TOEFL 통합 작문

📖 읽기 지문

The concept of 'planned obsolescence'—the deliberate design of products to have a limited useful life—has been a cornerstone of modern consumer economies. Proponents argue that it drives innovation and economic growth. However, a closer examination reveals that planned obsolescence is not only environmentally unsustainable but also economically short-sighted. This essay will outline three key arguments against this practice. First, planned obsolescence leads to excessive resource consumption and waste. When products are designed to fail or become obsolete quickly, consumers must replace them frequently, resulting in a massive increase in raw material extraction, manufacturing energy use, and landfill waste. For example, smartphones with non-replaceable batteries are often discarded after two years, contributing to millions of tons of e-waste annually. Second, it undermines consumer trust and brand loyalty. When customers discover that a product failed prematurely due to intentional design, they feel deceived. This erosion of trust can lead to negative word-of-mouth, boycotts, and a shift toward smaller, more durable competitors. A notable case is the 'light bulb conspiracy' of the 1920s, where manufacturers colluded to shorten bulb life, which ultimately sparked public outrage and regulatory backlash. Third, planned obsolescence stifles true innovation. Instead of investing in long-lasting, high-quality products, companies focus on superficial changes—like new colors or minor software updates—to drive sales. This 'innovation theater' diverts resources away from meaningful research and development, slowing technological progress in areas such as battery life, repairability, and sustainable materials. In conclusion, while planned obsolescence may offer short-term profits, its long-term costs to the environment, consumer trust, and genuine innovation are too high to ignore.

🎧 듣기 강의

Now, let's consider a different perspective. The reading's criticisms of planned obsolescence are based on outdated assumptions and ignore the complex realities of modern markets. Let me address each point. First, regarding resource consumption and waste, the reading overlooks the role of recycling and circular economy initiatives. Many manufacturers now design products with recyclability in mind, and e-waste recycling rates have improved dramatically. For instance, Apple's robot 'Daisy' can disassemble iPhones to recover precious metals, and many countries have implemented extended producer responsibility laws. Thus, the environmental impact is not as dire as claimed. Second, the claim that planned obsolescence erodes consumer trust is not supported by evidence. In fact, consumers often expect and even welcome periodic upgrades, as seen with annual smartphone releases. The success of brands like Samsung and Apple suggests that consumers value new features and improved performance, and they willingly pay for them. Moreover, the 'light bulb conspiracy' is a historical anomaly; today's market is highly competitive, and companies that deceive customers are quickly exposed and penalized by social media and consumer watchdogs. Third, the argument that planned obsolescence stifles innovation is misleading. On the contrary, the need to attract consumers with new models drives rapid innovation in software, hardware, and materials. The smartphone industry has seen exponential advances in camera technology, processing power, and energy efficiency precisely because of short product cycles. Without planned obsolescence, companies might lack the revenue incentive to invest in cutting-edge research, slowing overall progress. In summary, the reading presents a one-sided view that fails to account for modern recycling systems, consumer preferences, and the innovation-boosting effects of product turnover.