영어 모의고사 (자동 편성)

Hospitals are increasingly adopting artificial intelligence tools that can scan medical images and flag potential tumors faster and, in some trials, more accurately than experienced radiologists. Patients understandably welcome any technology that catches disease earlier, yet the growing reliance on these tools raises an uncomfortable legal question that hospitals ① have only begun to address. When an AI system misses a diagnosis that a human doctor would likely ② have caught, responsibility becomes difficult to assign. The doctor may argue that they simply trusted a tool the hospital ③ required them to use, the hospital may argue that the software company guaranteed its accuracy, and the software company may argue that no algorithm can ④ expect to be perfect. Until legal systems clarify this chain of responsibility, patients harmed by an algorithmic error may find themselves with no clear party ⑤ to hold accountable.

When engineers design the software ① that controls a self-driving car, they inevitably face a question that philosophers have debated for decades. If a crash becomes unavoidable, should the vehicle protect its own passenger at all costs, or should it be programmed ② minimizing total harm, even if that means steering toward the person inside? Surveys reveal an uncomfortable contradiction: most people say a car should be programmed to save the greater number of lives, yet the same people admit ③ they would never buy a vehicle designed to sacrifice its own owner. This gap between the ideal and the personal choice suggests that ethical programming cannot ④ be settled by public opinion alone. Manufacturers, regulators, and philosophers must instead agree on transparent rules before autonomous vehicles ⑤ are allowed to make such decisions on the road.

Facing a shortage of caregivers and a rapidly aging population, several countries have begun ① deploying robots designed to remind elderly residents to take medication, monitor for falls, and even offer simple conversation throughout the day. Early trials show that many residents report ② reduced loneliness, particularly when a robot's presence allows an overworked human staff member to spend a few extra minutes with each patient rather than ③ rushing between rooms. Critics, however, worry that this framing quietly shifts the goal of care: instead of asking how technology can support human connection, institutions may come to treat a robot's companionship as an acceptable substitute for it, especially in facilities already ④ struggle with tight budgets. Advocates for the elderly argue that robots should be evaluated strictly as tools that free up human time for human contact, never as a lower-cost replacement for the contact itself, which ⑤ remains irreplaceable.

Generative AI systems learn to write, draw, and compose by studying ① enormous collections of existing human work, much of which was created without the artists' knowledge or consent. Supporters of the technology argue that this process resembles how a human student learns by studying the masters, ② absorbing style and technique rather than copying specific pieces. Critics respond that the comparison ③ holds up perfectly at scale, since a single AI model can absorb millions of works in days. Courts around the world are now being asked to decide whether training an algorithm on copyrighted material counts as fair use or as ④ infringement. Until clearer rules emerge, artists, developers, and publishers remain locked in a legal ⑤ gray zone that satisfies almost no one.

Every time a smartphone connects to a network, it records a data point that can later map where its owner has been. The real danger emerges when location data from multiple sources is combined. Companies often argue that anonymized data cannot be traced back to individuals, yet researchers have repeatedly shown that _______________. As a result, privacy experts increasingly insist that location data deserves the same legal protection as medical records.

Mental accounting also shapes how consumers respond to windfalls of different sizes and origins. (A) A modest windfall, such as a small cash-back reward, tends to be absorbed into everyday spending and disappears almost unnoticed within a household's general budget. (B) A substantial windfall, by contrast, such as an inheritance or a large bonus, is more likely to be mentally assigned to a separate category, sometimes labeled as "extra" money reserved for investment or a significant purchase. (C) This difference in treatment suggests that the perceived significance of a sum, rather than its objective purchasing power, determines the mental account into which it is placed.

City governments increasingly market dense networks of surveillance cameras as a straightforward safety upgrade, promising faster emergency response and lower crime rates. (A) Yet the same infrastructure that catches criminals also creates a permanent record of where ordinary, law-abiding citizens go about their daily lives. (B) In many cases, the technology delivers exactly what it promises, helping investigators identify suspects within hours rather than weeks. (C) Once a camera network exists, its purpose can quietly expand, from tracking traffic accidents to monitoring political protests, often without new public debate.

During recent years, this gap became impossible to ignore, as families in rural areas or low-income neighborhoods struggled to complete schoolwork that assumed a stable connection and a personal device. As more schools shift toward digital textbooks and online assignments, a student without reliable internet access at home faces a disadvantage that has little to do with talent or effort. ( ① ) Some policymakers initially treated internet access as a convenience, comparable to cable television, rather than as infrastructure essential to modern life. ( ② ) That assumption is increasingly being reconsidered, particularly as more essential services move online by default. ( ③ ) Closing this divide will require more than simply distributing devices. ( ④ ) It will demand sustained investment in the physical networks that carry information into every home, regardless of income or location. ( ⑤ )

Meanwhile, the underlying technology continues to advance regardless of whether the diplomacy meant to govern it keeps pace. Military researchers have developed weapons systems capable of identifying and engaging targets without a human pressing the final button, a prospect that has alarmed arms control experts for over a decade. ( ① ) Advocates within defense agencies argue that autonomous systems can react faster than any human operator and may even reduce casualties. ( ② ) Human rights organizations counter that removing a person from the final decision strips away moral responsibility at the exact moment it matters most. ( ③ ) Diplomatic negotiations toward an international treaty have repeatedly stalled, partly because military powers disagree on how to define autonomy precisely enough to regulate it. ( ④ ) This disagreement has left the treaty process without a clear path forward. ( ⑤ )

Several cities have already reported cases in which an innocent person was detained based on a flawed match. Facial recognition software has moved rapidly from airport security lines into shopping malls, schools, and even private apartment buildings, promising convenience in exchange for a quick scan of one's face. ( ① ) Proponents note that the technology can unlock doors, catch shoplifters, and speed up identity checks far faster than any human guard could manage. ( ② ) Independent studies, however, have repeatedly found that many commercial systems perform less accurately on women and people with darker skin tones. ( ③ ) This gap can lead to wrongful identification with serious real-world consequences. ( ④ ) Until these systems can prove equally reliable for everyone, critics argue, deploying them at all represents a form of quiet discrimination dressed up as efficiency. ( ⑤ )