参照してください。模範答案は一例であり、別の見解も論理的に説明できれば成立します。
学習の結論｜数字と実際の成果を混同しない
- 英文要約では、課題・目的・試行・制約・慎重な結論を優先し、原文にない提案を足さない。
- 意見英作文では立場を決め、異なる理由3つと反論への対応を明示。
- 環境教育の参加数と学習成果、字幕付き会議の件数と実際の理解を区別する。
- 模範答案を先に見ず、90〜110語／200〜240語の範囲に自分で書いてから比較する。
Set A｜英文要約の独自原文：天体観測の暗い夜空を保全する自治体政策
Task: Summarize the passage in English using 90–110 words.
Paragraph 1. The fictional municipality of Selwick introduced a proposal to reduce unnecessary outdoor lighting in certain districts near a small astronomical observatory. Local educators argued that darker skies would make it easier for students to observe stars and learn about astronomy. The plan included shielded streetlights, shorter operating hours for decorative illumination, and voluntary guidance for nearby businesses. An early assessment predicted substantial electricity savings. Supporters welcomed the estimate and urged immediate expansion across the municipality, but the observatory’s researchers cautioned that the projected benefits had not yet been verified by actual measurements.
Paragraph 2. Several residents expressed concerns about safety and accessibility. Some footpaths were already difficult to navigate after sunset, and changes to lighting might affect people with limited vision or mobility. Transport staff also warned that a reduction in brightness did not necessarily mean a comparable reduction in energy use if more fixtures were installed elsewhere. Environmental specialists noted that artificial light could influence certain wildlife, but these effects varied with location, species, and light intensity. The municipality agreed that the policy should be evaluated through multiple measures rather than the number of lamps switched off.
Paragraph 3. Selwick began a six-month pilot in two neighborhoods. Engineers recorded electricity consumption, measured illumination on public walkways, and asked residents about their ability to travel safely. Astronomers compared sky brightness on similar nights, taking cloud cover and seasonal changes into account. The team discovered that one commercial district had simultaneously replaced several older signs with more efficient displays, making it difficult to attribute every reduction in energy use to the streetlight policy. Several schools reported that organized observation sessions were easier to conduct, but no evidence showed that students’ scientific knowledge had improved simply because the sky was darker.
Paragraph 4. After reviewing the trial, the council retained targeted lighting changes where safety and access standards were met. It postponed wider reductions in neighborhoods where additional monitoring was necessary. Officials also developed public guidance explaining the purpose of different lighting controls. The final report concluded that light pollution reduction could offer educational and environmental advantages, provided the measures were assessed through verified sky conditions, actual energy use, and practical safety rather than optimistic forecasts or the number of lamps removed.
Set A｜日本語の段落別要点訳
第1段落：架空のセルウィック自治体は天文台付近の不要な夜間照明を減らす案を示した。星空が見えれば生徒の天文学習に役立ち、電力も節約できると期待された。しかし初期の節約額は予測値であり、実測ではなかった。
第2段落：住民は夜の通行安全と移動のしやすさを懸念した。灯具の消灯数が電力削減と一致するとは限らず、野生生物への影響も場所や種によって異なる。複数の指標を使うべきとされた。
第3段落：2地域で6か月試し、電力、歩道の明るさ、住民の安全な移動、雲や季節を考慮した空の明るさを測った。同時に商店が省エネ表示に替えたため節電効果の原因を一つに絞れず、夜空が暗くなっただけで学習成果が上がったとは証明できなかった。
第4段落：安全基準を満たす地点で限定的な照明調整を続け、未検証の地区は拡大を延期した。星空・電力・安全の実測を通じて評価し、消灯数だけで成功と判断しない。
Set A｜意見英作文TOPIC
Should cities reduce unnecessary outdoor lighting to protect the night sky? Give THREE reasons. Suggested length: 200–240 words.
Set B｜英文要約の独自原文：行政サービスの手話・字幕・読みやすい説明の導入
Task: Summarize the passage in English using 90–110 words.
Paragraph 1. The fictional county of Thornfield announced a plan to make its public-service offices more accessible to residents with different communication needs. The proposal included live captioning during public meetings, advance booking for sign-language interpretation, easy-to-read explanations of application procedures, and clearer telephone alternatives. County officials argued that these changes could help residents participate in decisions and access essential services. An initial survey showed strong support, prompting some officials to declare that the county’s communication problems had already been resolved before the new arrangements were fully implemented.
Paragraph 2. Disability advocates challenged that conclusion. The needs of residents varied substantially: captions might help some people, while others preferred sign-language interpretation, accessible written text, or direct assistance. Technical errors in automated captions could also change the meaning of important instructions. Furthermore, the survey had mainly reached people who already attended public meetings, excluding residents who had stopped participating because communication was difficult. The advocates recommended consulting people with a wider range of experiences and testing whether users could understand and complete specific tasks.
Paragraph 3. Thornfield tested the arrangements in three offices and several community meetings. Staff measured how long it took people to receive assistance, how accurately key instructions were understood, and whether applications were completed successfully. Interpreters reviewed complex terminology, while administrators checked captioning errors and adjusted procedures when information was unclear. A sudden change in the office timetable affected waiting times during the pilot, making it difficult to attribute every improvement to the accessibility measures alone. Participants also noted that offering a communication method was not useful if it required booking so far in advance that urgent applications could not be handled.
Paragraph 4. At the end of the trial, the county retained several options instead of requiring everyone to use one digital channel. It expanded services selectively, trained staff, and published information about available support and response times. Officials rejected the idea that the number of captioned meetings was enough to establish equality. Their final report emphasized successful communication, timely access, and the ability of residents to complete essential procedures. The program would be reviewed regularly with input from the people it was designed to assist.
Set B｜日本語の段落別要点訳
第1段落：架空のソーンフィールド郡は行政の説明会や申請を利用しやすくするため、字幕、手話通訳、読みやすい案内、電話での代替手段を計画した。高い支持率が得られたが、導入が完了する前から問題が解決したと断言するのは不適切だった。
第2段落：人によって必要な手段が違い、字幕の自動誤変換が重要事項を変えることもある。元のアンケートはすでに会議へ参加している住民に偏り、利用しにくくて来なくなった人の意見が不足した。実際に内容を理解して手続を終えられるかの試験が必要だった。
第3段落：3事務所と地域会議で試行し、待ち時間・内容理解・申請完了を計測した。専門用語の通訳や字幕の誤りを修正したが、同時期の窓口時間変更が待ち時間にも影響し、全成果を新しい設備だけの効果と断定できない。緊急申請に間に合わない事前予約の長さも障壁となった。
第4段落：郡は一つのデジタル手段へ統一せず複数の方法を残した。字幕付き会議の件数ではなく、必要な情報が正しく伝わり期限内に申請できるかを評価し、当事者の意見を定期的に反映する。
Set B｜意見英作文TOPIC
Should public institutions provide more communication options for residents with different needs? 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｜模範要約（102語）
Selwick proposed reducing unnecessary lighting near an observatory to improve stargazing and potentially save energy. Researchers warned that projected benefits lacked verification, while residents raised safety and accessibility concerns. Wildlife effects also differed by location. A six-month pilot measured electricity use, walkway visibility, and sky brightness while accounting for weather. Simultaneous changes to commercial signs complicated estimates of energy savings, and improved observation conditions did not prove better student learning. The council adopted targeted adjustments where safety standards were met but postponed wider changes. Officials concluded that lighting policy should rely on measured environmental, educational, and safety outcomes rather than lamp counts.
要点の分析：初期の節電予想・安全とアクセシビリティ・交絡した看板更新・教育成果の未検証を保持しています。
Set A｜模範意見英作文（204語）
Cities should reduce unnecessary outdoor lighting when they can do so without compromising public safety. I support this balanced approach for three reasons.
First, excessive lighting can waste resources. Decorative lights and poorly directed lamps may consume electricity without providing meaningful benefits. Better design and appropriate operating hours could reduce some of that waste, although actual savings should be measured rather than assumed.
Second, darker conditions can support astronomy education. Students may find it easier to observe the night sky near schools and public observatories. However, improved visibility alone does not guarantee greater scientific understanding. Teachers need structured activities and ways to assess what students learn.
Third, responsible lighting can protect some natural habitats. Artificial illumination may affect animals that depend on darkness. The effects differ among species and locations, so environmental policies should rely on relevant evidence instead of broad claims.
Critics argue that reducing light could make streets difficult to navigate, especially for residents with limited vision or mobility. Their concern is legitimate. Cities should preserve suitable lighting on essential routes and consult those most affected.
In conclusion, local governments should focus on purposeful, well-directed illumination. Reducing unnecessary light is worthwhile when energy use, environmental conditions, and residents’ safety are independently evaluated.
理由の整理：電力の効率化／天文教育／生息地への配慮の3理由、夜間安全への反論と条件。
Set B｜模範要約（94語）
Thornfield planned captions, sign-language interpretation, and accessible explanations for public services. Although an early survey showed support, advocates warned that residents had different needs and automated captions could introduce errors. The survey also excluded many people who had stopped participating. A pilot assessed comprehension, waiting times, and successful applications, while timetable changes complicated interpretation of improvements. Long interpreter-booking periods created further barriers. The county preserved multiple communication options, expanded support selectively, and trained staff. It concluded that accessibility should be judged by timely understanding and completed procedures rather than the number of captioned events.
要点の分析：複数の意思疎通の必要性・元の調査の偏り・字幕の誤り・手続完了を基準とした判断を保持しています。
Set B｜模範意見英作文（203語）
Public institutions should provide more communication options for residents with different needs. This is important for three reasons.
First, government information must be understandable. People may require sign-language interpretation, captions, accessible written explanations, or direct assistance. Offering only one method can leave some residents unable to follow instructions or understand their rights and responsibilities.
Second, better communication can improve practical access. An application process is not genuinely accessible if a resident cannot obtain suitable support before a deadline. Authorities should therefore examine waiting times and completed procedures, not simply count the services they advertise.
Third, providing different options can strengthen public participation. Residents who previously avoided meetings because communication was difficult may be better able to contribute their views. Institutions should seek feedback from these people instead of relying only on those who already attend.
Critics argue that interpretation and accessibility services require funding and trained personnel. This concern deserves attention. Agencies can prioritize essential services, plan staff development, and evaluate which arrangements are most useful without assuming that every resident needs identical support.
In conclusion, communication accessibility is a worthwhile public responsibility. Its success should be measured through accurate understanding, timely assistance, and meaningful participation rather than the number of tools installed.
理由の整理：情報の理解／実務上の利用／公的参加の3理由、予算の反論と利用実績での検証。
原文に忠実な内容理解12問
Q1. Selwick市が照明を調整する理由のうち二つは何ですか。
Q2. 初期の節約試算だけで一律導入できない理由は何ですか。
Q3. 照明調整が懸念された住民の状況は何ですか。
Q4. 電気使用量の低下を街灯政策のみに帰せなかった理由は何ですか。
Q5. 学校の観測会が容易になっても教育成果を断言できない理由は何ですか。
Q6. Selwick市が全地域への一律拡大を延期した理由は何ですか。
Q7. Thornfield郡が提案したコミュニケーション支援を二つ挙げてください。
Q8. 支援方法を一つに限定できない理由は何ですか。
Q9. 当初のアンケートにあった偏りは何ですか。
Q10. 試行で実際の利用成果として計測したことは何ですか。
Q11. 待ち時間の改善を新しい支援のみの効果にできない理由は何ですか。
Q12. 郡が最後に重視したものは何ですか。
誤解を生む英文の意味訂正12問
Q13. The council proved that every lighting change would save electricity.
Q14. A darker night sky automatically improved students’ scientific knowledge.
Q15. All residents welcomed reduced lighting without safety concerns.
Q16. Commercial signs remained unchanged throughout the lighting pilot.
Q17. The policy was expanded immediately to every neighborhood.
Q18. Lamp counts were considered the sole measure of success.
Q19. Thornfield required every resident to use one digital method.
Q20. Automated captions were always completely accurate.
Q21. The first survey fully represented residents who had stopped participating.
Q22. Providing interpretation guaranteed timely completion of every application.
Q23. Only the communication tools affected waiting times.
Q24. The number of captioned meetings proved equal access.
全24問の正解・訂正理由
A1：天体観測・学校教育を支援することと、不要な照明による電力使用を減らすこと。
A2：実測値ではなく、地区ごとに交通安全や設備条件が異なるため。
A3：夜間移動時の安全性や、視覚・移動面の制約がある住民の利用。
A4：商業地区で同時期に省エネ表示への更新が行われたため。
A5：空が暗くなったことは天文知識の習得を直接測定したものではないため。
A6：安全・アクセス・実測による効果がまだ確認されていない場所があったため。
A7：ライブ字幕、手話通訳、読みやすい説明、電話の代替手段など。
A8：住民ごとに必要な手段が異なり、字幕だけでは対応できない場合があるため。
A9：すでに公的な会議へ参加している人が中心だったこと。
A10：待ち時間、正確な内容理解、申請手続の完了など。
A11：窓口時間も同じ時期に変更され、別の要因があったため。
A12：手段の数ではなく、正確な理解・期限内の利用・必要な手続の完了。
A13：The council tested targeted changes but had not verified savings in every district. — 予測と全域の実測を混同。
A14：Clearer skies supported observation but did not by themselves prove learning gains. — 観測条件と知識習得を区別。
A15：Some residents raised concerns about visibility and accessibility at night. — 安全上の懸念を省略しない。
A16：Some businesses replaced signs, complicating attribution of electricity savings. — 同時介入を考慮。
A17：The council retained targeted adjustments and delayed wider reductions where evidence was lacking. — 限定的な拡大の事実。
A18：Verified energy use, sky conditions, and safety were assessed separately. — 成果指標の違い。
A19：The county preserved multiple communication options to meet different needs. — 単一手段ではなかった。
A20：Automated captions could make errors affecting important instructions. — 技術上の限界。
A21：The first survey underrepresented residents who no longer attended meetings. — 参加者の偏り。
A22：Long advance booking periods could still prevent timely applications. — 提供と実利用を区別。
A23：An unrelated change in office schedules also influenced waiting times. — 交絡要因の存在。
A24：The county evaluated understanding, timeliness, and completed procedures instead. — 設備導入数と利用成果の違い。
7日間のWriting復習
- 1日目：Set Aの要約・意見英作文に初見で取り組む。
- 2日目：Set Bの要約・意見英作文を作成し語数と構成を確認。
- 3日目：2つの模範要約と比べ、追加した未確認の因果や抜けた条件を探す。
- 4日目：Q13〜Q24の誤文を意味を保つ英文に修正。
- 5日目：2つのTOPICに対して反対の立場を組み立てる。
- 6日目：冠詞、時制、指示語と段落のつながりを編集。
- 7日目：答案を隠して時間を測り再作成し、初日と比較する。
よくある質問
英検1級の要約は何語ですか？
現行形式は90〜110語です。結論に必要な条件を落とさないよう注意しながら指定範囲へ圧縮しましょう。
英作文のトピックには必ず賛成する必要がありますか？
いいえ。賛否に唯一の正解はありません。根拠を説明しやすい立場を選び、異なる3理由と結論が整合しているかを確認してください。
次に解く英検1級無料教材
新作・続編の無料教材：Writing第23セット｜要約2題・英作文2題・独自24問。前回セットを復習した後、初見問題に取り組んで理解を深めてください。慶英会が独自制作した非公式教材です。
慶英会では英文要約と意見英作文の内容・構成・語彙・文法を個別に確認します。最大1か月無料体験・学習相談はこちら。
出題形式の参考：日本英語検定協会・英検1級公式。本文・答案・演習は慶英会による独自制作であり、公式問題ではありません。
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