영어 모의고사 (자동 편성)

City governments increasingly market dense networks of surveillance cameras as a straightforward safety upgrade, ① promising faster emergency response and lower crime rates. In many cases, the technology delivers exactly what it promises, ② helping investigators identify suspects within hours rather than weeks. Yet the same infrastructure that catches criminals also creates a permanent record of where ordinary, law-abiding citizens ③ go about their daily lives. Once a camera network exists, its purpose can quietly expand, often without new public debate or explicit approval. 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 ④ is already impossible removing. Convenience installed today, in other words, can quietly ⑤ become control tomorrow.

As nudging has moved from academic theory into widespread practice, a persistent ethical question has accompanied its rise: at what point ①does subtly guiding behavior for someone's own benefit shade into manipulation that undermines their capacity for autonomous choice? Proponents typically distinguish nudges from manipulation by pointing to transparency and reversibility, arguing that a legitimate nudge ②operate openly, can be easily resisted by anyone who wishes to opt out, and ultimately serves the interests of the person being nudged rather than the interests of whoever designed the intervention. Critics counter that this distinction often collapses in practice, since many effective nudges work precisely because they ③exploit cognitive processes operating below conscious awareness, meaning that the person being influenced may never fully register that a nudge is even occurring. A supermarket that arranges healthier foods at eye level, for instance, differs only in the direction of its influence, not in its underlying mechanism, from a supermarket that ④arranges the most profitable items at eye level. This tension suggests that the ethical status of a nudge cannot be evaluated by examining its psychological mechanism alone; instead, it must be judged according to the intentions of the party who ⑤designs it and the outcome that design is intended to produce.

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

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.

Every time a smartphone connects to a cell tower or a Wi-Fi network, it ① quietly records a data point that can later be pieced together into a detailed map of where its owner has been. Most users agree to this tracking without reading the fine print, assuming that a single company's database poses ② little threat. The real danger, however, emerges when location data from multiple sources is combined. A pattern that reveals a person's home, workplace, and daily route can ③ expose far more than any single app ever intended to share. Companies often argue that anonymized data cannot be traced back to individuals, yet researchers have ④ repeatedly shown that a handful of location points is enough to identify a specific person with striking accuracy. As a result, privacy experts increasingly insist that location data deserves ⑤ minimal legal protection, similar to that of medical records.

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 _______________.

Facial recognition software has moved rapidly into shopping malls, schools, and apartment buildings. Proponents note that it can unlock doors and speed up identity checks far faster than any human guard. Independent studies, however, have repeatedly found that many commercial systems perform less accurately on women and people with darker skin tones, which means that _______________. Several cities have already reported cases in which an innocent person was detained based on a flawed match.

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.

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. (A) 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. (B) Yet editing a gene in a sperm, egg, or early embryo does not simply change one patient; it alters the genetic code passed down to every future generation. (C) Critics worry, however, that as the technology becomes cheaper and more widely available, this line will become harder to enforce than it is to draw.

The adoption of behavioral insights into government policy has not proceeded without institutional resistance. (A) Career civil servants accustomed to designing programs around traditional levers, such as financial penalties or public information campaigns, have sometimes questioned whether small changes in wording or presentation could meaningfully influence outcomes that seemed to demand more substantial intervention. (B) Skepticism began to diminish, however, as rigorously controlled trials demonstrated measurable improvements in outcomes ranging from tax compliance to vaccination rates, providing evidence that traditional advocates could not easily dismiss. (C) As a result, many governments now require that new behavioral interventions be tested through randomized trials before wider implementation, a practice that has simultaneously built credibility for the approach and generated a growing body of reliable evidence.