18번 문제 (목적)

다음 글의 목적으로 가장 적절한 것은?

In the annals of modern philosophy, few thinkers have explored the intricate relationship between consciousness and the external world with as much rigor and depth as Edmund Husserl. The founder of phenomenology, Husserl sought to investigate the structures of experience from the first-person perspective, contending that all human knowledge is rooted in the intentionality of consciousness. This notion, that consciousness is always *about* something—whether it be a physical object, an abstract concept, or a memory—stands in stark contrast to earlier Cartesian models, which proposed a strict division between mind and body, subject and object.

For Husserl, the key to understanding the essence of experience lies in what he termed the "phenomenological reduction," a method by which one suspends all assumptions about the existence of the external world in order to focus purely on the contents of consciousness. This is not to say that Husserl was a skeptic regarding the existence of the world outside of consciousness, but rather that he believed the world as we experience it is always mediated through the lens of intentionality. The phenomenological reduction, therefore, serves as a tool for peeling back the layers of presuppositions that cloud our direct experience of reality, revealing the underlying structures that give rise to meaning.

Moreover, Husserl’s work lays the foundation for subsequent developments in existentialism, hermeneutics, and even cognitive science. His insights into the nature of perception, memory, and time have informed a wide range of disciplines, all of which grapple with the question of how we come to know the world and ourselves. Phenomenology, as Husserl conceived it, is not merely a philosophical method but a radical rethinking of the relationship between mind and world, subject and object, self and other.

In the latter part of his career, Husserl turned his attention to the social dimensions of experience, emphasizing that our understanding of the world is not an isolated, solipsistic endeavor, but is always shaped by our interactions with others. This insight has profound implications for contemporary debates in ethics, politics, and epistemology, particularly in relation to questions of intersubjectivity and the construction of shared meaning. If consciousness is always intentional, then our engagement with others is not secondary to our experience of the world, but is in fact central to it.

Ultimately, Husserl's phenomenology challenges us to reconsider the very nature of reality itself. Rather than viewing the world as a static collection of objects that we passively observe, phenomenology reveals that the world is dynamically constructed through our ongoing, intentional engagement with it. This shift in perspective has far-reaching consequences, not only for philosophy but for our everyday lives, as it calls into question the assumptions we make about the nature of knowledge, existence, and the self.

① 의식과 외부 세계의 관계를 설명하려고

② 후설의 철학적 방법론을 분석하려고

③ 존재론과 인식론에 대한 새로운 시각을 제안하려고

④ 후설 현상학의 사회적 적용을 강조하려고

⑤ 후설의 사상이 현대 과학에 미친 영향을 논하려고

19번 문제 (심경 변화)

다음 글에 드러난 B의 심경 변화로 가장 적절한 것은?

As B sat at his desk, surrounded by towering stacks of books, he couldn't help but feel a sense of futility wash over him. He had been grappling with the same philosophical problem for weeks, and no matter how many times he revisited the arguments, they seemed to slip through his fingers like sand. The problem was simple in theory—how can we reconcile the mind's subjective experience with the objective reality of the world?—but the more he thought about it, the more elusive the answer became. He was beginning to doubt whether there was an answer at all.

Frustration mounted as B flipped through the pages of yet another tome on consciousness. He had read it all before—the same theories, the same counterarguments, the same unresolved tensions. For a moment, he considered giving up, abandoning the problem altogether and turning his attention to something less abstract, something more tangible. But then, as he sat there staring at the pages, a thought occurred to him. What if the very nature of the problem was the answer? What if the impossibility of fully reconciling the subjective and the objective was a reflection of the inherent limitations of human cognition?

The idea was both troubling and liberating. On the one hand, it meant that his search for a definitive answer might be futile. On the other hand, it offered a way out of the seemingly endless cycle of doubt and frustration. B leaned back in his chair, a slight smile creeping across his face. Perhaps, he mused, the point of philosophy was not to find answers, but to ask better questions. With this newfound sense of clarity, the weight that had been pressing down on him for weeks began to lift, and for the first time in a long while, he felt at peace with the uncertainty.

① frustrated → resigned

② confused → enlightened

③ indifferent → hopeful

④ disappointed → relieved

⑤ skeptical → confident

20번 문제 (주장)

다음 글에서 필자가 주장하는 바로 가장 적절한 것은?

In the realm of political philosophy, the concept of freedom has been the subject of intense debate for centuries. At its core, freedom seems like a simple, intuitive idea: the absence of constraints or interference. However, as various philosophers have pointed out, this definition is far too simplistic. The distinction between *negative* and *positive* freedom, for instance, illustrates the complexity inherent in the concept. Negative freedom, as defined by thinkers like Isaiah Berlin, refers to the absence of external obstacles—freedom *from* coercion or constraint. Positive freedom, on the other hand, is the ability to act upon one’s own will, to pursue one’s own goals without internal limitations such as ignorance or incapacity.

The tension between these two forms of freedom is evident in contemporary political discourse. Advocates of negative freedom often argue that any form of governmental or societal intervention constitutes an infringement on individual liberty. From this perspective, laws and regulations, even those designed to promote social welfare, are seen as paternalistic and oppressive. Positive freedom, however, suggests that true liberty is not merely the absence of interference, but the presence of enabling conditions that allow individuals to flourish. Without education, healthcare, and economic opportunities, can an individual truly be said to be free?

This debate raises important questions about the role of the state in ensuring freedom. Is it the government's responsibility to merely refrain from interfering in the lives of its citizens, or does it have an obligation to actively create the conditions necessary for individuals to exercise their freedom? Critics of positive freedom argue that this approach leads to a slippery slope of state control, where the government decides what is best for individuals, thereby undermining their autonomy. Supporters of positive freedom, however, contend that without such enabling conditions, the concept of freedom becomes hollow—merely a theoretical construct with little practical value.

Furthermore, the distinction between positive and negative freedom is not merely academic; it has real-world implications for public policy. The debate over healthcare, for instance, is often framed in terms of freedom. Should individuals have the freedom to choose whether or not to purchase healthcare, or should the government ensure that all citizens have access to healthcare, thereby enabling them to lead healthy, productive lives? Similarly, debates about education, welfare, and economic regulation often revolve around competing visions of freedom.

In conclusion, the concept of freedom is far more nuanced than it appears at first glance. It is not enough to simply declare oneself in favor of freedom; one must also specify *which* kind of freedom is being advocated. Negative freedom may protect individuals from external interference, but without the enabling conditions of positive freedom, individuals may find themselves unable to pursue their own goals and aspirations. Ultimately, a balanced approach that incorporates both forms of freedom may be necessary to create a just and equitable society.

① 정부의 역할은 자유를 보장하기 위해 최소한의 개입을 해야 한다.

② 진정한 자유는 외부의 간섭 없이 스스로 선택할 수 있는 능력에 있다.

③ 개인의 자유는 국가의 사회복지 정책에 의해 제한될 수 있다.

④ 부정적 자유는 긍정적 자유보다 개인의 자율성을 더 중요하게 여긴다.

⑤ 자유의 개념은 단순한 개념이 아니라 다층적인 논의가 필요하다.

21번 문제 (어휘 의미)

다음 글에서 밑줄 친 **"dialectical"**이 의미하는 바로 가장 적절한 것은?

In the history of philosophy, the concept of **dialectical** reasoning has played a pivotal role in shaping how we understand the process of arriving at truth. Originating from the works of ancient Greek philosophers, particularly Socrates and Plato, dialectics refers to a method of argumentation that seeks to resolve contradictions by synthesizing opposing ideas. Rather than adhering to a binary model of truth, where one proposition is simply right and another is wrong, the **dialectical** approach posits that truth emerges through the interaction of conflicting viewpoints. In this way, it mirrors the process of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis as outlined by Hegel, one of the most influential figures in the development of modern dialectical thought.

For Hegel, the **dialectical** method was not merely a tool for logical analysis but a fundamental principle of reality itself. According to his view, history and human development unfold through a process of contradictions being resolved at higher levels of understanding. Each stage of this **dialectical** progression builds upon and incorporates elements from the previous stages, moving towards an ultimate realization of freedom and self-consciousness. This perspective stands in stark contrast to more static views of history and knowledge, which assume that progress occurs in a linear fashion, without internal conflict or negation.

Marx later adapted Hegel's **dialectical** framework to his critique of capitalism, arguing that economic and social change results from the tensions between different classes in society. For Marx, the **dialectical** process is driven by material conditions and class struggles, rather than abstract ideas. This materialist interpretation of dialectics forms the core of what is now known as dialectical materialism, which holds that social and economic systems evolve through conflict and contradiction, ultimately leading to revolutionary transformations. Thus, the **dialectical** approach is not just a philosophical tool but a framework for understanding the dynamics of historical change.

In contemporary philosophy and critical theory, **dialectical** reasoning continues to be a valuable method for analyzing complex issues. By acknowledging the inherent contradictions in human thought and society, this approach allows for a more nuanced understanding of how progress occurs. Whether in the realms of politics, ethics, or epistemology, the **dialectical** method encourages us to move beyond simple either/or dichotomies and to embrace the complexity and ambiguity that are often essential to genuine understanding. In a world increasingly characterized by polarization and division, the **dialectical** approach offers a way to navigate through these challenges, fostering dialogue and reconciliation rather than antagonism and conflict.

① logical
② contradictory
③ interactive
④ materialist
⑤ synthesizing

22번 문제 (요지)

다음 글의 요지로 가장 적절한 것은?

The concept of human rights has become a cornerstone of modern international relations and political discourse. At its core, the idea of human rights asserts that every individual, by virtue of their humanity, possesses certain inalienable rights that must be respected and protected by governments and other institutions. These rights are often framed in terms of liberty, equality, and justice, with documents such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights serving as foundational texts for the global human rights movement. However, the notion of human rights is not without its critics, many of whom argue that the concept is overly simplistic and fails to account for the complexities of cultural diversity and social context.

One major critique of the human rights framework is its tendency to prioritize individual rights over collective or communal rights. In many non-Western societies, where community and social harmony are often valued more highly than individual autonomy, the imposition of a Western-style human rights model can be seen as a form of cultural imperialism. Critics argue that this framework ignores the ways in which individuals are embedded within broader social and cultural systems, and that a more context-sensitive approach to rights is needed—one that takes into account the specific needs and values of different communities.

Another critique focuses on the inherent contradictions within the human rights discourse itself. While human rights are often presented as universal and inalienable, their application in practice is frequently selective and inconsistent. For example, powerful nations may invoke human rights to justify military intervention in weaker states, while ignoring human rights violations within their own borders or among their allies. This double standard undermines the legitimacy of the human rights framework and raises questions about its true purpose. Is it a genuine effort to protect the dignity of all individuals, or is it simply a tool for advancing certain political or economic interests?

Moreover, the expansion of human rights into new areas—such as environmental rights, digital rights, and the rights of non-human animals—raises further challenges. As the scope of human rights continues to grow, some scholars worry that the concept is becoming diluted and losing its focus. Can we really extend the idea of rights to all living beings and to the environment itself, or does this risk trivializing the very notion of rights? These debates highlight the ongoing tensions within the human rights movement and the need for a more critical and reflective approach to the subject.

Despite these critiques, the idea of human rights remains a powerful and influential force in shaping global politics and social justice movements. While the framework may be imperfect and in need of reform, it continues to offer a valuable tool for challenging oppression and inequality. The challenge moving forward is to develop a more nuanced and context-sensitive understanding of rights that acknowledges both their universal appeal and their cultural and historical limitations.

① 인권의 보편성은 문화적 다양성을 고려해야 한다.
② 인권의 확대는 개념의 희석을 초래할 수 있다.
③ 강대국은 인권을 정치적 도구로 이용한다.
④ 인권은 개인의 권리를 공동체의 권리보다 우선시한다.
⑤ 인권 개념의 한계에도 불구하고 여전히 중요한 도구이다.

23번 문제 (주제)

다음 글의 주제로 가장 적절한 것은?

In recent decades, the field of environmental ethics has emerged as a vital area of philosophical inquiry, driven by the growing recognition of humanity's profound impact on the natural world. Central to this field is the question of moral considerability: what entities deserve moral consideration, and on what grounds? Traditional ethical frameworks, such as utilitarianism and deontology, have often been criticized for their anthropocentric focus, which tends to prioritize human interests over those of non-human animals, plants, and ecosystems. Environmental ethicists, by contrast, argue that moral consideration should be extended to the non-human world, and that we must develop ethical principles that reflect our responsibility to preserve and protect the environment for future generations.

One of the most influential theories in environmental ethics is Aldo Leopold's land ethic, which proposes that humans should view themselves not as conquerors of the land, but as members of a biotic community that includes soil, water, plants, and animals. According to Leopold, ethical behavior involves recognizing the intrinsic value of all living things, not just those that are useful to humans. This shift in perspective requires a fundamental rethinking of our relationship to nature, moving away from a dominion-based model towards one of stewardship and reciprocity.

Another significant approach within environmental ethics is deep ecology, which calls for a radical transformation of human society to align more closely with the principles of ecological sustainability. Deep ecologists argue that modern industrial civilization, with its emphasis on economic growth and technological progress, is inherently destructive to the natural world. Instead, they advocate for a more holistic and ecocentric worldview, in which the well-being of the planet as a whole takes precedence over individual human interests. This approach challenges the anthropocentric assumptions that underpin much of contemporary political and economic thought, calling for a radical reorientation of our values and priorities.

At the heart of these debates is the question of how we should balance the needs of human development with the imperative to protect the environment. Some ethicists argue for a compromise position, known as "sustainable development," which seeks to reconcile economic growth with environmental conservation. Others, however, contend that true sustainability requires a more fundamental shift away from the capitalist model of infinite growth, towards a system that prioritizes ecological balance and the long-term health of the planet.

As the environmental crisis deepens, these philosophical debates are no longer merely academic. The choices we make in the coming decades will have profound implications for the future of life on Earth, and the field of environmental ethics offers important insights into how we might navigate this precarious moment in human history. Whether through the adoption of new ethical principles or the transformation of existing social and economic structures, it is clear that our relationship with the natural world must change if we are to ensure a livable future for all.

① 인간과 자연의 관계에 대한 윤리적 고찰
② 지속 가능한 개발과 경제 성장의 조화
③ 인간중심적 윤리의 한계를 지적하는 환경 윤리
④ 생태계 보호를 위한 급진적 변화의 필요성
⑤ 환경 문제 해결을 위한 새로운 정치적 접근

24번 문제 (제목)

다음 글의 제목으로 가장 적절한 것은?

In the intellectual landscape of the 20th century, few ideas have proven as disruptive and transformative as Michel Foucault’s concept of power. For Foucault, power is not merely something wielded by institutions like governments or corporations, nor is it solely located in the hands of the elite. Instead, power is diffused throughout society and is present in every social interaction. Power, according to Foucault, operates through what he called "discourses," which are systems of knowledge and language that shape how we think, speak, and act. These discourses determine what is considered normal or abnormal, true or false, and they function as mechanisms of control that guide individuals' behavior.

Foucault rejected the traditional view of power as a top-down, hierarchical force imposed by a ruling class. Instead, he proposed that power is relational and operates in a network of practices, beliefs, and institutions. This view of power as diffuse and decentralized was a radical departure from earlier models of political theory, which tended to focus on the authority of the state or the economic dominance of a particular class. Foucault's ideas challenge the assumption that power is something that can be possessed or taken away; rather, power is something that circulates through society, influencing everyone, whether they are aware of it or not.

One of Foucault's most important contributions to the study of power was his concept of "biopower." Biopower refers to the way in which modern states exert control over populations through the management of life itself. Rather than exercising power through violence or repression, as in earlier forms of governance, modern power operates through the regulation of bodies and populations. This can be seen in the way states manage public health, education, and sexuality, all of which are arenas where power is exercised in subtle but pervasive ways. According to Foucault, biopower represents a shift from the old model of sovereign power, which was focused on the right to take life, to a new form of power that is concerned with fostering life and optimizing the population.

Another key aspect of Foucault's theory of power is his analysis of "disciplinary power." This form of power operates through institutions like schools, prisons, and hospitals, where individuals are subjected to various forms of surveillance and control. Disciplinary power is concerned with the training and normalization of individuals, making them conform to societal expectations and norms. The panopticon, a theoretical prison design by Jeremy Bentham, serves as a metaphor for this kind of power. In the panopticon, prisoners are always visible to a central watchtower but cannot see whether they are being observed at any given moment. This creates a sense of self-surveillance, where individuals regulate their own behavior out of fear of being watched.

Foucault's work has had a profound impact on a wide range of fields, from sociology and political science to literary theory and cultural studies. His ideas about power challenge us to rethink how we understand authority, control, and freedom. Rather than seeing power as something that is imposed from above, Foucault encourages us to examine the ways in which power operates in the everyday interactions and institutions that structure our lives. By doing so, we can better understand the subtle mechanisms of control that shape our thoughts, actions, and identities.

① 권력의 본질: 확산적 구조와 그 영향력
② 현대 사회에서의 권력과 생명 관리
③ 푸코의 권력 개념: 생명과 규율
④ 생명 정치와 규율 사회
⑤ 권력과 감시: 푸코의 새로운 통찰

25번 문제 (일치하지 않는 내용)

다음 글의 내용과 일치하지 않는 것은?

In recent years, the rise of social media has significantly altered the way individuals engage with political discourse. Platforms like Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram have created new spaces for political activism, where individuals can share their opinions, organize protests, and raise awareness about issues that matter to them. Social media has democratized political communication, allowing voices that were once marginalized to reach a wider audience. Movements like #BlackLivesMatter and #MeToo have gained international attention in large part due to the amplification provided by social media platforms.

However, the relationship between social media and politics is not without its challenges. One of the most pressing concerns is the phenomenon of "echo chambers," where individuals are exposed only to information that confirms their preexisting beliefs. Social media algorithms are designed to show users content that aligns with their preferences, creating a feedback loop that reinforces political polarization. This can lead to the spread of misinformation and a lack of exposure to diverse perspectives. In this environment, political discourse becomes increasingly fragmented, with different groups retreating into isolated bubbles of like-minded individuals.

Another issue is the rise of "fake news" and disinformation, which can have a corrosive effect on democratic processes. Social media platforms have become breeding grounds for conspiracy theories and false narratives, which are often shared more widely than accurate information. This is particularly concerning in the context of elections, where false information can influence voters' decisions and undermine the integrity of the democratic process. Platforms like Facebook and Twitter have implemented fact-checking measures and content moderation policies to combat the spread of misinformation, but these efforts have been criticized for being inconsistent and inadequate.

Despite these challenges, social media also offers opportunities for more inclusive and participatory forms of democracy. Online platforms allow for the mobilization of grassroots movements that might otherwise struggle to gain visibility in traditional media. They enable individuals to hold public officials accountable in real time, as seen in the live-streaming of protests and political events. Moreover, social media has facilitated cross-border solidarity, as activists in different countries can share strategies and collaborate on global issues like climate change and human rights. In this way, social media can be seen as both a tool for empowerment and a potential threat to democratic governance.

Looking ahead, the role of social media in politics will likely continue to evolve. Governments and platforms alike will need to navigate the complex landscape of digital communication, balancing the need for free expression with the imperative to maintain the integrity of democratic processes. As more people turn to social media for news and political engagement, the challenges of misinformation, polarization, and digital surveillance will remain critical issues that demand attention.

① 소셜 미디어는 정치적 담론을 민주화하여 주변화된 목소리를 확산시킬 수 있게 했다.
② 소셜 미디어 알고리즘은 사용자가 선호하는 정보만을 보여주어 정치적 양극화를 강화시킬 수 있다.
③ 소셜 미디어는 가짜 뉴스와 허위 정보의 확산을 억제하는 데 있어 항상 효과적이다.
④ 소셜 미디어는 전통적 미디어에서 주목받지 못하는 풀뿌리 운동의 가시성을 높일 수 있다.
⑤ 소셜 미디어는 정치적 책임을 실시간으로 공무원에게 요구할 수 있는 도구를 제공한다.

26번 문제 (내용 일치)

다음 글의 내용과 일치하지 않는 것은?

Existentialism, particularly as articulated by Jean-Paul Sartre, Simone de Beauvoir, and Albert Camus, posits that human beings are fundamentally free, but with that freedom comes the weight of responsibility. Sartre’s famous assertion, "existence precedes essence," encapsulates the idea that individuals are not born with a predetermined purpose or identity. Instead, they must create meaning through their actions and decisions. In this view, life does not have inherent meaning; it is up to each person to construct their own sense of purpose in an indifferent, and often absurd, universe. This core principle of existentialism is often described as both liberating and burdensome, as it emphasizes human autonomy while acknowledging the anxiety that comes with the awareness of one’s absolute freedom.

One of the key ideas introduced by Sartre is that of *bad faith*—a form of self-deception where individuals deny their inherent freedom in order to avoid the anxiety that comes with making choices. In a state of bad faith, a person might pretend that their identity or circumstances are fixed, claiming that they had no choice but to act a certain way. This refusal to acknowledge one’s freedom, Sartre argues, is a denial of the authentic self. Rather than embracing the responsibility to define their own path, those in bad faith hide behind social roles or external factors, such as family obligations or societal expectations, to justify their inaction or decisions.

Simone de Beauvoir, another prominent existentialist, expanded on Sartre’s ideas to address the condition of women in society. In her groundbreaking work, *The Second Sex*, she argues that women have historically been oppressed through the denial of their freedom. De Beauvoir famously declared that "one is not born, but rather becomes, a woman," illustrating her belief that gender roles are not inherent but socially constructed. Like Sartre, de Beauvoir emphasized that individuals, regardless of gender, must take responsibility for their freedom and challenge the roles imposed upon them by society. Her existentialist feminism calls for women to reject passive roles and actively assert their agency in defining their own identities.

Albert Camus, often grouped with the existentialists despite his ambivalence about the label, introduced the concept of the absurd to describe the conflict between humanity’s search for meaning and the universe’s indifference. In works like *The Myth of Sisyphus*, Camus portrays life as a constant struggle to impose meaning on a world that offers none. However, Camus does not advocate for despair. Instead, he encourages individuals to embrace the absurdity of existence and to find meaning in the very act of rebellion against it. His portrayal of Sisyphus, eternally condemned to roll a boulder up a hill only to watch it roll down again, serves as a metaphor for the human condition. According to Camus, we must "imagine Sisyphus happy," because it is through the struggle itself that we assert our freedom and defy the absurd.

Existentialism, with its emphasis on individual freedom, responsibility, and the search for meaning in a chaotic world, continues to influence contemporary thought across a range of disciplines. While the philosophy can be seen as a response to the existential crises of modernity, its insights remain relevant in a world where questions of identity, freedom, and responsibility are as pressing as ever. From feminist theory to political activism, the existentialist framework offers a way to navigate the complexities of human existence in the face of uncertainty.

① 사르트르는 인간이 태어나면서부터 자유롭지만, 그 자유에는 책임이 따른다고 주장한다.
② 나쁜 믿음은 인간이 자신의 자유를 인정하지 않고 자기 자신을 기만하는 상태를 말한다.
③ 시시포스 신화는 인간이 삶에서 의미를 찾을 수 없는 모순적 상황을 상징하는 것으로, 사르트르는 이를 긍정적으로 본다.
④ 시몬 드 보부아르는 성 역할이 본질적인 것이 아니라 사회적으로 구성된 것이라고 주장했다.
⑤ 카뮈는 인간의 자유를 부정하는 대신, 부조리함에 맞서며 의미를 찾아야 한다고 제안했다.

27번 문제 (내용 불일치)

다음 글의 내용과 일치하지 않는 것은?

The concept of democracy has evolved significantly over the past few centuries, and its definition remains a subject of debate among political theorists. At its core, democracy is generally understood as a system of government in which power is vested in the people, either directly or through elected representatives. However, beyond this basic definition, there is considerable disagreement about what constitutes a true democracy and how it should function. Different models of democracy—such as liberal democracy, participatory democracy, and deliberative democracy—offer varying interpretations of what it means for a government to be truly democratic.

Liberal democracy, the most widespread form in the modern world, emphasizes individual rights, the rule of law, and representative institutions. In this system, elected officials make decisions on behalf of the people, who express their will primarily through voting in periodic elections. While liberal democracy ensures certain freedoms, such as freedom of speech, religion, and assembl1y, critics argue that it often fails to engage citizens beyond the ballot box. This leads to a form of "thin" democracy, where participation is limited and citizens become passive recipients of government policies rather than active participants in political decision-making.

Participatory democracy, by contrast, seeks to deepen citizen engagement by involving individuals more directly in the decision-making process. Advocates of participatory democracy argue that true democracy requires more than just voting; it requires continuous engagement with political processes. This might include public deliberation, referenda, or grassroots activism, all of which provide avenues for citizens to have a more active role in shaping policies that affect their lives. While this model of democracy is more inclusive, it is often criticized for being impractical, particularly in large, complex societies where direct participation by all citizens is logistically challenging.

Deliberative democracy, another alternative to the liberal model, places a strong emphasis on dialogue and reasoned debate as the foundation of democratic legitimacy. In this view, the quality of decisions is more important than the mere fact of participation. Deliberative democrats argue that democratic processes should prioritize informed discussion, where citizens engage with one another in a respectful and thoughtful exchange of ideas. Through this process, decisions are made not by majority rule alone, but through consensus-building and mutual understanding. Critics of deliberative democracy, however, point out that it can be elitist, as it often assumes that all citizens have equal access to information and the ability to engage in sophisticated debate.

As these models illustrate, democracy is not a one-size-fits-all concept. Different societies may adopt different democratic practices depending on their historical, cultural, and social contexts. While no system is perfect, the ongoing debate about the nature of democracy highlights the complexity of balancing individual freedom with collective decision-making. Whether through representative institutions, direct engagement, or reasoned deliberation, the challenge for any democracy is to create a system that empowers citizens while ensuring that decisions reflect the common good.

① 자유 민주주의는 선출된 공무원이 국민을 대신해 의사 결정을 내리는 체제다.
② 참여 민주주의는 참정권을 넘어선 지속적인 정치적 참여를 요구한다.
③ 숙의 민주주의는 다수결 원칙에 따라 결정을 내리는 것을 중시한다.
④ 자유 민주주의는 개개인의 자유와 법치주의를 중시하지만, 시민 참여가 제한될 수 있다.
⑤ 참여 민주주의는 대규모 사회에서 실현 가능성이 낮다는 비판을 받는다.

28번 문제 (어법상 틀린 부분)

다음 글의 밑줄 친 부분 중 어법상 틀린 것은?

In recent years, advancements in artificial intelligence (AI) have sparked a great deal of discussion about the future of work and the role of automation in society. Many experts predict that AI will revolutionize various industries by enhancing productivity, streamlining processes, and even replacing certain human workers. While this technological transformation presents numerous opportunities, it also raises significant concerns about the potential displacement of jobs and the ethical implications of relying on machines for decision-making.

The use of AI in the workplace is already reshaping industries such as healthcare, finance, and manufacturing. For example, AI systems are now ① capable of analyzing vast amounts of medical data to assist doctors in diagnosing diseases with a higher degree of accuracy than human physicians. In finance, AI-powered algorithms can process large datasets to identify trends and make predictions about market movements, allowing for more informed investment decisions. Meanwhile, in manufacturing, robots equipped with AI technology can perform repetitive tasks more efficiently and with fewer errors than human workers, ② leading to cost savings and increased productivity.

However, the increasing reliance on AI also brings about significant ethical challenges. One concern is the potential for bias in AI systems, ③ which are trained on data that may reflect existing societal prejudices. If these biases are not properly addressed, AI systems could perpetuate inequality, particularly in areas such as hiring, lending, and criminal justice. Additionally, the use of AI in decision-making raises questions about accountability: if an AI system makes an incorrect or harmful decision, who is to blame—the programmer, the user, or the machine itself?

Another major concern is the impact of AI on employment. While AI has the potential to create new jobs in fields such as AI development and maintenance, it is also likely to ④ replace many low-skill jobs, leaving a large portion of the workforce vulnerable to unemployment. Some experts argue that this shift ⑤ will require from governments to implement new policies aimed at supporting workers displaced by automation.

① capable of analyzing
② leading to
③ which are trained on
④ replace
⑤ will require from governments