TKA Advanced English Practice Test 2026 (SMA) — Set 1

Should Students Use AI Chatbots for Homework?

Since generative AI chatbots became freely available, schools around the world have faced a difficult question: should students be allowed to use them for homework? The debate has divided teachers, parents and students themselves.

Supporters argue that chatbots can act as a personal tutor that is available at any hour. A student who is stuck on a chemistry problem at eleven at night can ask for a step-by-step explanation instead of giving up. For students whose parents cannot afford private lessons, this could reduce inequality. Supporters also point out that AI tools are already used in many workplaces, so learning to use them responsibly is a skill in itself.

Critics, however, worry that students will simply copy answers without understanding them. Homework exists to give students practice; if a machine does the thinking, the practice disappears. There is also the problem of accuracy. Chatbots sometimes produce confident but incorrect statements, and students who lack background knowledge may not notice. In one small study at a university in Southeast Asia, students who used a chatbot to complete practice exercises scored higher on the exercises themselves but lower on a later closed-book test than students who worked alone.

Between these positions, many educators are searching for a middle path. Some schools now require students to submit their chatbot conversations along with their work, so teachers can see how the tool was used. Others redesign assignments so that they require personal reflection, local data or classroom discussion, which a chatbot cannot easily supply. A growing number of teachers also spend lesson time showing students how to check AI answers against textbooks and reliable websites.

What seems clear is that banning AI completely is becoming unrealistic, since the tools are built into phones, search engines and word processors. The more useful question may not be whether students use AI, but how. Used as a tutor that explains, questions and corrects, a chatbot could deepen learning. Used as a shortcut that produces finished answers, it could quietly empty homework of its purpose.

Why Indonesia Should Put Solar Panels on Its Roofs

Indonesia lies on the equator and receives strong sunshine for most of the year, yet solar power still produces only a small share of its electricity. I believe that rooftop solar panels deserve far more support from the government, businesses and households.

The first reason is cost. The price of solar panels has fallen dramatically over the past decade, and a household system can now pay for itself through lower electricity bills within about six to eight years. After that, the electricity it produces is almost free for another fifteen years or more.

The second reason is energy security. Much of Indonesia's electricity still comes from coal. Every panel on a roof reduces the amount of fuel that must be mined, transported and burned. Rooftop systems are also spread across thousands of buildings, so a failure in one place does not cause a blackout everywhere.

The third reason is health. Burning coal releases fine particles that damage the lungs, especially in communities near power plants. Replacing even part of that electricity with solar energy would mean cleaner air.

The rapid growth shown in the chart proves that people want this technology. However, growth is still held back by rules that limit how much electricity households may sell back to the grid, and by the high upfront cost for families with low incomes. The government could remove these barriers by simplifying permits and offering low-interest loans.

Some people say that solar power is unreliable because the sun does not shine at night. This is true, but batteries are becoming cheaper, and solar power is most abundant in the middle of the day, when offices and factories use the most electricity. Solar does not need to replace every other source to be useful; it simply needs to do much more than it does today.

For a country with so much sunshine, leaving roofs empty is a missed opportunity.

The Four-Day School Week: Help or Harm?

In several countries, some schools have moved from a five-day to a four-day week. Students attend for longer hours from Monday to Thursday and have Friday off. The idea has attracted attention in Indonesia too, where some regional governments have discussed it as a way to cut costs. But does a shorter week actually benefit students?

Those in favour highlight savings and well-being. A four-day week reduces spending on transport, electricity and cleaning. In rural areas, where students may travel long distances, one fewer journey each week can save families money and time. Teachers in schools that have made the change often report lower stress and fewer sick days, and some schools say it has become easier to recruit teachers.

Opponents raise serious concerns about learning and families. Longer school days can be exhausting, particularly for younger children, and concentration tends to fall in the final hours of the afternoon. Research from the United States has found that achievement in some four-day schools grew slightly more slowly than in similar five-day schools, although the effects were small and varied from place to place. Working parents may also struggle to find childcare on the extra free day, and students who rely on school meals lose one meal every week.

The evidence, then, is mixed. The results appear to depend heavily on how the extra day is used. In some schools, Friday becomes a day for optional tutoring, sports or community projects; in others, it is simply a day off with nothing organised. Schools that offer structured activities tend to see fewer negative effects on learning.

Before adopting a four-day week, therefore, decision-makers need to ask more than whether it saves money. They should consider the age of the students, the availability of childcare and food programmes, and how the free day will be supported. A policy that works well in a small rural school may not suit a large city school at all.

Fast Fashion and Its Hidden Costs

Clothes have never been cheaper or more plentiful. Online stores release new styles every week, and a T-shirt can cost less than a meal. This business model, known as fast fashion, has made fashionable clothing available to millions of people. However, its low prices hide costs that are paid elsewhere.

The first cost is environmental. Producing textiles uses large amounts of water, energy and chemicals. Many fast-fashion garments are made from polyester, a plastic fibre produced from oil. When these clothes are washed, they release tiny plastic fibres that flow into rivers and the sea. Because the clothes are designed to be cheap rather than durable, they are often thrown away after only a few uses, and most end up in landfills or are burned rather than recycled.

The second cost is human. To keep prices low, brands often rely on factories where wages are very low and working hours are long. Workers, most of whom are young women, may have little protection if they are injured or dismissed. Tragedies such as factory fires and building collapses have drawn global attention to these conditions, but improvements have been uneven.

Consumers are not powerless. Buying fewer but better-made clothes, repairing them and buying second-hand can all reduce demand for fast fashion. In Indonesia, thrifting has become popular among young people, although the import of used clothing has also raised concerns about its effect on local garment producers. Some local brands now use natural dyes and traditional fabrics such as tenun and batik, and sell clothes made in small batches.

Governments and companies also have a role to play. Some countries have begun to require clothing brands to pay for the collection and recycling of the products they sell. Clearer labels about where and how clothes were made would help consumers make informed choices. Until such changes become common, the true price of a cheap T-shirt will continue to be paid by rivers, landfills and workers far from the shop.

Digital ID: Convenience or Risk?

Governments around the world are replacing paper documents with digital identity systems. With a digital ID, citizens can prove who they are on their phones, open bank accounts, receive social assistance and access health records without queuing at an office. Indonesia, too, has introduced a digital version of the population identity card that can be stored in an official application.

The benefits are considerable. Digital IDs can make public services faster and reduce the number of fake documents. When assistance is paid directly to verified accounts, less money is lost to corruption or errors. For people in remote areas, being able to complete administrative tasks online can save a day's travel.

At the same time, putting identity data online creates new risks. A single database containing the names, addresses and ID numbers of millions of people is an attractive target for hackers. Data leaks in several countries have exposed personal information that can then be used for fraud. Critics also warn that when many services are connected to one ID, it becomes easier to track what citizens do, unless strong laws limit how the data may be used.

There is also the question of who might be left behind. Older citizens, people with disabilities and those without smartphones or reliable internet may find digital systems harder to use. If paper alternatives are removed too quickly, these groups could lose access to services they depend on.

Experts generally agree that digital ID is not good or bad in itself; its effects depend on design and safeguards. They recommend collecting only the data that is necessary, protecting it with strong encryption, allowing independent audits, and keeping offline options available. Indonesia's Personal Data Protection Law, passed in 2022, sets rules for how organisations must handle personal data, but its success will depend on how firmly it is enforced. As more of life moves online, public trust will depend on showing that convenience does not come at the cost of privacy.