【英検1級面接】直前ファイナルチェックリスト！合格テンプレBEST50 ＆絶対やるべき最終確認

I believe that generative AI tools should not be banned in schools and universities. I have two reasons to support this opinion.

First and foremost, AI is already an integral part of the modern workplace, and education should prepare students for the real world. Banning AI in schools would be like banning calculators in math class decades ago — it would put students at a disadvantage. Instead, schools should teach students how to use AI responsibly and critically evaluate its outputs.

Second, AI tools can actually enhance learning when used properly. For instance, students can use AI as a personalized tutor to explain complex concepts, practice language skills, or explore different perspectives on a topic. Research from several universities has shown that students who use AI as a learning aid, rather than a shortcut, demonstrate deeper understanding.

For these reasons, I firmly believe that the focus should be on teaching responsible AI use rather than imposing blanket bans.

💬 想定Q&A：

Q: But don’t AI tools enable plagiarism and undermine academic integrity?

A: That’s a valid concern. However, I would argue that plagiarism existed long before AI. The solution is to redesign assessments — for example, oral exams and project-based learning — rather than banning a tool. Universities should adapt, not retreat.

I’d like to argue that reversing Japan’s declining birth rate is extremely difficult, but not impossible, if the government takes bold action.

First, the root causes — such as high childcare costs, gender inequality in the workplace, and Japan’s demanding work culture — require fundamental societal reform. Countries like France and Sweden have successfully raised their birth rates by implementing generous parental leave, affordable childcare, and flexible work arrangements. Japan must follow suit with equally ambitious policies.

Second, Japan should also consider immigration as part of the solution. While increasing the birth rate takes decades to show results, welcoming skilled immigrants can immediately address labor shortages and bring economic vitality. Countries like Canada have demonstrated that well-managed immigration can strengthen a society both economically and culturally.

In conclusion, while I acknowledge the counterarguments, I still maintain that a combination of domestic reform and immigration policy can at least mitigate, if not fully reverse, this trend.

💬 想定Q&A：

Q: Isn’t immigration controversial in Japan? How would you address public resistance?

A: That’s an important point. Education and gradual integration programs are key. Japan’s successful examples in cities like Hamamatsu, which has a significant international community, show that coexistence is possible when local governments invest in support systems.

I firmly believe that employers should be legally required to provide mental health support.

First, mental health issues in the workplace have reached epidemic proportions. According to the WHO, depression and anxiety cost the global economy an estimated one trillion dollars per year in lost productivity. Legally mandating mental health support would force companies to invest in prevention rather than dealing with the consequences after employees burn out or leave.

Second, this benefits both employees and employers. Companies that provide mental health support see lower absenteeism, higher employee retention, and improved performance. A case in point is Japan’s “stress check” program introduced in 2015, which, while imperfect, has raised awareness and created a foundation for more comprehensive workplace mental health measures.

For these reasons, I believe that mental health support should be a legal obligation, not an optional perk.

💬 想定Q&A：

Q: Wouldn’t this place an unfair financial burden on small businesses?

A: That may be true in the short term. However, in the long run, the cost of employee turnover and sick leave far exceeds the cost of mental health programs. The government could also offer subsidies or tax incentives to help small businesses comply.

This is a multifaceted issue, but overall, I firmly believe that space exploration is not a waste of money.

First, the technologies developed through space research have enormous practical benefits on Earth. GPS, water purification systems, and even medical imaging technology all originated from space programs. These spin-off technologies have improved countless lives and generated economic value far exceeding the initial investment in space exploration.

Second, humanity faces existential risks — climate change, asteroid impacts, and resource depletion — that can only be addressed through understanding and eventually utilizing space. Investing in space exploration today is essentially investing in the long-term survival of our species.

To sum up, space exploration and solving Earth’s problems are not mutually exclusive. The evidence strongly suggests that space research benefits both our planet and our future.

💬 想定Q&A：

Q: Should private companies like SpaceX lead space exploration instead of governments?

A: I think a multi-pronged approach is needed. Private companies bring efficiency and innovation, while government agencies ensure that space remains a shared resource for all of humanity. Collaboration between the two, as we’ve seen with NASA and SpaceX, is the ideal model.

I believe that social media and misinformation pose a serious threat to democracy. There are several compelling reasons for this.

First, social media algorithms are designed to maximize engagement, which often means promoting sensational and divisive content. This creates echo chambers where people are only exposed to information that confirms their existing beliefs. As a result, citizens become increasingly polarized and unable to engage in constructive democratic debate.

Second, the rapid spread of misinformation on social media platforms can directly influence election outcomes. We have seen this in multiple countries where false narratives went viral and significantly shaped public opinion before they could be fact-checked. When voters make decisions based on false information, the very foundation of democracy — informed consent — is compromised.

In conclusion, while I acknowledge the counterarguments — that social media can also empower grassroots movements — I still maintain that the net effect on democracy has been largely negative, and urgent regulatory action is needed.

💬 想定Q&A：

Q: Isn’t regulating social media a form of censorship?

A: I see your point, and that is a legitimate concern. Nevertheless, there is a difference between censorship and requiring platforms to be transparent about their algorithms and to remove demonstrably false information. Just as we have regulations for TV and newspapers, similar standards should apply to social media.