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
結論：英検1級のWritingは英文要約1題と意見英作文1題です。慶英会では、初見の英文要約とTOPIC英作文をセットで練習する独自2セットを無料公開します。英語原文・全文和訳・90〜110語の模範要約2本・200〜240語の意見英作文2本に、原文との対応、論点の独立性、内容を変えてしまう24の誤答修正例を付けました。
英検協会は現行の1級試験に英文要約と英作文をそれぞれ1題設けています（公式の試験内容）。英文要約は2025年度第1回から語数の「目安」という表現が外れ、90〜110語の指定範囲が明確にされています（公式通知）。英作文のモデルは200〜240語の学習用設定であり、必ず受験回の問題冊子の指示に従ってください。
Writing総合演習を終えたら段落構成を改善：topic sentence・supporting exampleの独自36問と200〜240語模範2篇。各段落の主張と具体例の関係を確認します。
Writing総合2セットの後の要約発展問題：英検1級要約の400語超独自2題・全訳と模範・修正24問。原文の主張・留保・対立・結論を保持して要約する練習に進めます。
初見でWritingを2課題連続で解く順序
- 1. 英文要約は原文の段落を「背景／便益／制約／結論」に整理して、英語90〜110語にする。
- 2. 意見英作文は指定TOPICへ直接回答し、内容が重複しない理由3つを明確にする。
- 3. まず解答を隠して2つの課題を一組として取り組み、その後に和訳・模範・理由を確認する。
- 4. 原文のmay / not necessarilyや未承認の政策を確実な事実へ変更しない。
- 5. 模範解答は唯一の正解ではない。自分の文章の内容・構成・語彙・文法を点検する。
セット1｜独自WritingセットA｜雨水貯留の都市政策と科学的根拠
課題A：英文要約（原文276語）
Instruction: Read the following passage and summarize its main ideas in 90–110 English words. Do not add outside facts or your own opinion.
Paragraph 1: A fictional coastal city began offering grants to residents who installed rainwater-storage tanks beside their homes. Supporters argued that the tanks could reduce demand for treated water during dry periods and temporarily hold some water during heavy rainfall. The first report recorded a steady rise in installations, and municipal officials described the program as a promising way to manage limited resources. However, the report did not establish how much water was actually saved across different neighborhoods.
Paragraph 2: An independent evaluator noted that the tanks varied widely in size and were not equally useful throughout the year. Some households used stored water regularly for gardens, whereas others installed tanks but seldom used the collected rain. During exceptionally intense storms, some tanks filled quickly and could not prevent further runoff. The evaluator therefore cautioned against assuming that the number of installations was equivalent to a measured reduction in either water consumption or flood risk.
Paragraph 3: Community groups raised additional concerns about affordability and maintenance. Households with suitable outdoor space found installation relatively straightforward, but residents of apartments often had fewer practical options. Some systems also required cleaning or repairs, which could create costs after the initial grant had been spent. The groups recommended testing shared facilities and making clearer guidance available, although these proposals would require further funding and technical review.
Paragraph 4: The city decided to continue the existing grants for another trial period while collecting more detailed evidence. Officials would compare actual water use, maintenance costs, and access among different kinds of households. Rather than promise that every tank would prevent flooding, the final recommendation was to evaluate where the program worked well and what additional measures might be necessary.
課題B：意見英作文（TOPIC）
Should universities require all students to learn how to evaluate scientific evidence?
慶英会練習目標：立場→独立した理由3つ→必要な条件や反論→結論。200〜240語を目安として書いてください。本試験の実際の指示を優先します。
セット2｜独自WritingセットB｜災害時の地域情報ネットワークと公平性
課題A：英文要約（原文266語）
Instruction: Read the following passage and summarize its main ideas in 90–110 English words. Do not add outside facts or your own opinion.
Paragraph 1: A fictional mountainous district introduced a volunteer information network to assist residents when storms disrupted transportation and electricity. Volunteers collected reports about blocked roads, temporary shelters, and available supplies, then shared general updates with local service offices. In its first month, the network handled more reports than expected. Organizers considered the participation encouraging, but they cautioned that a high number of messages did not mean every resident had received useful assistance.
Paragraph 2: An evaluation identified several limitations. The reports mainly came from people with working mobile phones, while those in areas without reliable signals were less visible. Some reports were duplicated as residents shared the same observation, and others could not be verified quickly. The evaluation team recommended distinguishing unique incidents from repeated messages and recording whether important information had actually reached the people who needed it.
Paragraph 3: The project also raised privacy and safety concerns. A few messages identified vulnerable residents or included details about properties that were temporarily unoccupied. Community representatives argued that unrestricted publication could create unnecessary risks. At the same time, emergency coordinators warned that overly restrictive procedures might delay practical assistance. They proposed sharing general alerts widely while limiting sensitive information to trained personnel who needed it for specific tasks.
Paragraph 4: The district decided to retain the volunteer network but revise its verification and information-sharing procedures. It would test ways to obtain reports from areas with poor connectivity, clarify who could view sensitive records, and assess whether updates helped residents reach appropriate services. Officials emphasized that success should be measured by reliable information and meaningful assistance rather than by the volume of messages alone.
課題B：意見英作文（TOPIC）
Should local governments prioritize reusing vacant buildings when planning public facilities?
慶英会練習目標：立場→独立した理由3つ→必要な条件や反論→結論。200〜240語を目安として書いてください。本試験の実際の指示を優先します。
全2題の英文要約・原文全文和訳（8段落）
独自WritingセットA｜雨水貯留の都市政策と科学的根拠｜原文の完全日本語訳
第1段落：架空の沿岸都市では、家庭の雨水貯留タンク設置に補助金を提供し始めた。支持者は、乾燥期には処理水の需要を減らし、大雨時には一部の水を一時貯留できると主張した。初期報告では設置台数が増え、市担当者は有望と評価した。ただし地区ごとに実際にどれほど節水できたかは立証していなかった。
第2段落：独立評価者はタンクの大きさや季節ごとの利用状況が異なると指摘した。庭の水やりに活用する家庭がある一方、ほとんど使用しない家庭もあった。非常に激しい雨ではすぐ満水となり流出を防げない場合もあり、設置件数を節水量や洪水リスク低減と同一視しないよう求めた。
第3段落：地域団体は費用と維持管理の問題を提起した。屋外の敷地がある家は設置しやすいが、集合住宅では選択肢が限られる場合がある。清掃や修理の費用も発生し得る。団体は共同施設の試行や案内の改善を提案したが、追加の資金と技術審査が必要だった。
第4段落：市は補助金をさらに一期間継続し、実際の使用水量、維持費、家庭の種類別の利用機会を比較することにした。すべてのタンクが洪水を防ぐと約束するのではなく、効果のある場所と必要な追加策を評価する方針となった。
独自WritingセットB｜災害時の地域情報ネットワークと公平性｜原文の完全日本語訳
第1段落：架空の山間部では、嵐で交通や電力が止まる際に住民を支えるボランティアの情報網を導入した。道路の通行止め、避難所、物資などの情報を集めて地域事務所へ共有する。最初の月に予想より多くの報告が集まり、主催者は好ましいと評価したものの、メッセージ数が多いだけで全住民が支援を受けたことにはならないと注意した。
第2段落：評価では複数の問題が明らかになった。報告は携帯電話の使える住民に偏り、電波の届かない地域の人が見えにくかった。同じ事象の重複報告もあり、確認が難しいものもあった。評価者は異なる事案数と重複メッセージを区別し、必要な人に情報が届いたか記録するよう勧めた。
第3段落：プライバシーと安全性も問題となった。弱い立場の住民や一時的に空き家となった建物の詳細を含むメッセージがあり、地域代表は無制限公開の危険を指摘した。一方、緊急対応者は制限しすぎると支援が遅れると懸念した。一般警報は広く共有し、機微情報は必要な訓練済み職員に限定する案が出された。
第4段落：地区は情報網を維持しながら、検証と共有の手順を見直すと決めた。通信の悪い地域から情報を集める方法や機微記録を閲覧できる人の範囲を試し、必要な支援へ届いたか評価する。単なるメッセージ数でなく、信頼できる情報と実際の支援で成果を判断する方針である。
英文要約の模範解答2篇｜各90〜110語
セット1｜模範要約97語
A city subsidized household rainwater tanks, hoping to reduce demand for treated water and hold some runoff. Installations increased, but an independent review warned that tank numbers did not establish water savings or flood protection. Use varied across households and seasons, and tanks could fill during severe storms. Community groups also identified unequal access for apartment residents and possible maintenance expenses, proposing shared facilities and clearer information. The city therefore continued the grants as a trial while gathering evidence about actual water use, costs, and accessibility. Further decisions would depend on measured benefits rather than installation totals.
本文のどの情報を残したか：
- 1：補助金導入と設置件数増加
- 2：タンクの使用率・雨量による効果差
- 3：集合住宅のアクセスと維持費
- 4：追加試行と実使用量・費用・公平性の評価
セット2｜模範要約99語
A mountainous district created a volunteer network for sharing emergency information. Reports increased, but organizers recognized that message volume did not prove residents received useful help. Evaluators found that people without reliable phone signals were underrepresented and that some incidents were reported repeatedly or could not be verified quickly. Privacy concerns also arose because messages sometimes identified vulnerable residents. Community representatives sought restrictions, while coordinators feared delays in assistance. The district retained the network while revising verification and access rules. It would seek reports from poorly connected areas and assess the usefulness of updates rather than count messages alone.
本文のどの情報を残したか：
- 1：災害情報ネットワークの導入と報告増加
- 2：通信の偏り・重複・未確認情報
- 3：公開の透明性とプライバシーの対立
- 4：継続・検証・アクセス制限の改善
意見英作文の模範解答2篇｜各200〜240語の学習用答案
セット1｜Should universities require all students to learn how to evaluate scientific evidence?（207語）
Universities should require students in every major to learn how to evaluate scientific evidence. Even graduates who do not pursue research careers encounter claims about technology, health, and public policy. The ability to judge such claims is therefore relevant beyond specialized laboratories.
First, students should understand the difference between a reported association and a demonstrated cause. For example, an increase in service use after a policy change does not necessarily prove that the policy produced the increase. Learning to identify alternative explanations can prevent confident but unsupported conclusions.
Second, evidence evaluation can strengthen public discussion. Students who understand sampling limitations and uncertainty may be better prepared to examine conflicting arguments. They can ask what was measured, whose experiences were excluded, and whether the results support the claim.
Third, a common foundation can connect different academic disciplines. Students of literature, business, engineering, and medicine can all benefit from comparing sources and recognizing methodological weaknesses. The exercises need not be identical in every department.
Admittedly, university timetables are limited, and a separate course may be difficult to introduce. Institutions could instead include assessed evidence-evaluation activities in existing subjects.
For these reasons, universities should make evidence evaluation a required learning outcome while allowing departments flexibility in how they teach it.
論証の構造：
- 理由1は因果と相関の区別
- 理由2は不確実な情報と公共的判断
- 理由3は学部横断の能力
- 反論は科目枠の制約、代案は既存科目への統合
セット2｜Should local governments prioritize reusing vacant buildings when planning public facilities?（212語）
Local governments should generally consider reusing vacant buildings before constructing new public facilities. Reuse can make existing assets more useful, reduce some unnecessary construction, and provide services in neighborhoods that already have suitable infrastructure. However, decisions must reflect safety and long-term costs.
First, adapting a vacant building may save resources compared with replacing an otherwise usable structure. This is not guaranteed in every case, since major repairs can be expensive, but it is an option worth evaluating before new construction begins.
Second, an existing building may be located near residents who need a library, training space, or community service. Renovation can sometimes provide a practical facility without requiring a new site. Officials should still examine transport access and the suitability of the interior.
Third, reuse may support neighborhood activity by bringing neglected spaces back into service. A public building that offers useful programs can create opportunities for learning and cooperation, provided that operations are adequately funded.
Critics reasonably note that older buildings may have serious structural problems or poor energy efficiency. If renovation cannot meet safety standards at a reasonable lifetime cost, replacement may be preferable.
For these reasons, I favor a policy that evaluates reuse first without making it compulsory. Safety, accessibility, and sustained public value should determine the final decision.
論証の構造：
- 理由1は建設資源と修繕費
- 理由2は既存立地と利用可能性
- 理由3は地域活動の再生
- 反論は耐震・運営効率、結論は再利用優先の検討であって絶対命令ではない
24の誤答・論理ミスを修正する独自演習
修正Q1：The number of rainwater tanks proves that every resident saved water.
修正Q2：Every installed tank prevented flooding.
修正Q3：Apartment residents received the same benefit as all homeowners.
修正Q4：The city permanently expanded the grant program nationwide.
修正Q5：The city eliminated all maintenance expenses.
修正Q6：Community groups opposed any form of rainwater storage.
修正Q7：The volunteer network reached every resident immediately.
修正Q8：All reported incidents were independently confirmed.
修正Q9：Residents without phone signals were well represented in the sample.
修正Q10：Privacy advisers proposed that emergency warnings never be shared.
修正Q11：The district abandoned the network because privacy posed risks.
修正Q12：Success was determined exclusively by the number of messages.
修正Q13：Every scientific finding is a causal relationship.
修正Q14：All university departments must teach an identical separate course.
修正Q15：Basic research must produce immediate commercial products.
修正Q16：The reuse proposal calls for renovating every building.
修正Q17：Vacant buildings are necessarily cheaper to operate.
修正Q18：Public access improves automatically when a facility opens.
修正Q19：The disaster network should publish all sensitive personal information.
修正Q20：Universities should never require students to evaluate sources.
修正Q21：Every neighborhood benefits equally from renovation.
修正Q22：A provisional finding is automatically conclusive.
修正Q23：A policy with any cost should be rejected.
修正Q24：The only valid essay uses advanced vocabulary in every sentence.
独自24問の模範修正と解説
解答1：The number of tanks installed increased, but actual water savings remained unverified. 修正の理由：設置件数を水使用量の成果へ置き換えない。
解答2：Some tanks might temporarily hold runoff, but they could fill during intense storms. 修正の理由：全てのタンクによる完全な防災を断定しない。
解答3：Apartment residents often faced fewer practical options for installing tanks. 修正の理由：住宅の種類による利用条件の差を保持する。
解答4：The city continued the grants for another trial period while collecting evidence. 修正の理由：限定的な継続と全国恒久拡大を区別。
解答5：Cleaning and repair could create costs after the initial grant. 修正の理由：維持管理費は実際に残る。
解答6：Community groups requested shared facilities and clearer guidance, subject to review. 修正の理由：地域団体の代案を無条件反対に変えない。
解答7：The network gathered many reports but did not establish that all residents received help. 修正の理由：報告増と全員の支援は別。
解答8：Some reports were duplicated or could not be verified quickly. 修正の理由：重複・未確認情報を残す。
解答9：Residents with weak connectivity were less visible in the reports. 修正の理由：データが届かない集団を無視しない。
解答10：They supported broad general alerts with controlled access to sensitive records. 修正の理由：一般警報と機微情報を区別する。
解答11：The district kept the network while changing verification and access procedures. 修正の理由：中止ではなく運用改善。
解答12：Evaluation would examine reliable information and whether residents received assistance. 修正の理由：投入量と実際の便益を区別。
解答13：Some findings show an association without establishing causation. 修正の理由：相関と因果を区別。
解答14：The essay proposes a required learning outcome with flexible implementation. 修正の理由：必修到達目標と同一独立科目の違い。
解答15：Research may create knowledge that is valuable beyond immediate commercial use. 修正の理由：長期的な成果と短期販売成果を分ける。
解答16：It recommends evaluating reuse first, subject to safety and lifetime costs. 修正の理由：条件付き優先検討と無条件改修を区別。
解答17：Some vacant buildings may require costly repairs or have poor energy efficiency. 修正の理由：初期費用だけでなく運営費も評価。
解答18：Transport connections and interior accessibility also affect meaningful access. 修正の理由：存在と利用可能性の違い。
解答19：Access to identifiable records should be limited to trained personnel with legitimate tasks. 修正の理由：機微情報と一般向け情報の公開対象を分ける。
解答20：The essay supports learning how to assess sources across academic disciplines. 修正の理由：賛否の立場を逆転させない。
解答21：Benefits vary with location, service needs, and the condition of the building. 修正の理由：対象の範囲を誇張しない。
解答22：An early finding may be useful while still requiring verification. 修正の理由：予備的成果と確証を混同しない。
解答23：Benefits, risks, and realistic alternatives should be considered together. 修正の理由：費用の存在だけで否決を導かない。
解答24：Accurate vocabulary and clear reasoning matter more than unnecessary complexity. 修正の理由：難語の羅列より論理と語法の正確性。
原文・論述答案の自己添削チェック12項目
- 原文の主張・観測・制約・決定の段階を保持しているか。
- 発言者を入れ替えていないか。
- 設置数と実際の成果、メッセージ数と支援の実現を混同していないか。
- 未検証の数字や実在しない研究を作っていないか。
- 要約に自分の意見を混ぜていないか。
- 要約90〜110語の範囲に入っているか。
- 英作文がTOPICへ直接答えているか。
- 理由3つが同じことの言い換えではないか。
- 理由それぞれに仕組みや対象者を説明できているか。
- 反論を認めても結論が矛盾していないか。
- 難語を誤用せず自然な文法で書けているか。
- 英文の見直しを行い、時制・単複・前置詞・接続関係を確認したか。
7日間の学習計画
- 1日目：セットAの原文を読み90〜110語の要約を書く。
- 2日目：セットAの意見英作文を作り、主張を支える3理由を確認。
- 3日目：Aの全文和訳・模範2篇と比較。
- 4日目：セットBの原文で初見要約を作成。
- 5日目：セットBの英作文を自力で完成。
- 6日目：Bの和訳・模範答案と、誤答修正24問のうち1〜12を確認。
- 7日目：残りの修正問題と4観点の見直し後に、英検協会の未使用過去問で実戦確認。
よくある質問
英文要約の語数は厳密に90〜110語ですか？
2025年度第1回以降、公式の指示文は目安ではなく語数の範囲を明示しています。90〜110語に収め、原文の意味を保ってください。
要約に本文以外の知識を追加してもよいですか？
要約は原文の要点を表す課題です。本文にない実績・政策・統計・個人的意見は書き加えないでください。
意見英作文は模範と同じ立場で書くべきですか？
同じ立場である必要はありません。選んだ立場を支える理由と説明を一貫して展開し、課題の条件に従いましょう。
関連する慶英会の無料教材
慶英会では英文の内容・構成・語彙・文法と、原文に忠実な要約の両方を学習できます。最大1か月無料体験・学習相談はこちら。
主な公式情報
本文・要約・英作文・24の修正演習は慶英会が独自に制作した教材です。架空の都市やネットワークの設定を使っており、公式過去問ではありません。
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