영어 모의고사 (자동 편성)

Beyond restoring lost function, engineers are now exploring implants and prosthetics ①designed to give healthy people abilities beyond ordinary human limits, from night vision to reaction times faster than any athlete could achieve through training alone. Supporters frame this as simply the next step in a long history of human enhancement, no different in principle from eyeglasses or vaccines, only more direct. Critics counter that earlier enhancements ②were broadly available to anyone regardless of wealth, while cutting-edge neural and physical implants are likely ③remaining expensive for decades, potentially splitting society into those who can afford enhancement and those who cannot. If such a divide hardens, competitive advantages in school, sports, and the workplace could come to depend less on effort than on access to capital. What began as a medical tool for restoring what was lost, in other words, may end up ④redefining the baseline of what counts as an ordinary human being ⑤altogether.

As private companies develop the technology to mine asteroids for rare metals and water, a legal question once confined to science fiction has suddenly ①become urgent: who, if anyone, owns the resources of outer space? Existing international treaties state that no nation may claim sovereignty over celestial bodies, but they say remarkably little about ②whether a private company may extract and sell what it finds there. Some governments have already passed domestic laws ③granting their own companies rights to material mined in space, a move that other nations view as a unilateral attempt to settle a question that should ④decide collectively. Supporters of space mining argue that new resources could ease shortages on Earth and fund further exploration, while critics warn that treating space as an open frontier for extraction risks ⑤repeating the same environmental and political mistakes that colonization caused on Earth.

When engineers design the software ①that 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 ②minimizing 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 ③they 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 ④be settled by public opinion alone. Manufacturers, regulators, and philosophers must instead agree on transparent rules before autonomous vehicles ⑤are allowed to make such decisions on the road.

Anyone designing a presentation, a curriculum, or a grocery list should attend to a well-documented pattern in human memory known as the serial position effect. When people are asked to recall items from a list right after studying it, they ①consistently remember the items presented at the beginning and end far better than those buried in the middle. The advantage for early items, called the primacy effect, arises because those items receive ②less rehearsal and are more likely to be transferred into long-term storage before subsequent items compete for attention. The advantage for final items, known as the recency effect, occurs because those items remain ③accessible in short-term memory at the moment of recall. Middle items suffer because they must compete for ④limited rehearsal opportunities while lacking the stability afforded by extended processing. Communicators who ignore this pattern risk burying their most important point where it will predictably be forgotten. A more effective strategy, therefore, places the crucial message at the beginning or end, precisely where memory proves most ⑤reliable.

Traditional economic models predict that a rational individual offered any positive sum of money, however small, should ①accept it without hesitation, since even a modest gain is preferable to receiving nothing at all. When the proposer offers a division perceived as ②unfair, such as retaining ninety percent of the sum for themselves, the second participant frequently rejects the offer entirely, leaving both parties with nothing rather than accepting an outcome viewed as insulting. This behavior indicates that individuals value fairness as an end in itself, sometimes willingly ③sacrificing material gain to punish perceived exploitation. Neuroscientific investigations complement this finding, revealing that unfair offers activate brain regions associated with ④pleasure and negative emotion, suggesting that the rejection of unfairness is not merely a calculated strategic move but also an emotionally driven response. Such evidence challenges the assumption that economic actors pursue only their own material self-interest, demonstrating instead that considerations of equity can ⑤override the straightforward pursuit of maximum individual gain.

Millions of people now wear devices that continuously track their heart rate, sleep patterns, and daily activity, generating an ①intimate stream of health data that would have been unthinkable to collect just two decades ago. Users generally assume this information belongs to them, since it is drawn directly from their own bodies. In practice, however, the terms of service that few people read often grant the manufacturer ②narrow rights to store, analyze, and even sell anonymized versions of that data to insurers or advertisers. This arrangement becomes especially troubling when health data influences decisions far beyond fitness, such as insurance premiums or employment screening. Advocates for reform argue that biological data deserves a category of protection ③stronger than ordinary consumer information, precisely because it can never truly be ④replaced or reset once it has been ⑤exposed.

Military researchers have developed weapons systems capable of identifying and engaging targets without a human pressing the final button, a prospect that has ①alarmed arms control experts for over a decade. Advocates within defense agencies argue that autonomous systems can react faster than any human operator and may even ②reduce casualties by removing fear and fatigue from split-second decisions. Human rights organizations counter that removing a person from the final decision strips away moral responsibility at the exact moment it matters most, since a machine cannot be held ③accountable in any meaningful sense. Diplomatic negotiations toward an international treaty have repeatedly ④succeeded, partly because military powers disagree on how to define autonomy precisely enough to regulate it. Meanwhile, the underlying technology continues to ⑤advance regardless of whether the diplomacy meant to govern it keeps pace.

Many large companies now rely on artificial intelligence to screen job applications before a human ever sees them. These systems promise efficiency, scanning thousands of resumes in seconds and ranking candidates according to patterns drawn from previous hiring decisions. However, this reliance on historical data creates a troubling risk. If a company's past hiring favored a particular group, the algorithm may learn to treat that pattern as a marker of success and quietly reproduce it, even when no one intended discrimination. Unlike a human interviewer, the system offers no explanation for its choices, which means that _______________. Some researchers argue that fairness cannot be added afterward; it must be built into the system's design from the very beginning.

Facial recognition software has moved rapidly from airport security lines into shopping malls, schools, and even private apartment buildings. (A) Independent studies, however, have repeatedly found that many commercial systems perform less accurately on women and people with darker skin tones. (B) Proponents note that the technology can unlock doors, catch shoplifters, and speed up identity checks far faster than any human guard could manage. (C) Several cities have already reported cases in which an innocent person was detained based on a flawed match.

This puzzling inconsistency is not, as it turns out, a matter of chance. Two patients diagnosed with the same disease and prescribed the same medication can respond in strikingly different ways, one recovering quickly while the other experiences little benefit or even harmful side effects. ( ① ) Precision medicine starts from the observation that this variation often traces back to differences buried in each patient's genome. ( ② ) These differences determine how efficiently a body absorbs, breaks down, or responds to a given drug. ( ③ ) By sequencing a patient's DNA before treatment begins, doctors can increasingly predict which medication is likely to work best and at what dose, replacing a strategy once described as one-size-fits-all with something closer to a tailored fit. ( ④ ) This approach has proven especially valuable in cancer treatment, where tumors from two patients with the same diagnosis may carry entirely different genetic mutations that respond to entirely different drugs. ( ⑤ ) Widespread adoption still faces real obstacles, since genetic sequencing remains expensive in many regions and few doctors have been trained to interpret the flood of genetic data such tests now produce.