英検準1級の長文内容一致7問×3セット【独自21問】｜本文根拠と全誤答を解説

英検準1級の長文内容一致で点が伸びない場合、本文から直接言えることと、選択肢が勝手に付け足した「全員・必ず・唯一の原因」を区別してください。慶英会では3題の独自長文に各7問、合計21問を用意。英文、日本語による段落解説、重要語彙、4択の全誤答分析、本文根拠までを1ページに掲載します。

日本英語検定協会の準1級出題形式では長文内容一致は合計7問です。ここでは学習量を増やすため、慶英会独自の各長文に7問ずつ、3セットを設けています。公式過去問と同じ文章数や難度を再現した模試ではありません。登場する町・学校・研究結果は架空の学習用設定です。

解き方｜4択で見落としてはいけない5点

1. 問いが理由、結論、数字、立場のどれを求めているか判定する。
2. 正解の根拠となる一文または隣接する二文を特定する。
3. all・every・certainlyなどの過大な一般化を警戒する。
4. 試行・観測・正式な決定を混同しない。
5. 選択肢を選んだ後に、残りの三つがなぜ違うか説明する。

独自長文セット1｜都市の暑さと歩行者の日陰（約242語）

英文第1段落

In the fictional city of Harrow Bay, officials wanted to make a busy walking route more comfortable during hot weather. Some residents proposed planting trees, while others preferred canopies that could provide shade immediately. The planning team pointed out that trees would require space and ongoing care, whereas canopies might be installed faster but could limit access for maintenance vehicles. The city decided to compare several designs rather than assume that one solution would work equally well on every street.

英文第2段落

Researchers placed sensors in different parts of the route and recorded surface temperatures at the same time of day. They also asked pedestrians whether they found the shaded areas comfortable. The responses were not always consistent with the measurements: a location with lower pavement temperatures was not necessarily preferred by every pedestrian. Moreover, the sensors had been placed at only a few sites, and weather conditions changed from week to week. Engineers warned that these observations could guide further testing but were insufficient to establish long-term effects on health.

英文第3段落

After a six-week pilot, the town chose to maintain the existing shade structures while gathering additional data. Residents using wheelchairs had asked the city to preserve clear paths, and shopkeepers wanted delivery access to remain practical. Officials therefore planned to compare comfort, maintenance, access, and costs before adopting a permanent design. Their goal was not simply to obtain the lowest temperature reading, but to make the street useful for a variety of people.

内容一致・4択7問

Q1. Why did officials compare trees and canopies?

1. Trees were forbidden in the city.
2. Each option had different installation and maintenance requirements.
3. All streets had identical space.
4. Canopies were already proven to be healthier.

Q2. What did the researchers measure?

1. Only the number of shops.
2. Only residents’ ages.
3. Permanent changes in health.
4. Surface temperature and reported comfort.

Q3. What limitation was noted about the temperature readings?

1. Only a few sites were measured and weather changed.
2. Every site was measured continuously for years.
3. All passengers disliked the shade.
4. No sensors were installed.

Q4. Why did wheelchair users raise a concern?

1. They wanted all trees removed.
2. They refused to visit the district.
3. They needed the walking paths to remain clear.
4. They asked for fewer shops.

Q5. What did shopkeepers want?

1. Delivery access to remain practical.
2. The entire road to become private.
3. All delivery vehicles to be banned.
4. The pilot to be canceled before it began.

Q6. Why did officials continue monitoring after the trial?

1. All health effects had been verified.
2. The canopies were already removed.
3. Every citizen demanded a new road.
4. The short pilot did not settle longer-term and practical questions.

Q7. What is the passage’s overall message?

1. Only sensor readings matter.
2. Useful design must balance measurements with different users’ needs.
3. All canopy projects should end.
4. The cheapest option is necessarily best.

段落別の日本語内容

第1段落：架空の都市では暑い時期の歩行者の快適性を高めるため、街路樹と日よけを比較した。樹木には空間と管理が必要で、屋根状の日よけは設置が早いが保守車両の通行を妨げる可能性があった。一つの方法を全街路へ一律に適用しない方針を取った。

第2段落：路面温度を同じ時刻に測り、歩行者の快適さも尋ねた。ただし温度が低い場所が全員に好まれるわけではなく、センサーの設置地点は少数で天候も変化した。短期測定だけで長期の健康効果は証明できない。

第3段落：6週間の試行後も追加のデータを集めることにした。車いす利用者の通路、商店の配達、保守管理の費用まで考慮し、単純な温度の最低値よりも多様な人が使える街路を目指した。

重要語彙

• canopy：日よけ・覆い
• pavement：舗装面
• pilot：試行
• maintenance vehicle：保守作業車
• long-term effect：長期的影響

正答・本文根拠・誤答を一つずつ検討

Q1 正解B：Each option had different installation and maintenance requirements.。根拠：“trees would require space and ongoing care … canopies might be installed faster”。解説：Bは利点と制約の違い。Aは禁じられておらず、Cは一律にできないという本文と反対、Dの健康効果は未実証。

Q2 正解D：Surface temperature and reported comfort.。根拠：“recorded surface temperatures … asked pedestrians … comfortable”。解説：Dは測定と意見の両方。A・Bの調査はなく、Cは長期の健康効果が未確認。

Q3 正解A：Only a few sites were measured and weather changed.。根拠：“sensors … only a few sites … weather conditions changed”。解説：Aは観測範囲の制約。Bは期間の誇張、Cは全員と断定、Dはセンサー使用の事実と矛盾。

Q4 正解C：They needed the walking paths to remain clear.。根拠：“using wheelchairs … preserve clear paths”。解説：Cは安全な通行。A・B・Dは本文にない要求。

Q5 正解A：Delivery access to remain practical.。根拠：“shopkeepers wanted delivery access to remain practical”。解説：Aは本文の希望。B・C・Dは反対方向の誇張・未記載事項。

Q6 正解D：The short pilot did not settle longer-term and practical questions.。根拠：“gathering additional data … compare comfort, maintenance, access, and costs”。解説：Dは未確定の事項を評価するため。Aは証拠不足、Bは既存日よけの維持と矛盾、Cは全員と断定。

Q7 正解B：Useful design must balance measurements with different users’ needs.。根拠：“not simply … lowest temperature … useful for a variety of people”。解説：Bは総合判断。Aは数値偏重、Cは試行継続と反対、Dの必然性は示されない。

段落の役割｜セット1

第1段落は背景と課題、第2段落は測定や対立する条件、第3段落は判断と今後の検証を述べています。本文の構造を利用し、設問がどの段落へ戻る問題か説明できるようにしましょう。

独自長文セット2｜古い学習用端末を修理するか買い替えるか（約240語）

英文第1段落

A fictional secondary school had used the same set of tablet computers for several years. When repairs became more frequent, some teachers asked for new devices that could run updated learning applications. Others argued that replacing the entire set would create unnecessary electronic waste. The school formed a review group to compare the remaining useful life of the tablets, their repair costs, and whether students would have equal access to suitable devices.

英文第2段落

Technicians examined a sample of the tablets rather than assuming that every unit had the same problem. Some devices needed inexpensive batteries, while others could no longer run software used in class. The school also considered the privacy of files stored on devices that might be sold or recycled. Staff proposed a secure process for removing data, but they noted that confirming successful removal required training and clear responsibilities. Parents raised another concern: even if new tablets were purchased, families might still need help understanding how to use the school’s online services.

英文第3段落

After the examination, the school chose to repair selected devices and replace those that could not support essential software. It postponed the purchase of additional tablets until it could check how many students still lacked reliable access. The principal said that both reducing waste and supporting learning were important, but neither goal could be measured by the total number of new devices alone. The plan included follow-up checks on repair performance, student use, and maintenance time.

内容一致・4択7問

Q8. Why was a review group formed?

1. To ban every form of digital learning.
2. To buy devices without checking costs.
3. To compare repair, replacement, waste, and access.
4. To stop technical inspections.

Q9. What did technicians discover?

1. Different tablets had different repair needs and limitations.
2. Every tablet required only a new battery.
3. All applications ran on every device.
4. No tablets had been inspected.

Q10. Why was removing files important?

1. It would improve screen brightness.
2. It would make batteries last longer.
3. It would reduce the price of textbooks.
4. Private information could remain on recycled or sold devices.

Q11. What did parents point out?

1. Students never needed internet access.
2. Purchasing new devices might not eliminate families’ need for guidance.
3. Teachers had already stopped using apps.
4. All families wanted to repair tablets themselves.

Q12. Which devices did the school decide to replace?

1. All devices, regardless of condition.
2. Only devices with inexpensive battery problems.
3. Devices unable to support essential software.
4. Only devices with the newest applications.

Q13. Why was further purchasing postponed?

1. The school wanted to check how many students still lacked reliable access.
2. No tablets could be purchased legally.
3. Every learner had already received a working device.
4. The school decided to abandon digital education.

Q14. What outcome measures did the school plan to use?

1. Only the number of new tablets.
2. Only the size of the budget.
3. Only the length of staff meetings.
4. Repair performance, student use, and maintenance time.

段落別の日本語内容

第1段落：架空の中高一貫校では古いタブレットの修理が増え、新品への一括買替えと廃棄削減の意見が対立した。残る使用可能期間、修理費用、生徒の公平な利用機会を調べる検討グループを作った。

第2段落：端末を一部検査すると、電池交換で使えるものと必要なソフトが動かないものがあった。売却・再資源化する端末に残る個人情報も問題で、データ削除の手順と担当者の訓練が必要だった。新品を買っても家庭の操作支援は別に必要かもしれない。

第3段落：一部は修理し、必要なソフトが使えない端末を交換すると決めた。追加購入は利用できない生徒数を確認してからにした。新しい端末台数だけで環境と学習の成果を測れず、修理後の性能・利用状況・保守時間を確認する。

重要語彙

• electronic waste：電子廃棄物
• useful life：使用可能な期間
• software compatibility：ソフトウェアの互換性
• data removal：データの消去
• recycled：再資源化された

正答・本文根拠・誤答を一つずつ検討

Q8 正解C：To compare repair, replacement, waste, and access.。根拠：“compare … useful life … repair costs … equal access”。解説：Cは総合評価。A・Dは検討の目的と反対、Bは費用確認を行っている事実と矛盾。

Q9 正解A：Different tablets had different repair needs and limitations.。根拠：“Some … inexpensive batteries … others could no longer run software”。解説：Aは端末による違い。B・Cは全体化、Dは検査実施と矛盾。

Q10 正解D：Private information could remain on recycled or sold devices.。根拠：“privacy of files stored on devices … sold or recycled”。解説：Dは個人情報保護。A〜Cは削除と関係のない理由。

Q11 正解B：Purchasing new devices might not eliminate families’ need for guidance.。根拠：“even if new tablets … families might still need help”。解説：Bは新端末と操作支援の違い。A・C・Dは本文にない断定。

Q12 正解C：Devices unable to support essential software.。根拠：“replace those that could not support essential software”。解説：Cが対象。Aは全体化、Bは修理候補、Dは本文にない分類。

Q13 正解A：The school wanted to check how many students still lacked reliable access.。根拠：“until … check how many students still lacked reliable access”。解説：Aは実態調査。Bは制度の創作、Cは未調査と矛盾、Dは修理・交換方針と矛盾。

Q14 正解D：Repair performance, student use, and maintenance time.。根拠：“follow-up checks on repair performance, student use, and maintenance time”。解説：Dは複数指標。Aは新規台数だけでは不十分と明記、B・Cも目的と対応しない。

段落の役割｜セット2

第1段落は背景と課題、第2段落は測定や対立する条件、第3段落は判断と今後の検証を述べています。本文の構造を利用し、設問がどの段落へ戻る問題か説明できるようにしましょう。

独自長文セット3｜市民観測の結果をどう解釈するか（約230語）

英文第1段落

A fictional research center invited volunteers to help monitor the condition of a small river. Participants recorded water clarity and photographed the riverbank after periods of heavy rain. The project enabled observations across a wider area than the center’s staff could visit alone. However, researchers cautioned that volunteers usually chose convenient locations. A large number of photographs from one park might therefore say more about where people went than about conditions along the entire river.

英文第2段落

To improve the records, the center provided instructions on taking photographs from consistent positions and recording dates and weather. Volunteers were also asked to report when poor visibility made observation impossible, instead of describing an unseen area as free from problems. A few participants worried that the standardized procedure would make the project less enjoyable. The researchers explained that consistent measurements were important for comparing changes over time, while allowing volunteers to continue sharing informal observations separately.

英文第3段落

After two seasons, the center identified several locations for closer investigation. Yet it did not conclude that the whole river had improved or deteriorated. Some of the apparent differences could reflect rainfall patterns or changes in who had submitted records. The researchers planned to combine volunteer observations with laboratory tests and visits by trained staff. They also published the limits of the data so that local residents could understand what the records could establish and what remained uncertain.

内容一致・4択7問

Q15. What was one benefit of involving volunteers?

1. They eliminated the need for any specialists.
2. They proved the entire river was healthy.
3. They could identify every source of pollution.
4. They expanded the geographical coverage of observations.

Q16. Why could many photographs from one park be misleading?

1. Volunteers tended to choose convenient places.
2. The park had no river.
3. All photographs were necessarily inaccurate.
4. Water clarity could never be measured.

Q17. What did the center ask participants to record?

1. Only the names of visitors.
2. Only the price of cameras.
3. Dates, weather, and consistent observation conditions.
4. Only events they had heard about online.

Q18. Why was reporting poor visibility important?

1. It guaranteed the river was safe.
2. Not seeing an area was not proof that it had no problems.
3. It proved the river was polluted.
4. It made all photographs unnecessary.

Q19. How were informal observations treated?

1. They replaced all standardized records.
2. They were forbidden.
3. They were used as proof of environmental improvement.
4. They could continue separately from comparable measurements.

Q20. What conclusion was drawn after two seasons?

1. Some sites deserved further study, but the whole river’s trend was uncertain.
2. The whole river had certainly recovered.
3. All locations were deteriorating.
4. No useful observations had been recorded.

Q21. What did researchers plan to do next?

1. Stop accepting all data.
2. Make only one more photograph.
3. Combine volunteer records with laboratory and professional checks.
4. Publish the location of every volunteer’s home.

段落別の日本語内容

第1段落：架空の研究施設は市民に川の透明度と大雨後の川岸の様子を記録してもらった。観測範囲は広がったが、参加者は行きやすい場所を選ぶ傾向があり、一つの公園の写真が多くても川全体の状況は説明できない。

第2段落：同じ場所・同じ角度の写真を撮り、日付と天候も記録するよう求めた。見えない場所を問題なしと決めつけず観測不能と記録する。一部参加者は手順の厳格さを心配したが、比較可能な記録と自由な観察を分けた。

第3段落：二つの季節を比較して追加調査の候補地は見つかったが、川全体の改善・悪化を断定せず、天候や投稿者の違いも考慮した。実地調査・検査機関の測定と組み合わせ、データの限界を住民へ公表した。

重要語彙

• water clarity：水の透明度
• riverbank：川岸
• standardized procedure：標準化した手順
• consistent positions：統一した撮影位置
• laboratory test：検査機関での測定

正答・本文根拠・誤答を一つずつ検討

Q15 正解D：They expanded the geographical coverage of observations.。根拠：“observations across a wider area than … staff … alone”。解説：Dは範囲の拡大。Aは専門職による検査予定と矛盾、B・Cは証明していない。

Q16 正解A：Volunteers tended to choose convenient places.。根拠：“volunteers usually chose convenient locations”。解説：Aは観察者の選好による偏り。B〜Dは本文にない断定。

Q17 正解C：Dates, weather, and consistent observation conditions.。根拠：“consistent positions and recording dates and weather”。解説：Cが対応。A・B・Dは調査の指定事項ではない。

Q18 正解B：Not seeing an area was not proof that it had no problems.。根拠：“instead of describing an unseen area as free from problems”。解説：Bは非観測と問題不存在を区別。A・Cは真偽を断定、Dは記録の意義と矛盾。

Q19 正解D：They could continue separately from comparable measurements.。根拠：“allowing volunteers … informal observations separately”。解説：Dが正しい。Aは比較可能性のための標準化を否定、Bは禁止ではない、Cは証拠を強くしすぎる。

Q20 正解A：Some sites deserved further study, but the whole river’s trend was uncertain.。根拠：“identified … closer investigation … did not conclude … whole river”。解説：Aは候補地と全域の判断を分ける。B・Cは未確認を断定、Dは候補地の発見と矛盾。

Q21 正解C：Combine volunteer records with laboratory and professional checks.。根拠：“combine volunteer observations with laboratory tests and visits by trained staff”。解説：Cは検証の組合せ。A・B・Dは本文にない内容。

段落の役割｜セット3

第1段落は背景と課題、第2段落は測定や対立する条件、第3段落は判断と今後の検証を述べています。本文の構造を利用し、設問がどの段落へ戻る問題か説明できるようにしましょう。

失点の原因別・復習

数量：someをallへ、twoをeveryへ変更した選択肢は、本文より強い主張になりやすい。

因果：改善策の導入と観測結果が同時に起きても、それだけで導入策が唯一の原因だとは限らない。

主体：研究者が調べた、住民が希望した、委員会がまだ決めていないなど、誰の行動・意見かを区別する。

時点：planned、proposed、tested、approved、completedが表す段階の違いを確認する。

7日間の勉強法

1. 1日目：セット1の7問を解く
2. 2日目：セット1の誤答分析と日本語確認
3. 3日目：セット2の7問を解く
4. 4日目：セット2の誤答を本文へ戻って説明
5. 5日目：セット3の7問を解く
6. 6日目：3セットを各英語2文で要約し、本文の限定を保持する
7. 7日目：公式過去問の内容一致7問に挑戦する

よくある質問

本番では1長文に7問ありますか？

本記事のセット構成は慶英会独自の学習設計です。準1級公式では長文内容一致が合計7問と案内されており、本文3題×7問の構成を本番に当てはめないでください。

誤答のどこを検討するとよいですか？

本文と異なる主語、数量、時制、因果、確実性を具体的に指摘してください。語彙だけでなく文章全体の意味を照合することが重要です。

この21問の得点でCSEスコアは算出できますか？

できません。慶英会の独自問題は英検公式の採点方式・問題数を再現していません。

関連教材と慶英会への学習相談

長文語句空所補充6問×3セット／短文語句空所補充18問×2セット／限定・推量の長文読解40問。

慶英会では、英検準1級の長文を初見で読み、正答根拠・誤答選択肢の違いを説明できるよう個別指導を行っています。最大1か月完全無料体験・学習相談はこちら。

公式情報

日本英語検定協会｜準1級の試験内容。確認日：2026年10月28日。英文3篇・4択21問と本文根拠・解説は慶英会独自の制作です。