HOMEWORK
Don’t forget to work this section.
If you have any questions about any of the homework,
please inform a Director at the front desk.
Directions: You should use the strategies taught in this lesson.
See page 21-22 for these strategies.
The following editorial, written by ethicist Trinh
Nguyen, appeared in a national newspaper in
December 2018.
Electroencephalography, or EEG, is a technology
that detects the brain’s electrical activity and can
show emotions or other states of mind. Wearable EEG
technology is now available as low-profile headsets
5 connected to electrodes that read brain waves and record
that information, similar to wearable technology that
monitors heart rate or sleep. The EEG wearables have
the potential to provide a wealth of services that will
improve human lives. In the health sector, such brain-
10 tracking wearables can help people with epilepsy or
other brain conditions. They can also help people with
limited mobility speak, type, or drive using only the
power of thought. Yet even as brain-tracking or mind-
tracking becomes more advanced and convenient, it
15 raises concerning legal issues about mental privacy
and cognitive liberty. Before brain-tracking becomes
commonplace, measures need to be implemented to
protect the data that comes from a person’s mind.
In her talk at a TED Salon event in November 2018,
20 legal scholar Nita Farahany explained that people do not
understand the sensitivity of brain data. In a survey she
conducted, Farahany found that most people believed
their social security numbers to be more sensitive data
than their emotions or opinions. The implications of
25 this apathy toward the value and importance of brain
data, Farahany suggested, hold the potential seriously to
compromise people’s privacy—even down to the level of
their thoughts.
A worst-case scenario about the use or misuse of brain
30 data can be chilling, and it isn’t that farfetched, either.
People might be required to wear brain trackers for work,
which would give their employers instant access to their
32
2019 © This material is covered by Federal copyright laws that prohibit its reproduction in whole or in part
without the express, written permission of KD College Prep. No rights claimed for original works of outside authors.
state of mind. On the one hand, if pilots could be alerted
if they lost concentration while flying, that could raise
35 the quality of transportation safety, but on the other hand
if they were prevented from working based on feeling
any emotional disturbance, that would be unfair. What
if monetary bonuses were tied to brain scans? What if
mind-tracking allowed employers to discriminate against
40 people whose gender, political beliefs, genetic mental
health, or religions did not conform to the “brain type”
desirable in an employee? Even worse, brain data could
be hacked, spied upon, stolen, resold, or all of the above
so that governments, companies, or organizations could
45 make a profit on information gleaned from the mental
states of workers. A further step along the possible
outcomes of public or mandatory wearable EEGs is that
someone could be arrested for thinking about committing
a crime or for thinking about protesting against a political
50 party or politician. The opportunity for controlling
people by misusing their mental data is as limitless as
the imagination, if an EEG-monitor would allow such
creative thought to flourish.
One way to resist the loss of mental privacy is to
55 restrict the flow of brain data. Even if brain-tracking
wearables were used for safety, such as in the example
of pilots, only clearly defined data would be tracked,
while the other data would be destroyed, securely stored,
or otherwise used according to the individual’s wishes.
60 Brain-tracking technology for health would likewise be
worn with the individual’s knowledgeable consent and
with much more robust privacy measures than are in use
at the moment. Laws that would place rights to brain data
in individuals’ power or that would restrict how brain data
65 could be recorded or exchanged would also help to protect
mental privacy.
Another recourse for legal protections of cognitive
liberty would be to focus on brain data rights but also
KD College Prep — 1920 VERBAL 4: A.1
 Homework
on remedies—or, justice to repair harm—for the misuse
70 of data. If someone learned that the data of her mind-
tracking wearable had been mined without her consent,
she could, for example, receive monetary damages or
other reparations for the harm that she sustained. While
this approach tends to assume that people will be harmed
75 by the misappropriation of their data, on the other hand
it focuses on proper usage of data with penalties for
misuse, which many consider a fairer legal position than
data restriction. Regardless of the exact verbiage of the
laws that could be created, it is important at this point that
80 some legal framework about cognitive liberties and brain
data is constructed at all.
1
Which question does the main idea of this passage answer
most closely?
A. What are mind-tracking wearables?
B. What are the legal issues at stake in mental privacy?
C. What are the ways, if any, that brain data can be
misused?
D. Who will write the laws that reflect the protection of
cognitive liberty?
2
The first paragraph states that EEG wearables
A. possess the potential to cure brain conditions.
B. are already in use in the health industry.
C. help to predict the way that individuals are likely to
vote.
D. can be used to cultivate persona-specific
advertisements.
KD College Prep — 1920 VERBAL 4: A.1
2019 © This material is covered by Federal copyright laws that prohibit its reproduction in whole or in part
without the express, written permission of KD College Prep. No rights claimed for original works of outside authors.
3
The point of the survey conducted by Farahany was to
find out
A. how many people already used mind-tracking
wearables.
B. how secure people’s social security numbers were.
C. whether people agreed that brain data should be
protected.
D. whether people believed their brain data was sensitive
information.
4
The author implies that brain data tracking “isn’t that
farfetched” (line 30) mainly because
A. health and safety are reasonable causes for tracking
brain data.
B. corporations are always searching for ways to steal
data about individuals.
C. certain nations have already made wearable EEGs
mandatory.
D. when it comes to data security, there is no real
protection against hackers.
5
The author most likely employs the two rhetorical
questions in lines 37-42 in order to
A. create fear and resentment towards employers that
connect brain data with wages.
B. explain why workers should refuse to wear EEG
trackers recreationally.
C. illustrate some of the worst situations in which brain
data could be misused.
D. compare nefarious business practices to that of
governments.
33
Homework

6 9

The fourth paragraph (lines 54-66) indicates that
A. limiting the influx of data will help protect cognitive
liberties.
B. brain data is easy to misappropriate when wearable
brain tracking is mandatory at work.
C. cognitive liberty is less important than the ability to
prevent crimes.
D. specifying remedies for misuse of brain data will help
protect cognitive liberties.
7 data or to delete it.
It can be inferred from the sentence in lines 73-78
(“While this … restriction”) that a legal debate on the
topic of cognitive liberty lies between
A. whether to use laws to restrict data or to state
remedies.
B. the use of brain data for crime prevention or for
transportation safety.
C. whether to limit individuals’ rights or governments’
rights over brain data.
D. to what extent to allow the exchange and sale of brain

In line 55, “flow” is closest in meaning to

A. flooding
B. leakage
C. transference
D. promulgation

In line 71, “mined” is closest in meaning to

A. deposited
B. excavated
C. hoarded
D. accessed

34
KD College Prep — 1920 VERBAL 4: A.1
2019 © This material is covered by Federal copyright laws that prohibit its reproduction in whole or in part
without the express, written permission of KD College Prep. No rights claimed for original works of outside authors.