심화영어독해 중간 — 예상문제 + 해설

Model Answer (9 sentences). Personalization means that a platform selects content for each user from data about their past activity and the activity of other users, while personal choice means that we ourselves seek out and decide what we like. According to the article, algorithmic feeds are designed to keep users on the platform for as long as possible, so they serve content tailored around previous preferences. For example, Spotify may offer songs with only superficial similarities to the tracks a listener did not skip last time. Similarly, Instagram may repeatedly show an influencer whose videos once held our attention for a couple of minutes. The author calls this a bewildering paradox, because platforms made personalisation central to their business model and then automated individual taste into oblivion. In other words, personalization predicts what we will accept, whereas personal choice requires us to decide for ourselves. As the article puts it, we no longer choose what we want to consume; we take what we are given. Therefore, a feed that feels personal is not necessarily a reflection of our own taste. To turn personalization back into choice, we should ask, as Ione Gamble advises, whether we genuinely love something or only like it because we have been shown it many times.

Model Answer (9 sentences). I disagree with the claim that social media algorithms help us discover our authentic tastes. Authentic taste means preferences we form and commit to ourselves, and Ione Gamble describes successful taste as a tool to make you feel more like yourself. Algorithms, however, favour content that is accessible and ambient because it keeps us scrolling, so the least ambiguous and least disruptive pieces of culture are promoted the most. Moreover, popularity online can be manufactured, since the firm Chaotic Good ran a huge number of social media accounts in a tactic it calls “trend simulation.” If the signals that feed the algorithm are fake, then its recommendations cannot reliably reflect our own taste. The stylist Helena shows the result, because she can no longer tell whether she has been influenced or whether a style is actually hers. Admittedly, an algorithm may sometimes introduce us to something we come to love. Even then, discovering something is not the same as making it ours, because taste involves commitment, consistency and some element of risk. Therefore, rather than relying on feeds, we should seek things out for ourselves, since Gamble warns that we are always being told what to like.

Model Answer (9 sentences). I partly agree that following trends does not necessarily make you less individual. Individuality means expressing our own preferences, and the article calls personal taste the closest thing most of us get to self-expression. Liking something popular is not automatically a loss of individuality if we have thought about why we like it. However, the article shows that today’s trends often spread before we can judge them, as consumer trends such as Dubai chocolate seemed to become inescapable overnight, buoyed by the algorithm. TikTok aesthetics such as tomato girl, balletcore and coastal grandmother are described as codifying taste in a juvenile but very risk-averse way. The CBK-core trend went even further, as media coverage taught people to imitate Carolyn Bessette Kennedy in the most literal way imaginable. Her friend Carole Radziwill responded that the takeaway is to do and wear what feels most authentic to you. Therefore, the line between influence and imitation depends on whether we adapt a trend to our own identity or simply copy it. Following a trend is compatible with individuality only when the choice comes from reflection rather than from the feed.

Model Answer (9 sentences). Algorithmic sameness refers to the way algorithmic feeds reward generic, accessible content, so that culture becomes more and more alike. Kyle Chayka argues that generative AI is a successor to this sameness. In his view, algorithms encouraged humans to produce generic content, while AI simply generates that generic content right away. This content, now called “slop,” is often consumed through the same algorithmic feeds, so the vicious cycle continues. The scale is significant, since about 71% of the images shared online are estimated to be AI-generated and Spotify removed 75m AI tracks last year. Some AI content is designed to grab attention rather than give pleasure, such as Fruit Love Island, which Ione Gamble describes as content tailored for eyeballs, not even enjoyment. For these reasons, I partly agree with the motion, because such content discourages the quiet contemplation and creative thinking that personal taste requires. However, tech leaders themselves believe that taste is the one human quality AI will not be able to replicate, so people who cultivate their own taste can still create something new. Ultimately, whether AI reduces human creativity depends on whether we let feeds and AI decide for us.

Model Answer (9 sentences). Completely authentic taste may be impossible, but more authentic taste is achievable. The article admits that taste is shaped by class and background and has a strong social element, as the sociologist Pierre Bourdieu argued. In that sense, no preference is formed in a vacuum. Still, authentic taste means preferences we have questioned and chosen, not ones that are simply fed to us. One way to develop it is to build productive constraints, as Erin Wylie did when she wore only black clothes she already owned for a month and was forced to experiment with texture, silhouette and accessories. Another way is to step away from algorithmic feeds, like the members of gen Z whom Gamble has noticed picking up physical media again. The milliner Pip shows the result, because she hates social media and her instincts evolved through a deep familiarity with fashion history. Finally, the author argues that taste involves liking something that isn’t meant for you, which the latter-day internet has rendered impossible. Therefore, although we cannot escape all influence, we can make our taste more our own by questioning why we like something.

Model Answer (9 sentences). More information is not always better, because information that appears everywhere can stop being noticed. In the EU AI labels article, Boniface de Champris compares AI labels to cookie banners and warns that once labels are everywhere, users stop noticing them. This is what we can call “label fatigue”: a warning loses its power when it appears on almost everything. De Champris argues that the distinction between deceptive and ordinary content has been removed, so a landscape in an advert is treated the same as a manipulated political speech. A similar problem appears in the personal taste article, where people receive content in such overwhelming quantities that they can no longer properly digest and assess it. The article even names algorithmic fatigue as one reason for a 12% drop in people posting on platforms. In both cases, too much input weakens our judgement instead of strengthening it. However, this does not make labels useless, since the original purpose of a label was to flag deceptive content. A better solution is to keep labels meaningful by focusing them on content that could truly mislead the public.

Model Answer (9 sentences). I agree that having too many choices can make people less free. Fobo, or fear of better options, is indecision even when the decision is simple or all the options are acceptable. Patrick McGinnis argues that technology has accelerated it, noting that Amazon offers more than 200 choices for a pair of white shoelaces, whereas shoppers 50 years ago chose between three. Maximisers, who choose based on maximum benefit, miss out on the psychological benefits of commitment, while satisficers decide based on modest criteria. Algorithmic feeds intensify this problem, because they offer a limitless stream of content tailored around previous preferences. As a result, we may keep scrolling like maximisers, yet the personal taste article warns that we no longer have the mental capacity to properly digest and assess what we encounter. Freedom, therefore, is not simply the number of options but the ability to choose without being overwhelmed by them. A practical solution is to act more like a satisficer, for example by setting the productive constraints that Erin Wylie recommends. Limiting our options in this way can help us focus our attention and clarify our appetites.

Model Answer (9 sentences). I agree that AI labels should be required whenever AI-generated content looks authentic, but they must be used carefully. Under the EU rules, synthetic text, images, video and audio designed to look truthful must be visibly marked as AI-generated and contain a digital watermark. Sergey Lagodinsky argues that this transparency is needed to preserve democracy and the authenticity of facts online. The danger is real, as deepfakes have included audio purporting to reveal Michal Šimečka conspiring with a journalist to rig elections. The personal taste article shows a related problem, because one person in the industry estimated that 90% of what we see on the internet is advertising in disguise. When people cannot tell what is real or paid for, their opinions and even their tastes can be manipulated. On the other hand, the tech industry fears that rules interpreted too broadly will overwhelm internet users with banners and labels. Therefore, labels should be required for authentic-looking content but kept clear and focused so that they remain meaningful. In this way, transparency can protect public trust without burying users in warnings.