영어 모의고사 (자동 편성)

Factories that once employed hundreds of workers on an assembly line now run with a fraction of that staff, as robotic arms handle tasks ① that used to require human hands. Economists have long debated whether this shift destroys jobs or simply ② transforms them. Historical evidence offers some comfort: previous waves of automation eventually created new categories of work that no one ③ had predicted. However, critics point out that earlier transitions unfolded over generations, ④ given workers time to retrain, whereas today's robots are being deployed at a pace that leaves little room for adjustment. For this reason, many economists argue that the real challenge is not the robots themselves, but the speed at which society ⑤ is expected to adapt to them.

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

A few years ago, spotting a manipulated video ① required a trained eye and specialized software. Today, freely available applications allow almost anyone ② to swap a face or fabricate a voice convincingly enough to fool casual viewers within minutes. This shift has quietly undermined one of the oldest assumptions in human communication: that seeing and hearing something ③ are a reasonably reliable way to confirm it happened. Journalists now face the burden of ④ verifying footage that once would have been accepted as self-evident proof. Perhaps more troubling than any single fake video is the broader effect on public trust, in which genuine footage can ⑤ be dismissed as fabricated simply because deepfakes exist.

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

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.

When individuals face uncertainty about how to behave, they frequently look to the actions of others for guidance. This reliance on collective behavior can be remarkably ①efficient, since it allows individuals to benefit from the accumulated judgment of a crowd without having to gather and evaluate every relevant fact themselves. However, social proof can also lead entire groups astray when the initial signal that triggers imitation is itself ②unreliable or coincidental. A restaurant that happens to attract a long line early in the evening may continue attracting customers throughout the night simply because passersby interpret the queue as evidence of ③inferior quality. Financial markets exhibit an analogous pattern: investors who observe others buying a particular asset often join the buying themselves, reasoning that so many participants cannot all be mistaken, a dynamic that can ④inflate prices well beyond any reasonable estimate of underlying value. Because conformity can substitute for independent judgment so ⑤seamlessly, individuals rarely notice when their own decisions have become mere imitations rather than genuinely deliberated.

Hospitals are increasingly adopting AI tools that can scan medical images and flag potential tumors faster than experienced radiologists. When an AI system misses a diagnosis that a human doctor would likely have caught, responsibility becomes difficult to assign. The doctor may argue that they simply trusted a required tool, the hospital may blame the software company, and the software company may argue that no algorithm can be expected to be perfect. As a result, _______________.

Convenience installed today, in other words, can quietly become control tomorrow. City governments increasingly market dense networks of surveillance cameras as a straightforward safety upgrade, promising faster emergency response and lower crime rates. ( ① ) In many cases, the technology delivers exactly what it promises, helping investigators identify suspects within hours rather than weeks. ( ② ) Yet the same infrastructure that catches criminals also creates a permanent record of where ordinary, law-abiding citizens go about their daily lives. ( ③ ) Once a camera network exists, its purpose can quietly expand, often without new public debate or explicit approval. ( ④ ) Civil liberties groups argue that a city should decide how much surveillance it wants before the cameras go up, not years afterward when the infrastructure is already impossible to remove. ( ⑤ )

In other words, no single app may intend to expose such sensitive information, but the combination of many small pieces can. Every time a smartphone connects to a cell tower or a Wi-Fi network, it quietly records a data point that can later be pieced together into a detailed map of where its owner has been. ( ① ) Most users agree to this tracking without reading the fine print, assuming that a single company's database poses little threat. ( ② ) The real danger, however, emerges when location data from multiple sources is combined. ( ③ ) A pattern that reveals a person's home, workplace, and daily route can expose far more than any single app ever intended to share, including medical visits or private relationships. ( ④ ) Companies often argue that anonymized data cannot be traced back to individuals, yet researchers have repeatedly shown otherwise. ( ⑤ )

This is a decision, in short, that no single person should be allowed to make alone. The discovery of CRISPR gene-editing technology gave scientists a tool precise enough to correct a single mistaken letter in the human genome, raising hope for curing inherited diseases that have resisted treatment for generations. ( ① ) Yet the same precision that makes CRISPR so promising also makes it dangerous in the wrong hands. ( ② ) Editing a gene in a sperm, egg, or early embryo does not simply change one patient. ( ③ ) It alters the genetic code passed down to every future generation. ( ④ ) Scientific organizations around the world have therefore drawn a careful line, permitting gene editing to treat disease in existing patients while banning any edit that would be inherited by their descendants. ( ⑤ ) Critics worry, however, that this line will become harder to enforce than it is to draw.