ユキT英検1級 ― 【総合模擬問題②｜（ライティング）】 ―2026-FEB-24 (Tue.)
『小さく続けて、大きく育てる』。
学びは、瞬間の才能ではありません。
続けた人の中で、静かに育つ力です。
今日できたなら誇りなさい。
今日できなかったなら、明日戻ればいい。
それで十分です。
=======================================
【総合回②｜（ライティング）】
Eiken Grade 1 Integrated Writing
Writing Prompt（1題だけ）
Some people argue that wealthy countries should take greater responsibility for climate action.
Others claim that all countries should reduce emissions equally.
Which view do you agree with? Support your answer with reasons and examples.
Outline（そのまま使える型）
Introduction
State your position clearly.
Define the core lens: responsibility + fairness.
Body 1: Historical responsibility / capability
Wealthy countries: larger past emissions + more resources.
Accountability is not “punishment,” but realistic capacity.
Body 2: Practical design (mitigation + adaptation) & indicators
Two pillars; balance differs by country.
Use indicators carefully (mean vs distribution; who benefits/loses).
Avoid policies that look good on averages but harm vulnerable groups.
Counterargument + Rebuttal
“Equal cuts are fair.”
Rebut: identical rules ignore unequal starting points and risk backlash.
Conclusion
Emphasize trade-offs and the need to prevent tipping points.
Close with “rooted reasoning,” not slogans.
Model Essay（約200語）
I agree that wealthy countries should take greater responsibility for climate action. This view is not based on moral superiority, but on responsibility and feasibility. Industrialized nations have benefited from decades of high emissions, and they also possess stronger financial and technological capacity. If we ignore these facts, we risk designing “equal” rules that are unfair in practice.
Climate policy also requires structured thinking. There are two pillars: mitigation and adaptation. Wealthy countries can accelerate mitigation through clean technology and finance, while supporting adaptation in regions that face immediate damage. Treating all countries as identical would reduce cooperation and slow progress.
Some argue that equal reductions are the only fair approach. However, identical targets often hide unequal burdens. Like misleading averages, a single rule can conceal distributional impacts: vulnerable communities may pay the highest price for policies that look successful on paper.
Every plan involves trade-offs, but postponing action increases the risk of crossing tipping points. For that reason, greater responsibility for wealthy countries is not charity. It is a realistic design choice to prevent irreversible damage and build a stable, workable global framework.
Check（3つだけ）
trade-off を言えた？
指標の限界（平均 vs 分布）を触れた？
結論が「根拠の道筋」で締まってる？
=======================================
（終わり）
※本稿は人工知能（AI）と共同制作し、教育目的でテクノスイート（川窪孝雄）が監修・編集しています。
