’

s in

here?

”

before looking into the container, smiling, and

exclaiming,

“

Wow!

”

Each subject was then invited to

look 15. Half of them found a toy; the other half 16

the container was empty- and realized the tester had

17 them.

Among

the

children

who

had

not

been

tricked,

the majority were 18 to cooperate with the tester in

learning a new skill, demonstrating that they trusted

his leadership. 19, only five of the 30 children paired

with

the

“

20

”

tester

participated

in

a

follow-up

activity.

Section II Reading Comprehension

Part A

Directions:

Read

the

following

four

texts.

Answer

the

questions below each text by choosing A, B, C or D.

Mark

your

answers

on

the

ANSWER

SHEET.

(40

points)

Text 1

Among the annoying challenges facing the middle

class is one that will probably go unmentioned in the

next presidential campaign: What happens when the

robots come for their jobs?

Don't dismiss that possibility entirely. About half

of

U.S.

jobs

are

at

high

risk

of

being

automated,

according

to

a

University

of

Oxford

study,

with

the

middle

class

disproportionately

squeezed.

Lower-income

jobs

like

gardening

or

day

care

don't

appeal

to

robots.

But

many

middle-class

occupations-trucking,

financial

advice,

software

engineering

—

have

aroused

their

interest,

or

soon

will. The rich own the robots, so they will be fine.

This isn't to be alarmist. Optimists point out that

technological upheaval has benefited workers in the

past.

The

Industrial

Revolution

didn't

go so

well

for

Luddites

whose

jobs

were

displaced

by

mechanized

looms, but it eventually raised living standards and

created

more

jobs

than

it

destroyed.

Likewise,

automation

should

eventually

boost

productivity,

stimulate

demand

by

driving

down

prices,

and

free

workers from hard, boring work. But in the medium

term,

middle-class

workers

may

need

a

lot

of

help

adjusting.

The first step, as Erik Brynjolfsson and Andrew

McAfee argue in The Second Machine Age, should be

rethinking

education

and

job

training.

Curriculums

—

from

grammar

school

to

college-

should

evolve

to

focus less on memorizing facts and more on creativity

and

complex

communication.

Vocational

schools

should

do

a

better

job

of

fostering

problem-solving

skills

and

helping

students

work

alongside

robots.

Online education can supplement the traditional kind.

It

could

make

extra

training

and

instruction

affordable. Professionals trying to acquire new skills

will be able to do so without going into debt.

The

challenge

of

coping

with

automation

underlines the

need for the U.S. to revive its fading

business

dynamism:

Starting

new

companies

must

be

made

easier.

In

previous

eras

of

drastic

technological

change,

entrepreneurs

smoothed

the

transition by dreaming up ways to combine labor and

machines.

The

best

uses

of

3D

printers

and

virtual

reality haven't been invented yet. The U.S. needs the

new companies that will invent them.

Finally,

because

automation

threatens

to

widen

the

gap

between

capital

income

and

labor

income,

taxes

and

the

safety

net

will

have

to

be

rethought.

Taxes

on

low-wage

labor

need

to

be

cut,

and

wage

subsidies

such

as

the

earned

income

tax

credit

should

be

expanded:

This

would

boost

incomes,

encourage work, reward companies for job creation,

and reduce inequality.

Technology will improve society in ways big and

small

over

the

next

few

years,

yet

this

will

be

little

comfort

to

those

who

find

their

lives

and

careers

upended by automation.

Destroying the machines that are coming for our

jobs

would

be

nuts.

But

policies

to

help

workers

adapt will be indispensable.

Text 2

A

new

survey

by

Harvard

University

finds

more

than

two-thirds

of

young

Americans

disapprove

of

President Trump

’

s use of Twitter. The implication is

that Millennials prefer news from the White House to

be filtered through other

source, Not a president

’

s

social media platform.

Most

Americans

rely

on

social

media

to

check

daily headlines. Yet as distrust has risen toward all

media, people may be starting to beef up their media

literacy skills. Such a trend is badly needed. During

the 2016 presidential campaign, nearly a quarter of

web content shared by Twitter users in the politically

critical state of Michigan was fake news, according to

the University of Oxford. And a survey conducted for

BuzzFeed News found 44 percent of Facebook users

rarely or never trust news from the media giant.

Young people who are digital natives are indeed

becoming more skillful at separating fact from fiction

in

cyberspace.

A

Knight

Foundation

focus-group

survey of young people between ages 14and24 found

they use

“

distributed trust

”

to verify stories. They

cross-check

sources

and

prefer

news

from

different

perspectives

—

especially

those

that

are

open

about

any bias.

“

Many young people assume a great deal of

personal responsibility for educating themselves and

actively seeking out opposing viewpoints,

”

the survey

concluded.

Such active research can have another effect. A

2014 survey conducted in Australia, Britain, and the

United States by the University of Wisconsin-Madison

found that young people

’

s reliance on social media

led to greater political engagement.

Social

media

allows

users

to

experience

news

events

more

intimately

and

immediately

while

also

permitting them to re- share

news as a projection of

their

values

and

interests.

This

forces

users

to

be

more

conscious

of

their

role

in

passing

along

information. A survey by Barna research group found

the top reason given by Americans for the fake news

phenomenon

is

“

reader

error,

”

more

so

than

made-up

stories

or

factual

mistakes

in

reporting.

About

a

third

say

the

problem

of

fake

news

lies

in

“

misinterpretation or exaggeration of actual news

”

via social media. In other words, the choice to share

news on social media may be the heart of the issue.

“

This indicates there is a real personal responsibility

in counteracting this problem,

”

says Roxanne Stone,

editor in chief at Barna Group.

So

when

young

people

are

critical

of

an

over-tweeting

president,

they

reveal

a

mental

discipline

in

thinking

skills

–

and

in

their

choices

on when to share on social media.

Text 3

Any fair-minded assessment of the dangers of the

deal between Britain's National Health Service (NHS)

and

DeepMind

must

start

by

acknowledging

that

both sides mean well. DeepMind is one of the leading

artificial intelligence (AI) companies in the world. The

potential

of

this

work

applied

to

healthcare

is

very

great, but it could also lead to further concentration

of

power

in

the

tech

giants.

It

Is

against

that

background

that

the

information

commissioner,

Elizabeth

Denham,

has

issued

her

damning

verdict

against the Royal Free hospital trust under the NHS,

which

handed

over

to

DeepMind

the

records

of

1.6

million

patients

In

2015

on

the

basis

of

a

vague

agreement

which

took

far

too

little

account

of

the

patients' rights and their expectations of privacy.

DeepMind has almost apologized. The NHS trust

has

mended

its

ways.

Further

arrangements-

and

there may be many- between the NHS and DeepMind

will

be

carefully

scrutinised

to

ensure

that

all

necessary

permissions

have

been

asked

of

patients

and all unnecessary data has been cleaned. There are

lessons about informed patient consent to learn. But

privacy is not the only angle in this case and not even

the most important. Ms Denham chose to concentrate

the blame on the NHS trust, since under existing law

it

“

controlled

”

the

data

and

DeepMind

merely

“

processed

that

it

is

processing

and

aggregation,

not

the

mere

possession of bits, that gives the data value.

The great question is who should benefit from the

analysis of all the data that our lives now generate.

Privacy

law

builds

on

the

concept

of

damage

to

an

individual

from

identifiable

knowledge

about

them.

That misses the way the surveillance economy works.

The

data

of

an

individual

there

gains

its

value

only

when

it

is

compared

with

the

data

of

countless

millions more.

The use of privacy law to curb the tech giants in

this instance feels slightly maladapted. This practice

does not address the real worry. It is not enough to

say

that

the

algorithms

DeepMind

develops

will

benefit patients and save lives. What matters is that

they

will

belong

to

a

private

monopoly

which

developed

them

using

public

resources.

If

software

promises to save lives on the scale that dugs now can,

big data may be expected to behave as a big pharm

has

done.

We

are

still

at

the

beginning

of

this

revolution

and

small

choices

now

may

turn

out

to

have gigantic consequences later. A long struggle will

be needed to avoid a future of digital feudalism. Ms

Denham's report is a welcome start.

Text 4

The U.S. Postal Service (USPS) continues to bleed

red ink. It reported a net loss of $$5.6 billion for fiscal

2016,

the

10th

straight

year

its

expenses

have

exceeded revenue. Meanwhile, it has more than $$120

billion

in

unfunded

liabilities,

mostly

for

employee

health

and

retirement

costs.

There

are

many

bankruptcies.

Fundamentally,

the

USPS

is

in

a

historic

squeeze

between

technological

change

that

has

permanently

decreased

demand

for

its

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-