37. According to paragraph 2, why did southern Mesopotamia depend on long-distance trade for bronze production? (A) The region lacked natural deposits of copper and tin. (B) Local rulers preferred imported goods for prestige reasons. (C) The region of southern Mesopotamia had no skilled metalworkers. (D) Trade routes in southern Mesopotamia were required by religious law.

42. What does the author suggest in the final paragraph about the relationship between technology and political power in early states generally? (A) This relationship was unique to Mesopotamia and not observed elsewhere. (B) Most early states avoided relying on valuable materials to maintain power. (C) Complex, resource-demanding technologies often gave organized institutions a political advantage in many early societies. (D) Political power in early states in Mesopotamia was based primarily upon religious authority rather than material resources. Reading 2 For much of the twentieth century, sporting excellence was regarded as a relatively straightforward concept. Victory was commonly interpreted as the outcome of superior physical ability, rigorous training, and unwavering determination. Athletes who consistently outperformed their competitors were widely admired not merely for their achievements but also for embodying ideals of discipline, perseverance, and fair play. Although technological innovation influenced sporting equipment and facilities, such developments were generally viewed as peripheral rather than transformative. Over the past three decades, however, the relationship between athletic performance and technology has become increasingly complex. Elite athletes now compete within ecosystems shaped by biomechanical analysis, artificial intelligence, wearable sensors, nutritional science, and sophisticated recovery protocols. Training decisions that were once guided primarily by coaches' intuition are increasingly informed by predictive algorithms capable of identifying subtle physiological changes long before they become visible to the human eye. As a result, success in modern sport depends not only on an athlete's physical capabilities but also on the expertise of multidisciplinary teams that include data scientists, psychologists, physiologists, and engineers. This transformation has prompted a fundamental philosophical question: when athletic performance is increasingly optimized through technological intervention, what exactly should be regarded as the object of admiration? Some scholars argue that technological assistance merely extends humanity's long-standing pursuit of excellence. From this perspective, innovations such as carbon-fiber prosthetic limbs, altitude simulation chambers, and real-time biometric monitoring differ only in degree, rather than in kind, from earlier developments such as synthetic running tracks or advanced footwear. Human achievement has always depended, to some extent, on technological progress. Others remain unconvinced. They contend that contemporary sports risk shifting public admiration away from athletes themselves and toward the technological systems that support them. If two competitors possess nearly identical physiological capacities, yet one benefits from vastly superior analytical tools, financial resources, and scientific expertise, can the resulting performance still be interpreted as an expression of individual excellence? Critics further argue that technological advantages often mirror broader socioeconomic inequalities, enabling wealthier sporting organizations to accumulate competitive advantages unavailable to less affluent nations or institutions. Under such circumstances, victory may increasingly reflect disparities in technological infrastructure rather than differences in athletic ability. The issue becomes even more complicated when artificial intelligence begins to influence strategic decision-making during competition itself. Machine-learning systems are already capable of analyzing opponents' tactical tendencies, predicting injury risks, and recommending real-time adjustments during matches. While proponents regard these developments as natural extensions of evidence-based coaching, opponents question whether excessive reliance on algorithmic recommendations diminishes the very uncertainty that has historically made sport compelling. Spectators have long admired athletes not only because they perform extraordinary physical feats but also because they make difficult decisions under conditions of uncertainty. If those decisions become progressively delegated to predictive technologies, some argue that an essential element of sporting excellence may gradually disappear. Yet it would be misleading to conclude that technology inevitably undermines sport. Historically, nearly every major technological innovation—from electronic timing systems to video assistant referees—has initially generated controversy before eventually becoming normalized. What distinguishes current developments is not simply their sophistication but their capacity to influence cognitive processes traditionally regarded as uniquely human. Consequently, the debate surrounding technology in sport is no longer confined to questions of fairness or competitive balance; it increasingly concerns the philosophical meaning of human achievement itself. Perhaps, then, the central question is not whether technology should be incorporated into sport, but rather where society chooses to locate athletic excellence. If excellence is understood primarily as the maximization of measurable performance, technological optimization appears not merely acceptable but desirable. If, however, excellence also encompasses human judgment, resilience, creativity, and adaptability under uncertainty, then the increasing delegation of decision-making to intelligent systems may require a fundamental reconsideration of what spectators truly celebrate when they applaud athletic success.

相關試題

相關試卷