英検1級 面接対策

5つのスピーチ題から1つを選び、1分間で考えをまとめたあと、2分間でスピーチしてください。

1. Should governments regulate the use of artificial intelligence more strictly? — 政府はAI(人工知能)の利用をより厳しく規制すべきか。 ★ この題のスピーチ例
2. Is social media doing more harm than good to society? — ソーシャルメディアは社会に利益より害をもたらしているか。
3. Should children be given smartphones before the age of thirteen? — 13歳になる前に子どもにスマートフォンを持たせるべきか。
4. Will technology eventually replace the need for human teachers? — テクノロジーはやがて人間の教師の必要性に取って代わるか。
5. Should companies be allowed to collect personal data without users' explicit consent? — 企業は利用者の明確な同意なしに個人データを収集することを許されるべきか。

I believe governments should regulate the use of artificial intelligence more strictly, and I would like to explain two reasons for this view.

First, AI systems are already making decisions that directly affect people's lives, from approving loans to screening job applicants, yet these systems often operate without sufficient transparency. Without clear regulation, it is difficult for citizens to understand or challenge decisions made by algorithms, which raises serious concerns about fairness and accountability.

Second, the pace of AI development is outstripping the ability of existing laws to address new risks, such as the spread of deepfakes or the misuse of personal data. If governments wait too long to act, harmful practices may become deeply embedded in industries before any rules are put in place, making them much harder to reverse.

Of course, regulation should be carefully designed so that it does not stifle beneficial innovation. Governments could work closely with technology companies and independent experts to create flexible frameworks that protect the public while still allowing progress.

For these reasons, I firmly believe that stricter, well-designed regulation is necessary to ensure that artificial intelligence develops in a way that benefits society as a whole, rather than causing unintended harm.

導入で結論(規制に賛成)を述べたあと、理由を2つ、firstとsecondで整理しています。第2段落は透明性の欠如、第3段落は法整備の遅れという具体的な根拠です。最後に反対意見(行き過ぎた規制はイノベーションを妨げる)に触れてから、結論で主張を繰り返す構成が1級スピーチの型として使えます。

5つのスピーチ題から1つを選び、1分間で考えをまとめたあと、2分間でスピーチしてください。

1. Should single-use plastics be banned worldwide? — 使い捨てプラスチックは世界的に禁止すべきか。
2. Is it fair to ask developing countries to reduce carbon emissions at the same pace as developed countries? — 発展途上国に先進国と同じ速さで二酸化炭素排出量を削減するよう求めるのは公平か。
3. Should individuals bear more responsibility than corporations for fighting climate change? — 気候変動と闘ううえで、個人は企業より大きな責任を負うべきか。 ★ この題のスピーチ例
4. Will renewable energy be able to fully replace fossil fuels within the next fifty years? — 再生可能エネルギーは今後50年で化石燃料に完全に取って代われるか。
5. Should meat consumption be taxed to reduce its environmental impact? — 環境への影響を減らすために肉の消費に課税すべきか。

I do not believe individuals should bear more responsibility than corporations for fighting climate change, and I would like to explain why.

To begin with, a relatively small number of large corporations are responsible for the vast majority of global greenhouse gas emissions. No matter how carefully individuals reduce their personal energy use, these efforts cannot offset the scale of emissions produced by industrial activity, transportation networks, and energy production.

In addition, individuals often have limited power to change the systems they depend on. A person may want to avoid plastic packaging, for instance, but if every product on the shelf is wrapped in plastic, that choice is effectively taken away from them. Real change requires corporations to redesign their products and supply chains.

This does not mean individual action is meaningless. Small changes in daily habits can still matter, and public pressure from consumers can push companies toward more responsible practices.

However, placing the main burden on individuals risks distracting attention from the corporations and industries that have the greatest power to reduce emissions. For this reason, I believe corporations, supported by strong government regulation, should carry the greater share of responsibility.

第2段落で「大企業の排出量の規模」、第3段落で「個人の選択には限界がある」という2つの根拠を示し、第4段落で反対意見(個人の行動にも意味がある)を認めたうえで、結論で主張に戻る構成です。concede(譲歩)してから主張を強める型は1級スピーチで評価されやすい流れです。

5つのスピーチ題から1つを選び、1分間で考えをまとめたあと、2分間でスピーチしてください。

1. Should university education be free for all students? — 大学教育はすべての学生にとって無償であるべきか。 ★ この題のスピーチ例
2. Is standardized testing an effective way to measure a student's ability? — 標準化テストは生徒の能力を測る効果的な方法か。
3. Should schools place more emphasis on creativity than on academic knowledge? — 学校は知識の習得よりも創造性の育成を重視すべきか。
4. Is studying abroad essential for developing a global perspective? — 留学は国際的な視野を養ううえで欠かせないか。
5. Should students be allowed to choose their own subjects from an early age? — 生徒は早い段階から自分で学ぶ科目を選べるようにすべきか。

I believe that university education should be made free for all students, and I would like to give two main reasons for this position.

Firstly, access to higher education should not depend on a family's financial situation. When students are forced to take on large amounts of debt or give up their studies due to cost, society loses out on the talents and potential contributions of capable individuals who simply could not afford tuition.

Secondly, a more educated population tends to benefit the entire economy in the long run. Countries with higher rates of university graduates often see increased innovation, higher tax revenue over time, and lower rates of unemployment, which can offset the initial cost of funding free education.

Naturally, there are challenges to consider, such as how to fund this policy without raising taxes too sharply or overcrowding universities. These issues could be addressed gradually, for example by starting with free tuition for students from lower-income families before expanding the policy further.

For these reasons, I believe that working toward free university education is a worthwhile long-term investment in both individual opportunity and the strength of society as a whole.

firstly/secondlyで理由を整理し、第4段落で課題(財源やキャパシティ)にも触れることで、一方的な主張ではなく多角的に考えていることを示しています。段階的な導入案を示す締めくくりは、現実的な解決志向を評価されやすい型です。

5つのスピーチ題から1つを選び、1分間で考えをまとめたあと、2分間でスピーチしてください。

1. Should wealthy nations be required to accept more refugees? — 豊かな国々は、より多くの難民を受け入れることを求められるべきか。
2. Is globalization mainly beneficial or harmful to local cultures? — グローバル化は地域の文化に主に利益と害のどちらをもたらしているか。
3. Should international organizations have more power to intervene in domestic conflicts? — 国際機関は国内紛争に介入するより大きな権限を持つべきか。
4. Is a common global language necessary for international cooperation? — 共通の世界言語は国際協力に必要か。
5. Should tourism be restricted in places suffering from overtourism? — オーバーツーリズムに苦しむ場所では観光を制限すべきか。 ★ この題のスピーチ例

I believe that tourism should be restricted in places suffering from overtourism, and I would like to share two reasons for this view.

First, excessive numbers of visitors can seriously damage the very things that attract tourists in the first place, such as historic sites, natural landscapes, and fragile ecosystems. Once these places are degraded through overuse, the damage can take decades to repair, if it can be repaired at all.

Second, overtourism often lowers the quality of life for local residents. When a town's streets are constantly crowded, housing prices are driven up by short-term rentals, and public services are strained beyond their capacity, the people who actually live there can end up feeling like strangers in their own community.

I recognize that tourism also brings significant economic benefits, and local businesses often depend heavily on visitor spending. Restrictions should therefore be designed carefully, such as limiting daily visitor numbers or introducing entry fees, rather than banning tourism altogether.

Taking these points together, I believe that reasonable restrictions are necessary to protect both the environment and the well-being of local communities, while still allowing tourism to continue in a more sustainable way.

第2・3段落で「文化財や自然への被害」「住民の生活の質の低下」という2つの根拠を示し、第4段落で経済効果という反対材料に触れてから、第5段落で「全面禁止ではなく合理的な制限」という現実的な結論に着地する構成です。

5つのスピーチ題から1つを選び、1分間で考えをまとめたあと、2分間でスピーチしてください。

1. Should a four-day work week become the standard in most industries? — 週4日勤務は多くの業界で標準になるべきか。 ★ この題のスピーチ例
2. Is it better for young people to start their own business rather than join a large company? — 若者は大企業に入るより自分で事業を始めるほうが良いか。
3. Should there be a legal limit on how much a CEO can earn compared to average employees? — CEOの報酬に、平均的な社員と比べた法的な上限を設けるべきか。
4. Will automation create more jobs than it destroys in the long run? — 自動化は長期的に見て、失われる仕事より多くの仕事を生み出すか。
5. Should governments provide a universal basic income to all citizens? — 政府はすべての国民に普遍的な基本所得を支給すべきか。

I believe that a four-day work week should become the standard in most industries, and I would like to explain two reasons for this view.

First, research from companies that have already trialed shorter work weeks suggests that employee productivity does not necessarily fall when working hours are reduced. In many cases, workers become more focused and efficient during their working hours, partly because they have more time to rest and recover.

Second, a shorter work week can significantly improve employees' mental health and work-life balance. With an extra day off each week, people have more opportunity to spend time with family, pursue personal interests, or simply recover from work-related stress, which can reduce burnout in the long run.

I acknowledge that this model may not suit every industry, particularly those that require constant staffing, such as hospitals or emergency services. In these cases, companies would need to find creative scheduling solutions rather than applying a one-size-fits-all approach.

Taking these points together, I believe that where a four-day work week is practical, it offers clear benefits for both employees and employers, and it deserves serious consideration as a new standard.

第2段落で生産性への根拠、第3段落でメンタルヘルスへの根拠を示し、第4段落で「すべての業界には向かない」という例外を認めたうえで、結論を「where practical(実行可能な場合には)」と限定する慎重な言い回しで締めています。

5つのスピーチ題から1つを選び、1分間で考えをまとめたあと、2分間でスピーチしてください。

1. Should governments do more to support an aging population? — 政府は高齢化する人口をもっと支援すべきか。
2. Is preserving traditional culture more important than embracing globalization? — 伝統文化を守ることは、グローバル化を受け入れることより重要か。
3. Should mental health education be a required part of school curricula? — 心の健康についての教育は、学校の必修科目にすべきか。 ★ この題のスピーチ例
4. Is it the government's responsibility to regulate the food industry to fight obesity? — 肥満と闘うために食品業界を規制することは政府の責任か。
5. Should elderly people be encouraged to keep working past the traditional retirement age? — 高齢者は従来の定年を過ぎても働き続けることを勧められるべきか。

I believe that mental health education should be a required part of school curricula, and I would like to explain two main reasons for this view.

First, many mental health conditions, such as anxiety and depression, often begin during childhood or adolescence, yet young people frequently lack the language or knowledge to recognize what they are experiencing. Teaching students about mental health early can help them identify problems in themselves or their friends before those problems become more serious.

Second, mental health education can help reduce the stigma that still surrounds these issues in many societies. When students learn about mental health in the same matter-of-fact way they learn about physical health, they are more likely to seek help without feeling ashamed or embarrassed, and to support classmates who are struggling.

Some people worry that schools already have too much content to cover and that adding another subject would overwhelm the curriculum. However, mental health education does not need to be a separate, lengthy subject; it could be integrated into existing health or homeroom classes in a practical, ongoing way.

For these reasons, I believe that making mental health education a required part of school life would provide students with tools that benefit them throughout their entire lives.

第2段落で「早期発見」、第3段落で「偏見の解消」という2つの根拠を示し、第4段落でカリキュラム過多という反論に対して「独立科目でなく既存の授業に組み込む」という具体的な解決策を提示しています。反論への現実的な対応は1級で評価されやすい要素です。