편입 독해지문 분석

📘 독해 문제

[지문]

The concept of planned obsolescence, while rooted in early 20th-century consumer strategy, remains one of the most controversial and enduring practices in modern manufacturing and marketing. Coined during the Great Depression as a means to reinvigorate a stagnant economy, the idea was simple yet effective: engineer products to become obsolete—either functionally or stylistically—within a relatively short period of time, prompting consumers to make repeat purchases. At the time, this approach seemed to provide an economic solution to decreasing industrial output and waning consumer demand.

Fast-forward to the present, and planned obsolescence has morphed into a pervasive norm across numerous industries, from electronics and fashion to automobiles and even furniture. Smartphones, for instance, often experience battery degradation and software incompatibility just a few years after release, nudging users toward purchasing newer models. In fashion, styles evolve so rapidly that items become outdated not because of wear and tear, but due to shifting trends and social pressure. This strategic impermanence drives sales, stimulates innovation, and ensures continuous profit for corporations.

Yet, the costs of this economic engine are increasingly apparent. Environmental activists and economists alike warn of the mounting ecological burden caused by mass production and premature disposal of goods. E-waste—discarded electronic devices—is now one of the fastest-growing waste categories in the world. Many of these items contain hazardous materials that can leach into soil and water supplies, posing significant health risks to both humans and wildlife. Moreover, the constant consumption mindset exacerbates the depletion of natural resources and intensifies carbon emissions from manufacturing and global logistics.

From an ethical standpoint, critics argue that planned obsolescence fosters a culture of disposability, erodes consumer trust, and places undue financial burden on low-income populations who are often compelled to replace products they can ill afford to repurchase. There are also concerns about the intentional withholding of product durability, where companies allegedly possess the technology to create longer-lasting goods but choose not to do so in the interest of profit. Some even accuse corporations of deliberately restricting repairability by using proprietary parts or software locks, limiting consumers' ability to fix devices independently or through third-party services.

On the other hand, proponents of planned obsolescence claim it drives technological advancement and economic growth. They argue that constant innovation requires regular product cycles and that consumers benefit from improved performance, aesthetics, and features in newer models. From this perspective, obsolescence is not merely a manipulation tactic, but a byproduct of progress.

Despite these justifications, growing consumer awareness is giving rise to anti-obsolescence movements, such as the Right to Repair campaign. These initiatives demand legislation that mandates manufacturers to make spare parts, manuals, and repair tools readily available to the public. Countries like France have introduced "repairability scores" on electronics, while the European Union has passed laws requiring certain products to be repairable for up to ten years.

As the planet faces escalating environmental challenges and widening socioeconomic divides, the question becomes urgent: Should companies continue to profit from making products that are designed to fail? Or is it time for a paradigm shift toward sustainability, transparency, and longevity in product design? The debate around planned obsolescence is no longer just about consumer rights or corporate profit margins; it speaks to the core values shaping our global future.

---

❓ Question

What is the main idea of the passage?

(A) Planned obsolescence has become an essential tool for companies to increase innovation and revenue.
(B) The environmental consequences of product disposal are exaggerated and not directly caused by obsolescence.
(C) Planned obsolescence, while economically beneficial, raises serious environmental and ethical concerns.
(D) Governments are increasingly supporting corporations in enforcing obsolescence to improve national economies.