영어 모의고사 (자동 편성)

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

Policymakers seeking to improve public welfare without restricting individual freedom have increasingly embraced an approach ①known as nudging, which alters the environment in which choices are made rather than mandating particular outcomes. A nudge preserves every option that ②was previously available; it simply arranges those options so that the choice deemed most beneficial becomes easier or more visible than the alternatives. Placing fruit at eye level in a school cafeteria while keeping dessert accessible but less prominent, for instance, ③do not forbid any student from choosing dessert, yet it measurably shifts consumption patterns toward healthier food. Advocates argue that such interventions ④respect autonomy precisely because no option is removed and no penalty is imposed for choosing differently. Critics, however, contend that even subtle architectural choices exploit predictable cognitive shortcuts, ⑤raising questions about whether influencing behavior through psychological means is meaningfully different from more coercive forms of persuasion.

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.

The discovery of CRISPR gene-editing technology gave scientists a tool precise enough ① 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 dangerous 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 ② passed down to every future generation, a decision no single person should ③ allow to make alone. Scientific organizations around the world have therefore drawn a careful line, ④ permitting gene editing to treat disease in existing patients while banning any edit that would be inherited by their descendants. Critics worry, however, that this line will become harder to enforce than it ⑤ is to draw.

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.

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.

A few years ago, spotting a manipulated video required a trained eye and specialized software. Today, freely available applications allow almost anyone to fabricate convincing fake footage within minutes. Perhaps more troubling than any single fake video is the broader effect on public trust, sometimes called the liar's dividend, in which _______________. In this environment, the mere possibility of manipulation can be almost as damaging as manipulation itself.

Hospitals are increasingly adopting artificial intelligence tools that can scan medical images and flag potential tumors faster than experienced radiologists. (A) The doctor may argue that they simply trusted a tool the hospital required them to use, while the hospital may blame the software company instead. (B) Yet the growing reliance on these tools raises an uncomfortable legal question: when an AI system misses a diagnosis, who is responsible? (C) Until legal systems clarify this chain of responsibility, patients harmed by an algorithmic error may find themselves with no clear party to hold accountable.

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.

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.