Назад до ISE IV English (UK) – Interactive task

Universal Basic Income After Automation

англійська сценарій розмови

Oliver

A composed British English speaker with a clear, professional style.

42 years · male

Practise talking about "Universal Basic Income After Automation" with Oliver, your AI speaking avatar. Speak out loud, get instant feedback, and build confidence for your ISE IV English – Interactive task speaking exam.

Start free AI practice

Розмова

I am going to give you a situation. Automation may reduce stable employment and a basic income is being proposed. You need to ask questions and then tell me what you think should happen. What do you need to know first?

Хороша відповідь:

I would need to know where the power sits before giving a view. In this case, automation may reduce stable employment and a basic income is being proposed. I would ask who benefits immediately, who bears the risk if the judgement is wrong, and whether affected people can appeal or demand reasons. Without those answers, the proposal may sound efficient while concealing the risk of market rewards being mistaken for social fairness.

The main options are a universal basic income or targeted income support plus public job creation. What assumption behind these options would you challenge?

Хороша відповідь:

I would challenge the assumption that a universal basic income and targeted income support plus public job creation are the only realistic moral choices. They may be useful starting points, but the real decision may require a narrower pilot, a stronger appeal route or a different definition of success. Otherwise we may choose between two polished versions of the same blind spot.

Suppose someone says your approach is too cautious and that urgent action is needed. How would you respond?

Хороша відповідь:

I would accept the urgency, but separate urgency from certainty. I would allow action where the current harm is clear, but I would limit scale, publish reasons and set a review date. That responds to pressure without pretending the risk has disappeared, especially when the policy could lead to the risk of market rewards being mistaken for social fairness.

What long-term consequence worries you most if this decision is handled badly?

Хороша відповідь:

The long-term risk that worries me most is institutional habit. Once organisations build procedures around a decision, reversing it becomes expensive, embarrassing and politically difficult. In universal basic income after automation, the risk of market rewards being mistaken for social fairness could start to feel normal rather than exceptional, which is more damaging than a single poor decision.

Where should responsibility sit: individuals, institutions, markets or government?

Хороша відповідь:

Responsibility should follow power, information and capacity. Government should set enforceable limits, institutions should explain and monitor decisions, and private actors should not profit from risks they do not carry. Individuals need voice, but voice is not a substitute for power or an appeal mechanism. For universal basic income after automation, that qualification keeps the answer tied to the actual case.

After hearing the objections, what final position would you take?

Хороша відповідь:

My final position would be conditional rather than absolute. I would not give a pure yes or no answer. I would allow the least irreversible action that addresses the immediate harm, but only with published reasons, independent review and a real route for people to challenge outcomes that affect them. For universal basic income after automation, that qualification keeps the answer tied to the actual case.