영어 모의고사 (자동 편성)

Millions of people now wear devices that continuously track their heart rate, sleep patterns, and daily activity, ①generating an intimate 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 ②is drawn directly from their own bodies. In practice, however, the terms of service that few people read often ③grants the manufacturer broad 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 ④stronger than ordinary consumer information, precisely because it can never truly ⑤be replaced or reset once it has been exposed.

For decades, most vaccines worked by injecting a ①weakened or inactivated version of a pathogen, coaxing the immune system into recognizing an enemy it had never truly fought. mRNA vaccines take a fundamentally ②different route, delivering only a short genetic instruction wrapped in a protective lipid capsule, one that tells the body's own cells how to manufacture a single harmless piece of a virus's outer surface protein. Once those cells display the fragment, the immune system learns to recognize it as ③foreign and builds a defense, without ever having encountered the actual pathogen. Because the vaccine contains no live virus and cannot alter a cell's own DNA, developers can ④redesign the genetic instructions within weeks whenever a pathogen mutates, rather than starting the years-long process required for traditional vaccines. This speed has convinced many researchers that the same platform could eventually be adapted to fight diseases far beyond infectious illness, ⑤excluding certain cancers.

Psychologists studying human judgment often describe the mind as operating through two distinct systems rather than a single unified process. System 1 works ①quickly and automatically, generating impressions and snap judgments without any noticeable sense of effort. System 2, by contrast, is slow, ②deliberate, and demanding, engaged only when a problem requires careful calculation or conscious reasoning. Most daily decisions are handled almost entirely by System 1, which allows people to function ③efficiently without exhausting their limited mental resources. This efficiency comes at a cost, however, because System 1 relies on simple shortcuts that can produce systematic errors, and System 2 is frequently too ④diligent or too occupied to double-check them. As a result, a judgment often feels most confident precisely at the moment when it has skipped the careful scrutiny that could have caught its own mistake, leaving the thinker ⑤unaware of how easily the impression was formed.

The discovery of CRISPR gene-editing technology gave scientists a tool ①precise enough to correct a single mistaken letter in the human genome, raising hope for curing inherited diseases that have resisted treatment for generations. Yet the same precision that makes CRISPR so promising also makes it ②dangerous in the wrong hands. 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, a decision no single person should be allowed to make ③alone. Scientific organizations around the world have therefore drawn a careful line, ⑤permitting gene editing to treat disease in existing patients while ④permitting any edit that would be inherited by their descendants. 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.

Engineers are now exploring implants and prosthetics designed to give healthy people abilities beyond ordinary human limits. Supporters frame this as simply the next step in a long history of human enhancement, no different in principle from eyeglasses or vaccines. Critics counter that earlier enhancements were broadly available to anyone regardless of wealth, while cutting-edge neural and physical implants are likely to remain expensive for decades, potentially _______________.

Sensors buried in the soil now report moisture levels in real time, and automated systems adjust irrigation without a farmer ever walking the rows. (A) Smaller family farms, however, often cannot afford the upfront cost of this equipment, and some worry that the gap between high-tech and traditional operations will only widen. (B) For large operations with the capital to invest, these tools have measurably increased yields while reducing water waste. (C) There is also a quieter cultural cost: generations of farming knowledge risk being replaced by dashboards and automated alerts that few young farmers are taught to question.

Factories that once employed hundreds of workers on an assembly line now run with a fraction of that staff, as robotic arms handle tasks that used to require human hands. (A) However, critics point out that earlier transitions unfolded over generations, giving workers time to retrain, whereas today's robots are being deployed much faster. (B) Historical evidence offers some comfort: previous waves of automation eventually created new categories of work that no one had predicted. (C) A factory worker displaced this year, therefore, cannot simply wait for a new industry to emerge decades from now.

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 reveals an uncomfortable truth about the underlying business model itself. Social media platforms rarely show users a neutral stream of information. ( ① ) Instead, recommendation algorithms are optimized to maximize engagement, and content that provokes strong emotion tends to hold attention longer than balanced reporting ever could. ( ② ) Researchers describe this as a distorted mirror: the platform reflects not society as it truly is, but a version shaped by whatever keeps people scrolling. ( ③ ) Some platforms have experimented with reducing the visibility of outrage-driven content. ( ④ ) Yet these experiments consistently saw user engagement drop. ( ⑤ )

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.