영어 모의고사 (자동 편성)

As private companies develop the technology to mine asteroids for rare metals and water, a legal question once confined to science fiction has suddenly ① become 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 ② whether a private company may extract and sell what it finds there. Some governments have already passed domestic laws ③ granting 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 ④ decide 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 ⑤ repeating the same environmental and political mistakes that colonization caused on Earth.

Blockchain technology was originally promoted as a way ① to remove the need for trusted middlemen, allowing strangers to exchange value directly and verify transactions through a shared, tamper-resistant ledger rather than through a bank or government agency. In theory, this design ② distributes power away from any single institution and toward the network as a whole. In practice, however, a small number of large players have come to dominate many blockchain networks, ③ controlled enough computing power or currency to influence outcomes that were supposed to be decided collectively. Critics note a further irony: when something goes wrong, there is often no institution left ④ to appeal to, since the entire system was designed precisely to eliminate that kind of central authority. Whether decentralization can survive this concentration of power ⑤ remains one of the technology's most unresolved questions.

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.

Social media platforms rarely show users a neutral stream of information. Instead, recommendation algorithms ① are optimized to maximize engagement, and content that provokes strong emotion, particularly outrage, tends to hold attention longer than balanced reporting ever could. Over time, users ② exposed to a steady diet of emotionally charged content may come to believe that extreme opinions are far more common than they actually are, simply because those opinions ③ dominate their feed. Researchers describe this as a distorted mirror: the platform reflects not society as it truly is, but a version ④ shaping by whatever keeps people scrolling. Some platforms have experimented with reducing the visibility of outrage-driven content, only ⑤ to see user engagement drop.

Devices that translate brain activity directly into digital commands have moved from laboratory experiments to real medical use, ① allowing paralyzed patients to control a robotic arm or type a message using thought alone. As the technology improves, some developers envision a future in which brain-computer interfaces extend beyond restoring lost function ② toward enhancing healthy minds, offering faster memory or expanded attention to anyone ③ willing to undergo the procedure. This prospect raises a philosophical question that medicine alone cannot answer: if a device can alter memory, mood, or decision-making, at what point does the assistance stop ④ being a tool and start reshaping the very identity of the person using it. Neuroethicists argue that mental privacy, the ability to keep one's own thoughts free from external access or manipulation, may need ⑤ recognizing as a fundamental right before this technology becomes widespread.

Hospitals are increasingly adopting artificial intelligence tools that can scan medical images and flag potential tumors ① 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 have only begun to address. When an AI system misses a diagnosis that a human doctor would likely have caught, responsibility becomes ② easy to assign. The doctor may argue that they simply trusted a tool the hospital 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 be expected to be ③ perfect. Until legal systems ④ clarify this chain of responsibility, patients harmed by an algorithmic error may find themselves with no clear party to hold ⑤ accountable.

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. During recent years, this gap became ① 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. Some policymakers initially treated internet access as a ② convenience, comparable to cable television, rather than as infrastructure essential to modern life. That assumption is increasingly being reconsidered, particularly as more essential services move online by default. Closing this divide will require ③ far less than simply distributing devices; it will demand ④ sustained investment in the physical networks that carry information into every home, ⑤ regardless of income or location.

Individuals confronted with a set of options frequently default to whichever alternative requires no active decision at all. Decision-makers often treat the current arrangement as a reasonable ①baseline simply because it already exists, even when switching would plainly serve their interests better. When employees must actively opt into a retirement savings plan, participation rates remain stubbornly ②low; yet when the same plan is presented as automatic unless an employee opts out, participation rises ③dramatically, despite the fact that the underlying financial terms are identical in both cases. Two forces appear to drive this asymmetry: first, the cognitive effort required to evaluate alternatives and initiate change, and second, an aversion to the potential regret that might follow an active decision that turns out poorly. Because inaction carries no such vivid regret, the status quo comes to feel ④riskier than it objectively is, illustrating how mere inertia can ⑤masquerade as a deliberate preference.

City governments increasingly market dense networks of surveillance cameras as a safety upgrade. Yet the same infrastructure that catches criminals also creates a permanent record of where ordinary citizens go about their daily lives. Once a camera network exists, its purpose can quietly expand, often without new public debate. Civil liberties groups argue that _______________.

Generative AI systems learn to write, draw, and compose by studying enormous collections of existing human work, much of which was created without the artists' knowledge or consent. (A) Critics respond that the comparison breaks down at scale, since a single AI model can absorb millions of works in days and compete with the very artists who trained it. (B) Supporters of the technology argue that this process resembles how a human student learns by studying the masters. (C) Courts around the world are now being asked to decide whether training an algorithm on copyrighted material counts as fair use or as infringement.