英検準1級の英文要約は原文を丸写ししていい？独自4長文・言い換え20例と60〜70語モデル

英検準1級の英文要約で原文を丸写ししてよいか迷う場合、重要なのは「本文を理解し、60〜70語で中心情報をまとめられるか」です。英検協会の準1級では英文要約が1題あり、2025年度以降は60〜70語という範囲が明確に指定されています。原文から必要な専門用語を一部使うだけで一律に0点になるという単純な公式基準は確認できませんが、原文の文を順に抜き出すだけでは要点選択が不十分になりやすいため、意味を保存した自然な言い換えを練習します。協会の公式準1級過去問をご覧ください。

慶英会が独自長文4題、原文を抜き出しすぎた改善前の答案4本、60〜70語に整えた改善例4本、文単位の言い換え20組、意味を強めすぎた誤答8例を登録不要で公開します。既存の言い換え30例は1文単位の練習、本記事は長い文章全体の情報選択を練習するための教材です。

注意：公式の採点済み答案や特定の減点点数を示すものではありません。専門用語や制度名のように正確さのため残す語句もあります。すべての語を難しい同義語へ換えるのではなく、重要な意味・限定・因果を保つことが大切です。

目次：意味を保つ5手順／独自4長文と修正版／文の言い換え20組／誤答8例／7日間練習／FAQ。

全文をコピーせず要約する5手順

• ①主題：どんな取り組みかをまず一文で捉える。
• ②便益：原文が示す利点や目的を拾う。
• ③課題：howeverやalthough以降の中心的な制約を残す。
• ④対応：提案・試験導入・改善策と、実施済みの事実を混同しない。
• ⑤語数：具体例・反復だけを削り60〜70語で自然な一文の流れにする。

「原文を全く使わない」こと自体が目的ではありません。例えばregular maintenanceを無理に奇妙な表現へ置き換えるより、安全な運用に必要な情報として正確に残すことを優先してください。

慶英会独自の4長文｜改善前と60〜70語の修正版

1. 夜間の街灯と調光

Paragraph 1：Public lighting makes streets easier to use after dark, but providing the same brightness throughout the night can consume unnecessary electricity. A coastal city is testing lamps that become dimmer when fewer people are using certain paths. Sensors can increase the light again when pedestrians approach. Supporters hope that this system will reduce energy consumption while preserving access to public spaces. Researchers are also interested in whether a reduction in artificial light may benefit insects living near the path.

Paragraph 2：However, the proposal has several limitations. Poorly positioned sensors might not detect some users, and different groups of people may feel safe under different lighting conditions. The equipment will also require regular maintenance. The city therefore plans to test the system at a few locations, observe pedestrian experiences, and compare electricity use before and after installation. Officials say that a successful trial should demonstrate practical savings without making paths less accessible or creating unnecessary safety concerns.

改善前・原文の抜き出し型（43語）

Public lighting makes streets easier to use after dark, but providing the same brightness throughout the night can consume unnecessary electricity. Sensors can increase the light again when pedestrians approach. However, the proposal has several limitations. The equipment will also require regular maintenance.

不足する点：便益だけでなくセンサーが検知しない可能性や実証・評価まで説明する必要があります。

慶英会の改善モデル（61語）

A coastal city is testing streetlights that dim when paths are quiet and brighten as pedestrians approach. The system may save electricity and reduce unnecessary light, but sensors, maintenance, and different safety needs create challenges. Officials therefore plan small trials, compare energy use, and gather pedestrian feedback. They want to achieve useful savings without making public paths less accessible or safe.

中心的な論理：街灯の省エネという目的→技術・安全の制約→小規模試験と評価。

2. 地域のスポーツ用具貸出

Paragraph 1：Many children want to try different sports, but buying equipment for every activity can be costly. A neighborhood center is considering a small service that would lend balls, protective pads, and other basic items to families for short periods. The idea may allow children to explore unfamiliar activities before their parents decide whether to purchase personal equipment. Volunteers believe it could also encourage families to make better use of resources that are rarely needed.

Paragraph 2：Yet running the service requires more than collecting donations. Equipment must be checked for damage, cleaned when appropriate, and matched to users of suitable ages and sizes. Some products may become unsafe even if they appear usable. The center plans to start with a limited selection and offer brief instructions about safe use. Instead of counting only the number of items borrowed, organizers intend to ask whether children used them comfortably and whether maintenance costs remain manageable.

改善前・原文の抜き出し型（46語）

Many children want to try different sports, but buying equipment for every activity can be costly. A neighborhood center is considering a small service that would lend balls, protective pads, and other basic items to families for short periods. Volunteers believe it could also encourage families.

不足する点：安全点検・貸出対象の条件と利用者の評価が十分に残っていません。

慶英会の改善モデル（62語）

A neighborhood center is considering lending sports equipment so children can try activities without buying every item. The project may make participation more affordable and reduce unnecessary purchases. However, loaned equipment must be checked, cleaned, and matched to suitable users to avoid safety problems. Organizers will begin with a limited selection and assess actual use and maintenance costs, not just borrowing totals.

中心的な論理：貸出による費用軽減→安全・適合性の問題→限定的な開始と評価。

3. 地域の聞き書きアーカイブ

Paragraph 1：A local cultural group records interviews with older residents about changes in the town. The recordings may preserve personal experiences that are not described in official documents, and they could provide useful material for students studying regional history. Volunteers hope that online access will allow younger generations to learn about the community without visiting the archive in person.

Paragraph 2：Nevertheless, interviews contain personal information and memories that cannot always be checked independently. Some speakers may mention relatives or private events they did not intend to publish widely. Organizers therefore ask for consent, prepare accurate descriptions, and give interviewees opportunities to review sensitive passages before publication. If a complete recording cannot be shared, the group may offer a short summary with permission. Its aim is to protect personal stories while providing reliable historical context, rather than publish as much audio as possible.

改善前・原文の抜き出し型（47語）

A local cultural group records interviews with older residents about changes in the town. The recordings may preserve personal experiences that are not described in official documents, and they could provide useful material for students studying regional history. Volunteers hope that online access will allow younger generations.

不足する点：本人の同意・情報の正確さ・公開の条件という制約が抜けています。

慶英会の改善モデル（63語）

A cultural group records older residents’ memories to preserve local experiences and support history education. Online access could help younger audiences, but interviews may contain sensitive details or accounts that cannot be fully verified. Organizers therefore seek consent, check descriptions, and invite speakers to review private passages. They may share approved summaries instead of complete recordings, balancing access with accuracy and personal privacy.

中心的な論理：地域の経験の保存→検証と本人のプライバシー→同意・説明・一部公開。

4. 食品廃棄物の堆肥化

Paragraph 1：Some communities are exploring ways to collect suitable food scraps and turn them into compost for public gardens. Supporters say this approach could reduce the amount of organic waste sent to disposal facilities and create a useful material for growing plants. The program would ask residents to separate accepted scraps from packaging and other waste. Volunteers would take part in collection and monitor the process.

Paragraph 2：However, collecting food scraps introduces difficulties involving odors, pests, and hygiene. Not all materials can be safely composted under the same conditions, and the process requires appropriate temperature control and maintenance. In a fictional pilot project, a local group prepares clear instructions and accepts only a limited range of materials. It records how much suitable waste is collected, how much compost is actually produced, and whether neighbors report problems. Organizers emphasize that receiving more scraps does not automatically mean the project is effective. They intend to evaluate safe operation and usable output before expanding the service.

改善前・原文の抜き出し型（52語）

Some communities are exploring ways to collect suitable food scraps and turn them into compost for public gardens. Supporters say this approach could reduce the amount of organic waste sent to disposal facilities and create a useful material for growing plants. The program would ask residents to separate accepted scraps from packaging.

不足する点：衛生・温度管理・出来上がった堆肥の評価を落としています。

慶英会の改善モデル（65語）

Communities may turn suitable food scraps into compost, reducing disposal waste and supporting public gardens. However, odors, pests, and hygiene require careful separation, temperature control, and maintenance. A local group therefore proposes clear rules and limited collection while measuring usable compost and residents’ concerns. It considers the project successful only if the process is safe and produces practical results, not simply when collection volumes rise.

中心的な論理：生ごみの再利用→衛生・維持費の課題→小規模実施と成果の検査。

意味を変えない言い換え20組

1. 夜間の街灯と調光｜5組

• 1：providing the same brightness throughout the night can consume unnecessary electricity → Keeping lights equally bright all night may waste energy。理由：could/canに相当する可能性を維持。
• 2：lamps that become dimmer when fewer people are using certain paths → streetlights that dim when paths are quiet。理由：人通りの少なさという条件を圧縮。
• 3：Sensors can increase the light again when pedestrians approach → Sensors brighten lights when people approach。理由：明るくなる条件を維持。
• 4：Poorly positioned sensors might not detect some users → Sensors may miss some pedestrians。理由：mightとsomeの限定を保存。
• 5：compare electricity use before and after installation → compare energy use before and after the trial。理由：前後比較という評価方法を残す。

2. 地域のスポーツ用具貸出｜5組

• 6：buying equipment for every activity can be costly → purchasing equipment for each sport may be expensive。理由：費用の高さという可能性。
• 7：would lend balls, protective pads, and other basic items → would lend basic sports equipment。理由：具体例を一般化。
• 8：explore unfamiliar activities before their parents decide whether to purchase → try activities before families buy equipment。理由：試すことと購入の順序。
• 9：Equipment must be checked for damage, cleaned when appropriate → Loaned items require safety checks and appropriate cleaning。理由：安全条件を維持。
• 10：Instead of counting only the number of items borrowed → not just borrowing totals。理由：貸出件数だけで評価しない。

3. 地域の聞き書きアーカイブ｜5組

• 11：records interviews with older residents about changes in the town → records older residents’ memories of local changes。理由：インタビューと地域の変化を維持。
• 12：not described in official documents → missing from formal records。理由：公式資料との対比を残す。
• 13：allow younger generations to learn about the community without visiting → give younger audiences remote access to community history。理由：遠隔利用の便益を圧縮。
• 14：memories that cannot always be checked independently → accounts that cannot always be verified。理由：常に検証できないという限定。
• 15：give interviewees opportunities to review sensitive passages → let speakers review sensitive passages before release。理由：本人確認と時間順序。

4. 食品廃棄物の堆肥化｜5組

• 16：collect suitable food scraps and turn them into compost for public gardens → convert suitable food waste into compost for local gardens。理由：食品残渣を堆肥にする目的。
• 17：could reduce the amount of organic waste sent to disposal facilities → may reduce organic waste sent for disposal。理由：可能性を維持。
• 18：Not all materials can be safely composted under the same conditions → Some materials need different conditions or cannot be safely processed。理由：部分否定を全否定へ変えない。
• 19：records how much suitable waste is collected, how much compost is actually produced → measures both collection and usable compost output。理由：回収と完成品の両指標。
• 20：receiving more scraps does not automatically mean the project is effective → higher collection volumes do not necessarily show success。理由：効果の判定を過大化しない。

意味が変わる誤った言い換え8例

夜間の街灯と調光

• 誤例1：All streets become darker permanently. 原文でその強さの断定ができるか確認してください。
• 誤例2：The lights may have already prevented every accident. 原文でその強さの断定ができるか確認してください。

地域のスポーツ用具貸出

• 誤例3：The center has already supplied equipment to every child. 原文でその強さの断定ができるか確認してください。
• 誤例4：Donated equipment never needs safety checks. 原文でその強さの断定ができるか確認してください。

地域の聞き書きアーカイブ

• 誤例5：Every recorded account is inaccurate. 原文でその強さの断定ができるか確認してください。
• 誤例6：All recordings will be released without conditions. 原文でその強さの断定ができるか確認してください。

食品廃棄物の堆肥化

• 誤例7：All food scraps can be composted safely. 原文でその強さの断定ができるか確認してください。
• 誤例8：The project has already cut waste in half. 原文でその強さの断定ができるか確認してください。

7日で全文の要旨を自分の言葉にする

• 1日目：街灯の調光。便益だけでなく安全上の条件を残す。
• 2日目：用具の貸出。用具の列挙をまとめて安全点検を残す。
• 3日目：聞き書き。本人同意と情報の不確実性を残す。
• 4日目：堆肥化。廃棄物削減だけでなく衛生と運用の条件を残す。
• 5日目：言い換え20組を見ず、自分の英文へ変える。
• 6日目：モデル要約を隠して4題から2題を60〜70語で再作成。
• 7日目：協会公式過去問の未見の要約を解き、語数・要点・条件を検証。

よくある質問

原文の単語を使うだけで0点になりますか？

そのような単純な採点基準は確認していません。意味を正しく保って全体をまとめることが重要です。

言い換えるため難しい語を使うべきですか？

難語より自然で正確な英語を優先します。意味や確実性を変えないように注意してください。

準1級の要約は何語ですか？

2025年度以降の公式指示では60〜70語です。

however以降の内容を省いてよいですか？

重要な対比・課題を示している場合は残す必要があります。

文章中の具体例は全部要約へ入れますか？

中心情報を示す必要な例を選び、同種の例は上位概念へまとめることができます。

このモデルは英検協会の公式解答ですか？

いいえ。慶英会の独自教材です。

慶英会の準1級要約・個別指導

慶英会では本文の理解・重要情報の選択・自然な言い換え・英文法を分けて添削し、初見の要約でも重要な情報を正確に伝えられる状態を目指します。最大1か月完全無料体験・学習相談はこちら。

参考にした主な公式情報

• 日本英語検定協会「準1級の試験内容」
• 日本英語検定協会「英文要約の2025年度指示変更」
• 日本英語検定協会「準1級の公式過去問」

情報確認：2026年10月26日。4長文、改善モデル、言い換え20組、誤り8例はすべて慶英会が独自制作した教材で、公式の採点済み答案ではありません。

最大1ヶ月無料体験授業受付中！（残り枠わずかです！）

最大1ヶ月の「完全無料」指導体験
平均2~3時間のレッスン ＋ 毎日LINEサポート付き

ご入塾前に、慶英会の圧倒的な指導品質をじっくりご体感ください。

無料体験だけで成績が上がる方も続出!!
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。

⚠️【塾長直接指導の残り枠わずか】
枠が埋まり次第終了となります。お早めにお申し込みください。

最大1ヶ月無料体験（残り枠わずか）Eメールでのお申し込み