背景知識
IELTS Speaking は試験官との 1対1の会話形式 で行われる口頭試験です。今回のテーマ「Environment & Sustainability（環境・持続可能性）」はPart 1で日々の環境意識、Part 2では個人の経験談ではなく「解決すべき環境問題」という抽象的テーマそのものを構造立てて描写する練習、Part 3ではif節を使った仮定の議論に発展します。
| パート | 形式 | 時間 | ポイント |
|---|---|---|---|
| Part 1 | 日常的な質問（3〜4問） | 4〜5分 | 流暢さ・自然さを見せる |
| Part 2 | Cue Card スピーチ（抽象テーマ） | 準備1分+1〜2分 | 社会問題を構造的に分析・描写できるか |
| Part 3 | 抽象的な議論（if節中心） | 4〜5分 | 条件文の使い分け・高度な語彙 |
1. 抽象的テーマの詳細描写 — これまでのCue Cardは「あなたが経験した出来事」を語る形式でしたが、今回は「あなたの国が解決すべき環境問題」という分析対象を "what / cause / effect / solution" の4段階で構造的に描写する練習です。
2. if節を含む複合文（Conditionals） — 第1条件文（If + 現在形, will/might + 動詞）と第2条件文（If + 過去形, would/could + 動詞）を使い分け、「実現しやすい仮定」と「非現実的・仮想の仮定」を区別して答える力を鍛えます。
これまで Media & Social Media（Day 115）→ Education（Day 078）→ Health（Day 087）→ Travel（Day 094）→ Work（Day 101）→ Free Time（Day 108）と扱ってきましたが、今回は if節を使った政策議論に最も向いているトピック に取り組みます。
採点基準 — Speaking Band Descriptor
| Band | Fluency & Coherence | Lexical Resource | Grammatical Range | Pronunciation |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Band 9.0 | ほぼ完全な流暢さ。話題を自由に展開 | 高度で自然なコロケーション・イディオム | 完全に正確かつ多様な文構造 | 完全に明瞭。抑揚が自然でネイティブに近い |
| Band 7.0 | 多少の自己修正はあるが流暢に話せる | 幅広い語彙を柔軟に使用 | 複雑な文法を概ね正確に使用 | 明瞭で理解しやすい。アクセントはOK |
| Band 6.5 ★目標 | ある程度流暢。条件文で仮定の議論を展開できる | 中程度〜やや高度な語彙。社会問題を客観的に描写できる | 複文＋第1・第2条件文を使い分け | 概ね理解可能。発音パターンが安定 |
| Band 5.5 | 単純な構造のみ。仮定の話が苦手 | 限られた語彙。繰り返しが多い | 基本文法のみ。条件文はほぼ使えない | 発音ミスが多く、理解に支障をきたす |
Part 1
日常的な質問
- Do you do anything to protect the environment in your daily life?
- Is recycling common in your country?
- Has your attitude towards the environment changed over the years?
- Do you think individuals or governments are more responsible for protecting the environment?
Part 2
Cue Card スピーチ（抽象テーマ）
- what the problem is
- what causes it
- what effects it has on people or the environment
Part 3
抽象的な議論
- If governments introduced stricter environmental regulations, what impact might that have on businesses?
- What would happen if renewable energy became cheaper than fossil fuels?
- Do you think individuals can make a real difference to environmental problems, or is large-scale change only possible through policy?
- How might people's lifestyles change if climate change continues to get worse?
構成ガイド
Part 1 の答え方
OK例: "I try to, yes — I recycle fairly consistently and avoid single-use plastics where I can. That said, I'll admit I'm not always as diligent as I should be, especially when it's inconvenient." ← 具体性＋率直な自己評価
Part 2（抽象的テーマの描写）の推奨構成
| セクション | 内容 | 語数目安 |
|---|---|---|
| 導入 | "One environmental problem I think is particularly pressing in my country is [問題]..." | 15〜20語 |
| What | 問題の具体的な内容・規模感 | 30〜40語 |
| Cause | なぜその問題が起きているか | 30〜40語 |
| Effect | 人・環境にどんな影響を与えているか | 30〜40語 |
| Solution | 何がなされるべきか、誰が責任を持つべきか | 35〜45語 |
Part 3 の答え方（Phase 3・条件文強化版）
1. 第1条件文（現実的な仮定）: "If the government introduced stricter regulations, businesses would likely have to adapt fairly quickly."
2. 第2条件文（仮想的な仮定）: "If renewable energy were cheaper than fossil fuels, I think most industries would switch almost overnight."
3. 理由: "This is mainly because ..."
4. 反対意見への目配せ: "That said, it's worth considering that ..."
5. 締め（バランス）: "On balance, I'd say ..."
解答欄（自由記述）
Part 2のCue Cardスピーチ原稿、またはPart 3の解答メモをここに書いてみましょう。
有用語彙・表現
| 表現 | 意味・使い方 | 例文 |
|---|---|---|
| carbon footprint | 二酸化炭素排出量 | Flying frequently significantly increases your carbon footprint. |
| renewable energy | 再生可能エネルギー | Investment in renewable energy has grown rapidly over the past decade. |
| single-use plastics | 使い捨てプラスチック | Many countries have banned single-use plastics in supermarkets. |
| greenhouse gas emissions | 温室効果ガス排出 | Reducing greenhouse gas emissions is essential to slowing climate change. |
| to phase out ~ | 〜を段階的に廃止する | Several countries plan to phase out petrol cars by 2035. |
| sustainable / sustainability | 持続可能な／持続可能性 | Sustainability should be a core consideration in urban planning. |
| biodiversity | 生物多様性 | Deforestation is a major threat to biodiversity. |
| an incentive (for businesses to ~) | （企業が〜する）インセンティブ・動機付け | Tax breaks could act as an incentive for businesses to go green. |
| to hold someone accountable | 〜に責任を負わせる | Large corporations should be held accountable for their environmental impact. |
| extreme weather events | 異常気象 | Extreme weather events have become noticeably more frequent in recent years. |
| a knock-on effect | 波及効果・連鎖的影響 | Deforestation has a knock-on effect on local rainfall patterns. |
| grassroots (movement/initiative) | 草の根の（運動・取り組み） | Grassroots initiatives can sometimes drive change faster than government policy. |
ヒント
Part 2 は 「個人の思い出」ではなく「社会問題の分析」です。身近な環境問題（大気汚染・ゴミ問題・都市の緑地減少・過剰包装など）を1つ選び、What→Cause→Effect→Solutionの順で客観的に整理してください。
- 自分の国・地域で実際に見聞きしたことを題材にすると具体性が出る
- 「原因」と「影響」を対比させると、Coherenceのスコアが上がる
- 解決策を語る動詞: "invest in", "enforce", "phase out", "raise awareness of"
条件文を使って両面から論じるのが Band 6.5+ のアプローチ
| 現実的な仮定（第1条件文） | 仮想的な仮定（第2条件文） |
|---|---|
| If regulations are introduced, companies will need to adapt. | If fossil fuels disappeared overnight, the economy would collapse. |
| If people recycle more, waste will decrease. | If everyone drove electric cars, air quality would improve dramatically. |
| 個人の行動が重要という論拠 | 政策・大規模な変化が必要という論拠 |
|---|---|
| 集合的な行動が需要を変える（消費行動） | 個人の努力だけでは規模が足りない |
| 意識向上が政治的圧力につながる | 企業・国家レベルの排出量が圧倒的に大きい |
「個人 vs 政策」の問いは必ず両論を示し、"If ... , I think ... . Ultimately, though, ..." のように条件文＋結論の型でまとめましょう。
"One environmental problem I think is particularly pressing in my country is [問題]."
"This is largely caused by [原因]."
"It has a significant impact on [影響を受けるもの], particularly in terms of [具体的な影響]."
"If [解決策の条件], I think [結果]. Ultimately, though, I believe [誰が対応すべきか]."
実際の身近な問題に置き換えて練習しましょう。
モデル解答（Band 7.5〜8.0相当）
Part 1 モデル解答
I try to, yes — I recycle fairly consistently and avoid single-use plastics where I can. That said, I'll admit I'm not always as diligent as I should be, especially when it's inconvenient.
It's becoming more common, definitely, though it varies quite a bit depending on the region. Urban areas tend to have well-established recycling systems, whereas some rural areas still lag behind a little.
Quite a lot, actually. I used to think of environmental issues as somewhat distant, but seeing more extreme weather events firsthand has made it feel a lot more urgent and personal.
I'd say it's a shared responsibility, though governments arguably have more leverage. Individual choices matter, but without proper regulation, large-scale change is hard to achieve.
Part 2 モデル解答（Cue Card）
導入 One environmental problem I think is particularly pressing in my country is air pollution, especially in major cities.
What The issue is that air quality in urban areas regularly falls below recommended safety levels, particularly during winter months, to the point where it's sometimes visibly hazy even in the middle of the day.
Cause This is largely caused by a combination of vehicle emissions, industrial activity on the outskirts of cities, and, in some regions, agricultural burning that drifts into populated areas. Rapid urbanisation hasn't been matched by equivalent investment in cleaner infrastructure, which has made the problem worse over time.
Effect It has a significant impact on public health — respiratory illnesses have reportedly increased, and vulnerable groups like children and the elderly are particularly affected. There's also an economic cost, since poor air quality can reduce productivity and increase healthcare spending.
Solution If the government invested more heavily in public transport and enforced stricter emissions standards for vehicles and factories, I think air quality would improve considerably within a decade or so. Individuals can help too, by relying less on private cars, but ultimately I believe this is a problem that requires coordinated policy rather than individual effort alone, simply because of the scale involved.
Part 3 モデル解答
In the short term, it would probably increase costs, particularly for industries that rely heavily on fossil fuels or produce a lot of waste — they'd need to invest in cleaner technology or adjust their processes, which isn't cheap. That said, if the regulations were introduced gradually and paired with incentives, businesses would likely have time to adapt without it being too disruptive. In the long run, it could even become a competitive advantage, since sustainability is increasingly something consumers care about.
If that happened, I think the shift away from fossil fuels would accelerate dramatically, simply because cost is one of the biggest barriers right now. Businesses and even individual households would have a strong financial incentive to switch, rather than an environmental or ethical one, which tends to be a much more powerful driver of behaviour. That said, the transition wouldn't be instant — existing infrastructure would still need to be replaced, which takes time and investment.
I'd say it's a bit of both, though policy probably carries more weight. Individual actions — recycling, reducing waste, and so on — do matter, and collectively they can shift consumer demand in ways that push companies to change. But if we're talking about problems on the scale of climate change, I think it's fairly clear that meaningful progress requires coordinated policy, since individual efforts alone simply can't match the emissions produced by large industries.
If current trends continue, I'd expect people to rely more heavily on air conditioning and indoor spaces during extreme heat, which itself creates a kind of vicious cycle in terms of energy consumption. We might also see changes in diet and consumption habits, with more emphasis on locally sourced or plant-based food as a way of reducing environmental impact. On a larger scale, if certain regions became genuinely uninhabitable, we'd likely see significant population displacement, which raises its own set of social and economic challenges.
モデル解答の解説
Part 2では"What causes it? / What effects does it have? / What should be done?"という4段階の構造が明確に示され、個人の思い出ではなく社会問題として一貫して描写できている。Part 3では条件文（if節）が論理展開の軸になり、"In the short term... In the long run..."のような時間軸の対比も加わって議論に深みを出している。
高度な語彙・コロケーションの使用:
- "vehicle emissions"（車両の排出ガス）— 環境議論の頻出コロケーション
- "rapid urbanisation"（急速な都市化）— 原因を説明する定番表現
- "a competitive advantage"（競争上の優位性）— ビジネス文脈への応用語彙
- "a vicious cycle"（悪循環）— Band 7.0+で好まれる比喩表現
- "population displacement"（人口移動・避難）— やや高度な複合名詞
Phase 3で重視するif節構文の活用:
- "If the regulations were introduced gradually..., businesses would likely have time to adapt" — 第2条件文（仮想的シナリオ）
- "If that happened, I think the shift... would accelerate" — 仮定の帰結を明確に示す条件文
- "if we're talking about problems on the scale of climate change" — if節を導入句として使う応用パターン
- "if certain regions became genuinely uninhabitable, we'd likely see..." — 複合的な仮定＋推量のwould
発音のポイント（カタカナ参考）:
- sustainability → サステイナビリティ（第4音節にアクセント）
- emissions → イミッションズ（第2音節にアクセント）
- infrastructure → インフラストラクチャー（第1音節にアクセント、日本語より弱く）
- displacement → ディスプレイスメント（第2音節にアクセント）
よくある日本人のミス
| ミスの例 | 原因 | 正しい書き方 |
|---|---|---|
| If government will introduce regulations, businesses will adapt. | if節の中にwillを使ってしまう | If the government introduces regulations, businesses will adapt. |
| If I am the government, I will solve it. | 第2条件文の動詞が過去形になっていない | If I were the government, I would try to solve it. |
| Environment problem is very important. | 名詞の連結エラー（environmentが形容詞的に使われる際にsが必要） | Environmental problems are very important. |
| I think government should do something, and people also. | 文が羅列的で接続が不自然 | I think the government should take action, and individuals have a role to play too. |
| It effect many people. | 動詞affectと名詞effectの混同 | It affects a lot of people. |
次のステップ
次回予告（来週金曜 Speaking）: テーマ「Technology & Innovation」。Part 3では倒置構文（Inversion）を用いた強調表現に挑戦する。