돌아가기 Advanced (Grades 10-12) English (UK) – Discussion of Presentation

The Future of Work in an Automated World

영어 말하기 시나리오

Alfie

A relaxed British English speaker with an easy, informal style.

31 years · male

Practise talking about "The Future of Work in an Automated World" with Alfie, your AI speaking avatar. Speak out loud, get instant feedback, and build confidence for your Trinity GESE Grade 10-12 speaking exam.

Start free AI practice

대화

Summarise the main argument of your presentation on the future of work in an automated world.

좋은 답변:

I would develop the claim that automation should be treated as both a threat and an opportunity, depending on who controls it and how the benefits are shared. Machines and software can remove dangerous, repetitive or exhausting work, which is a genuine gain. But automation can also remove security, weaken bargaining power and make workers feel replaceable. I would not frame the issue as humans versus machines. The more important question is whether automation is used to improve working life or simply to reduce labour costs. That choice is economic and political, not just technical. That decision will shape whether workers experience technology as support or threat.

What evidence or experience would you use to support that argument?

좋은 답변:

I would rely partly on evidence from industries where automation has already changed jobs, such as manufacturing, warehouses, customer service and transport. That evidence can show both job losses and new kinds of work. I would also refer to recent changes in artificial intelligence, because automation is now affecting writing, design and analysis as well as physical tasks. The limitation is that predictions about future work are often unreliable. Experts have been wrong before. I would therefore use evidence cautiously, focusing on trends, worker experience and policy choices rather than claiming to know exactly which jobs will disappear. Worker voice would be an important part of that design.

What is the strongest objection someone might make to your position?

좋은 답변:

One powerful objection is that anxiety about automation has appeared many times before, and societies have usually created new jobs. A critic could say that fear exaggerates the threat and underestimates human adaptability. I would take that seriously. History does show that technology can create new industries. My response would be that past adaptation was not painless or automatic. Communities suffered, skills lost value and new jobs did not always appear in the same places. The question is not whether work will exist at all. It is whether the transition will be fair enough for ordinary workers to survive it.

How would your argument change if you looked at it from another country or generation?

좋은 답변:

From another country’s perspective, the argument would change according to the labour market. A country with strong welfare support and retraining systems may see automation as less frightening. A country where healthcare, housing and status depend heavily on employment may experience job loss as a much deeper crisis. Generational perspective matters too. Younger workers may expect several career changes, while older workers may have built their identity around one skill or industry. I would keep my central claim, but I would adapt the examples to local security, education and bargaining power. Its benefits and risks will not arrive evenly across regions.

What final question would you want your audience to keep thinking about?

좋은 답변:

The last issue I would raise is who should benefit when machines make work more productive. That question remains unresolved because productivity gains can be used in very different ways. They can increase profits, reduce prices, raise wages, shorten working hours or fund public services. Each option reflects a different view of society. I would want the audience to keep thinking about whether automation should mainly reward owners of technology, or whether it should improve life for workers and communities too. That question turns a technical topic into a moral and political one. Collective preparation would be the measure of seriousness and fairness.