영어 모의고사 (자동 편성)

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.

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.

Devices that translate brain activity directly into digital commands have moved from laboratory experiments to real medical use. As the technology improves, some developers envision a future in which these interfaces extend beyond restoring lost function toward enhancing healthy minds. This prospect raises a philosophical question: if a device can alter memory, mood, or decision-making, _______________. Neuroethicists argue that mental privacy may need to be recognized as a fundamental right before this technology becomes widespread.

As private companies develop the technology to mine asteroids for rare metals and water, a legal question has become urgent: who 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 whether a private company may extract and sell what it finds there. Some governments have already passed domestic laws granting their own companies rights to material mined in space, a move that other nations view as _______________.

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.

Marketers have long recognized that perceived scarcity can dramatically increase a product's desirability, even when the item's intrinsic qualities remain entirely unchanged. A retailer who labels a product as "limited edition" or displays a countdown timer beside a discounted offer prompts customers to make hurried purchase decisions they might otherwise postpone or reconsider. Consumers who later reflect calmly on such purchases frequently discover that the item's actual usefulness fell well short of the ___________ they experienced at the moment of decision.

Not every default setting, however, produces beneficial outcomes for the people subject to it. (A) A default that automatically enrolls customers in a costly subscription renewal, for example, can generate continued revenue for a company precisely because inertia discourages customers from canceling, even when they would prefer to stop paying. (B) This example illustrates that the power of defaults is ethically neutral in itself, capable of serving either the interests of the individual or the interests of whoever designs the choice environment. (C) Regulators in several jurisdictions have responded by requiring companies to make cancellation just as simple as enrollment, reducing the asymmetry that defaults can otherwise exploit.

The ethical debate surrounding nudging often intensifies when the technique is applied to particularly vulnerable populations. (A) Elderly individuals facing complex decisions about long-term care, for example, may be especially susceptible to defaults and framing effects, raising the stakes of any given choice architecture considerably. (B) Some ethicists argue that heightened vulnerability actually strengthens the case for carefully designed nudges, since vulnerable individuals may otherwise fall prey to more overtly exploitative influences, such as aggressive sales tactics, if a beneficial default is not established first. (C) Others insist that heightened vulnerability demands greater caution rather than more intervention, since those least equipped to resist a nudge are also least equipped to recognize when it no longer serves their genuine interests.

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

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. Beyond restoring lost function, engineers are now exploring implants and prosthetics designed to give healthy people abilities beyond ordinary human limits. ( ① ) Supporters frame this as simply the next step in a long history of human enhancement, no different in principle from eyeglasses or vaccines. ( ② ) Critics counter that earlier enhancements were broadly available to anyone regardless of wealth. ( ③ ) Cutting-edge neural and physical implants, by contrast, are likely to remain expensive for decades, potentially splitting society into those who can afford enhancement and those who cannot. ( ④ ) What began as a medical tool for restoring what was lost, in other words, may end up redefining the baseline of what counts as an ordinary human being. ( ⑤ )