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23セットです。慶英会が完全独自制作した英文要約2題、意見英作文2題、指定語数内の模範答案4本、段落別要点和訳、内容理解12問と誤文訂正12問（計24問）を全回答付きで収録。公共図書館の修理工具貸出と生鮮食品の共同配送を題材に、実際の成果と数値の違いを学びます。
英検1級Writingは公式形式で90〜110語の英文要約1題・200〜240語の意見英作文1題です。ReadingとWritingの合計制限時間は100分。日本英語検定協会の公式情報を参照してください。本教材は各種2題ずつの追加演習で、公式過去問ではありません。
英文要約と意見英作文の違い
- 要約は原文の主張、重要な根拠、制約と結論を圧縮し、自分の提案・想像した数字を追加しない。
- 英作文はTOPICへの立場を明確にし、根拠の異なる3つの理由を並べる。
- 反論と、それに対する現実的な条件・代替案を明示する。
- 模範解答を読むのは必ず自分の初回答案を書いた後にする。
Set A｜独自英文要約・長文原文：公共図書館の機器修理・再利用支援
Task: Read the passage and summarize it in English in 90–110 words.
Paragraph 1. The fictional city of Lakehurst introduced a program allowing public libraries to lend basic repair tools and provide supervised workshops for people seeking to maintain household appliances. Officials hoped that residents who could not afford specialist equipment would be able to keep certain products in service longer. The first workshops filled quickly, and the mayor described high attendance as evidence that the scheme was already reducing electronic waste throughout the city. An independent evaluator challenged that conclusion. Attending a workshop did not establish that a product had been repaired, and a repaired item might not remain useful over the long term.
Paragraph 2. Library managers identified practical limitations. Some equipment required qualified technicians, while electrical devices could present hazards for people without appropriate training. Additional expenses included staff supervision, insurance, replacement parts, and safe storage of tools. The original pilot had taken place in neighborhoods near established libraries, making it uncertain whether residents in remote areas could benefit. Researchers noted that participants who volunteered might already be highly interested in repair, so their behavior was unlikely to represent every household in the city.
Paragraph 3. Lakehurst expanded the evaluation to record completed repairs, safety incidents, and whether products remained usable after several months. Library staff also surveyed visitors who needed assistance but did not have time to attend workshops. During the trial, a separate retailer campaign offered discounted replacement parts, making it difficult to attribute every successful repair to the library program. Environmental specialists asked the city to consider transport and electricity use as well as the materials that would otherwise have been discarded. They cautioned that repairing an inefficient old appliance might not always produce a net environmental benefit.
Paragraph 4. After the pilot, the council continued workshops for relatively simple, low-risk repairs and introduced clearer referral arrangements for specialist work. It also explored lending equipment through smaller community centers and maintaining online instructions for those who could use them. Officials rejected the suggestion that the number of borrowed tools should be the main measure of success. The final assessment emphasized safe completed repairs, realistic costs, lasting product usefulness, and fair access. The library service could contribute to sustainable consumption, but only when the claimed outcomes were verified rather than assumed.
Set A｜段落別要点和訳
第1段落：架空のレイクハースト市は図書館で修理工具を貸し、家電維持の監督付き講座を始めた。参加者は多かったが、講座参加が修理の成功や電子廃棄物の減少を直接示すわけではない。
第2段落：感電などの危険がある機器には専門家が必要で、監督、保険、部品、工具の保管にも費用がかかった。図書館近くの住民を対象にした試行は遠隔地区への一般化が難しく、参加者も修理に関心の高い人へ偏る可能性があった。
第3段落：市は修理完了、安全事故、数か月後の継続利用を測り、講座に参加できなかった人も調査した。別の店が部品を割引販売したため、すべての修理成果を図書館に帰することはできない。輸送・電力・本来廃棄された材料も環境評価で考える必要があった。
第4段落：市議会は危険の少ない修理支援を維持し、専門作業への紹介を整えた。小さな地域センターを利用する可能性も調べた。工具貸出数より、安全な修理完了・費用・長期利用・公平なアクセスを評価する。
Set A｜英作文TOPIC
Should cities offer repair-tool lending and supervised workshops at public libraries? Give THREE reasons. Suggested length: 200–240 words.
Set B｜独自英文要約・長文原文：都市の生鮮食品配送と地域アクセス格差
Task: Read the passage and summarize it in English in 90–110 words.
Paragraph 1. The fictional municipality of Brookvale proposed a shared delivery network linking several neighborhood markets with residents who had difficulty reaching shops. Supporters argued that coordinated transportation could improve access to fresh food, especially for older adults and people living far from major stores. The system allowed customers to place orders by telephone or through a simple digital form, and local couriers delivered products at scheduled times. During the first month, order volumes increased rapidly. Some officials described the rise as proof that the project had solved food-access problems across the municipality.
Paragraph 2. An independent review identified significant limitations in that claim. Many early users were already regular customers of the participating markets, while residents with lower incomes faced delivery fees that made the service difficult to use. Others had unreliable phone connections or needed help carrying packages inside their homes. A high number of orders did not establish that people obtained a healthier diet or that total food waste had declined. The program also required refrigerated storage, careful handling, and routes that could accommodate delivery windows without compromising food safety.
Paragraph 3. Brookvale conducted a supervised pilot in several districts with different transport conditions. Researchers tracked successful deliveries, canceled orders, spoilage, staff costs, and the experience of residents who did not participate. The evaluation found that a temporary road closure had increased delivery delays in one area, complicating comparisons between neighborhoods. At another site, a nearby charity had begun offering free food boxes, making it difficult to attribute changes in market orders entirely to the new network. The team recommended separating access, affordability, food safety, and nutritional outcomes rather than judging success through a single transaction count.
Paragraph 4. After the pilot, the municipality adjusted delivery schedules and introduced targeted fee assistance for residents with demonstrated barriers. It retained telephone ordering, improved information about delivery times, and continued partnerships with local support organizations. Officials acknowledged that the network could help some residents without meeting every form of food insecurity. Their final report emphasized safe and affordable deliveries, inclusion of underserved groups, and reliable operating costs. The project would be expanded only where evidence showed meaningful access rather than an impressive total of online orders.
Set B｜段落別要点和訳
第1段落：架空のブルックベール市は市場から新鮮な食品を届ける共同配送網を試した。高齢者や遠くに住む人を支援する目的で電話とネット注文を受けた。注文数は急増したが、それだけで食品へのアクセス問題が解決したとは言えない。
第2段落：初期利用者は元々の市場顧客へ偏っており、低所得者には配送料が障壁となった。電話がつながりにくい人、荷物を室内に運ぶ手助けが必要な人もいた。注文数増加は食生活の改善や食品廃棄の減少と同じではなく、冷蔵・衛生・配送時間の管理が必要だった。
第3段落：複数地区の試行で配達完了、キャンセル、腐敗、職員費用、非利用者の状況を追跡した。一時的な道路閉鎖が遅延を増やした地区もあり、別の場所では慈善団体の無料配布が注文数に影響し、配送制度の因果効果を単純に示せなかった。
第4段落：市は運行を調整し、配送料補助を必要に応じ導入した。電話注文と地域団体との協力も維持し、すべての食の問題を解決したとは主張しない。安全・負担可能性・未利用者のアクセス・運営費の実績が確認できる場所で拡大する。
Set B｜英作文TOPIC
Should local governments support shared fresh-food delivery services? 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。
全4模範答案｜要約と英作文の解答・解説
Set A｜要約模範（101語）
Lakehurst began lending repair tools and offering supervised workshops through libraries to help residents maintain appliances. High attendance led officials to claim reduced electronic waste, but evaluators noted that participation did not prove successful or lasting repairs. Safety requirements, staffing costs, and unequal access also complicated expansion. The city tracked completed repairs and later product use, while a separate retailer promotion made causal conclusions difficult. Environmental specialists called for broader cost and resource assessments. The council retained support for low-risk repairs with specialist referrals and considered community centers. It concluded that benefits required evidence of safety, durability, affordability, and fair access.
要約の着眼点：高参加率と実修理を区別し、危険・費用・標本の偏り・小売店の割引という交絡要因を落とさない。
Set A｜意見英作文模範（212語）
Cities should offer selected repair-tool lending services and supervised workshops in public libraries when adequate safety measures are available. Three considerations support this approach.
First, shared tools can help households avoid unnecessary purchases. People may need specialist equipment only occasionally, making individual ownership expensive. Libraries could offer practical resources for straightforward repairs while referring complex electrical work to qualified technicians.
Second, organized workshops can promote useful skills. Learning to examine a problem, follow instructions, and assess whether a repair is safe may encourage more informed decisions. However, attendance alone does not establish that participants can repair equipment independently. Supervision and appropriate assessments remain important.
Third, community programs may encourage responsible use of resources. Repairing a product could extend its life and reduce some waste. Nevertheless, an old appliance might use substantial electricity, while replacement parts and transport have environmental costs. Cities should measure practical outcomes instead of assuming every repair is beneficial.
Critics reasonably argue that tool storage, insurance, and trained staff create ongoing expenses. Authorities should begin with limited services, compare costs, and evaluate which residents can actually use them.
Overall, public repair programs are worth testing when they are safe, accessible, and carefully assessed. Their success should be judged by useful long-term results, not merely workshop registrations or borrowed tools.
構成：共有工具の利便性、実技学習、資源利用の3理由。反論は事故と運用費。
Set B｜要約模範（98語）
Brookvale proposed shared fresh-food delivery for residents unable to reach local markets easily. Order totals increased, but reviewers warned that early users were often existing customers and delivery fees excluded some lower-income residents. The system also required safe refrigeration and dependable transport. A district pilot measured completed deliveries, spoilage, costs, and unmet needs, while road closures and separate charity programs complicated comparisons. The municipality adjusted schedules, offered targeted assistance, and preserved telephone ordering. It concluded that shared delivery could improve access for some groups, provided affordability, safety, and practical outcomes were verified rather than inferred from orders alone.
要約の着眼点：注文件数と実アクセス、配送の安全、手数料の格差、外部の道路・支援活動の影響を落とさない。
Set B｜意見英作文模範（213語）
Local governments should support carefully targeted fresh-food delivery services, especially in communities where residents face serious transport barriers. I favor this policy for three reasons.
First, access to shops differs among households. Older residents, people with limited mobility, and those living far from markets may struggle to obtain fresh ingredients regularly. Coordinated delivery could reduce some of these difficulties without requiring a new supermarket in every neighborhood.
Second, shared transport may make existing local businesses more useful. Small markets could coordinate delivery routes and reach customers they would otherwise struggle to serve. However, officials should consider refrigeration, staff time, and the costs of delivering products safely. More online orders do not automatically mean better access.
Third, thoughtful assistance can address inequality. Delivery fees may discourage residents who need the service most. Governments could test targeted subsidies and retain telephone ordering for people who cannot use digital systems easily.
Critics argue that public delivery networks could be costly and might duplicate services already offered by charities or private firms. These concerns deserve attention. Authorities should consult existing providers, measure unmet needs, and expand only where benefits are demonstrated.
In conclusion, shared delivery can complement other food-support measures. Its success should be judged by reliable, affordable access and meaningful results rather than transaction counts alone.
構成：店舗へのアクセス、共同配送、配送料への支援の3理由。反論は費用と既存の民間・慈善事業。
内容理解・本文の根拠を問う12問
Q1. Lakehurstが修理工具の貸出と講座を始めた目的は。
Q2. 講座の参加者数が廃棄物減少の証拠にならない理由は。
Q3. 対象外とすべき可能性がある修理は。
Q4. 試行の参加者が市全体を代表しない理由は。
Q5. 修理の成功を図書館制度だけに帰せない理由は。
Q6. 市議会が主な評価指標に選んだものは。
Q7. Brookvaleの共同配送網が支援したい住民は。
Q8. 初期注文数の増加がアクセス改善を証明しない理由は。
Q9. 低所得者の利用を妨げた主な条件は。
Q10. 食品の配送で必要な安全条件は。
Q11. 地区間の遅延を比較しにくくした外部要因は。
Q12. Brookvaleが全面的な成功と断言しなかった理由は。
意味が不正確な英文の訂正12問
Q13. The city proved waste reduction because many residents attended workshops.
Q14. All household appliances were safe for beginners to repair.
Q15. The pilot represented every neighborhood equally.
Q16. Only the library service could explain successful repairs.
Q17. The council expanded every repair activity without limits.
Q18. The number of borrowed tools showed how much waste had been prevented.
Q19. Every initial customer of the food-delivery system had previously lacked access to markets.
Q20. Delivery fees were affordable for all households.
Q21. More orders guaranteed a healthier diet for all participants.
Q22. Food could be delivered safely without refrigeration or scheduling.
Q23. The new service alone caused every change in market demand.
Q24. The municipality abolished telephone ordering after the trial.
全24問の模範解答・根拠解説
A1：家庭用機器を安全に維持し、不必要な買い替えを減らす選択肢を住民に提供するため。
A2：参加者数では修理完了やその後の製品寿命を示せないため。
A3：電気などの危険を伴い、資格のある専門職による作業を必要とする修理。
A4：図書館付近に住む人や修理に高い関心のある人に偏る可能性があるため。
A5：別の小売店が同時期に交換部品の割引販売を行ったため。
A6：安全に完了した修理、継続利用、総費用、公平なアクセス。
A7：店舗から遠い人、高齢者、移動が難しい住民など。
A8：元々の市場利用者が中心で、利用できない住民の状況は不明だったため。
A9：配送手数料の負担。
A10：適切な冷蔵と衛生管理、必要な時間内での配送。
A11：一時的な道路閉鎖による遅延。
A12：配送だけではすべての食品アクセス問題を解決できず、実際の利用・費用・衛生を確認する必要があるため。
A13：The city recorded strong attendance, but waste reduction and lasting repairs had not been proven. — 参加と実際の廃棄量は異なる。
A14：Some electrical and complex repairs required qualified specialists. — 安全上の例外。
A15：The first pilot mainly served people near existing libraries. — 地域と利用者の代表性。
A16：A separate retailer promotion may also have contributed to repairs. — 同時期の外部介入。
A17：The council continued selected low-risk activities and specialist referrals. — 条件付きの実施。
A18：The number of borrowed tools did not establish net waste prevention. — 貸出と環境上の成果は別。
A19：Many initial customers were already regular users of participating markets. — 元々の顧客の存在。
A20：Delivery charges created barriers for some low-income residents. — 負担可能性の格差。
A21：More orders did not by themselves demonstrate better nutrition. — 取引数と栄養は別指標。
A22：Safe deliveries depended on suitable refrigeration, handling, and timely routes. — 衛生と物流の条件。
A23：Road conditions and a separate charity program also influenced outcomes. — 複数の交絡要因。
A24：It retained telephone ordering and adjusted support where barriers were documented. — 複数の利用経路を維持。
7日間のライティング復習
- 1日目：Set Aの要約・英作文を初見で書く。
- 2日目：Set Bを初見で書き、語数と立場・根拠を確認。
- 3日目：各段落の主旨を一文で整理し、要約の欠落と追加情報を確認。
- 4日目：訂正問題12問を解答を見ずに書き換える。
- 5日目：英作文の立場を逆にして新しい3理由を作る。
- 6日目：語彙・文法・段落のつながりを修正。
- 7日目：モデル回答を隠して両題を時間を測って再作成する。
FAQ
要約は英文をそのまま抜き出してよいですか？
一部の重要語句を残すことはあり得ますが、原文の意味を保って自分の文でまとめる練習が重要です。意味の変わる言い換えは避けてください。
意見英作文は模範と逆の立場でもよいですか？
はい。意見自体に唯一の正解はなく、理由の一貫性・具体性と語数、文法を確認してください。
関連する英検1級の無料教材
続編の独自無料教材：Writing第24セット｜要約2題・英作文2題・独自24問。前回の誤答と根拠を復習してから新しい初見問題へ進みましょう。すべて慶英会による非公式の独自問題です。
慶英会では英検1級Writingの要約・意見英作文の添削と個別指導を行っています。最大1か月無料体験・学習相談はこちら。
英検公式情報：日本英語検定協会・英検1級の試験内容。長文、答案、和訳、全24問は慶英会の独自作成です。
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