영어 모의고사 (자동 편성)

Millions of people now wear devices that continuously track their heart rate, sleep patterns, and daily activity, ①generating an intimate stream of health data that would have been unthinkable to collect just two decades ago. Users generally assume this information belongs to them, since it ②is drawn directly from their own bodies. In practice, however, the terms of service that few people read often ③grants the manufacturer broad rights to store, analyze, and even sell anonymized versions of that data to insurers or advertisers. This arrangement becomes especially troubling when health data influences decisions far beyond fitness, such as insurance premiums or employment screening. Advocates for reform argue that biological data deserves a category of protection ④stronger than ordinary consumer information, precisely because it can never truly ⑤be replaced or reset once it has been exposed.

Social media platforms rarely show users a neutral stream of information. Instead, recommendation algorithms are ①optimized to maximize engagement, and content that provokes strong emotion, particularly outrage, tends to hold attention longer than balanced reporting ever could. Over time, users exposed to a steady diet of emotionally charged content may come to believe that extreme opinions are far more ②common than they actually are, simply because those opinions dominate their feed. Researchers describe this as a ③distorted mirror: the platform reflects not society as it truly is, but a version shaped by whatever keeps people scrolling. Some platforms have experimented with reducing the visibility of outrage-driven content, only to see user engagement ④drop, which reveals an uncomfortable truth about the underlying business model. This ⑤confirms that emotionally extreme content plays little role in keeping the platform profitable.

Classical economic models typically assume that people discount future rewards at a constant rate, valuing a reward received later somewhat less than an identical reward received now, but doing so ①consistently across all time horizons. Empirical observation, however, reveals a different pattern: people apply a much ②steeper discount to the immediate future than to the distant future. When the reward or cost in question lies safely in the future, its emotional weight remains ③vivid, allowing rational long-term goals to dominate one's stated intentions. Once that same reward or cost draws near, however, its immediacy triggers a disproportionately strong emotional pull, frequently ④overriding the very plans made earlier with such apparent confidence. This dynamic helps explain chronic procrastination, since tasks that carry long-term benefits are perpetually ⑤deferred in favor of activities offering more immediate satisfaction.

Blockchain technology was originally promoted as a way to remove the need for trusted middlemen, allowing strangers to exchange value directly and verify transactions through a shared, ①tamper-resistant ledger rather than through a bank or government agency. In theory, this design distributes power away from any single institution and toward the network as a whole. In practice, however, a small number of large players have come to ②dominate many blockchain networks, controlling enough computing power or currency to influence outcomes that were supposed to be decided collectively. Critics note a further irony: when something goes wrong, such as a hacked exchange or a lost password, there is often ③ample institutional support to appeal to, since the entire system was designed precisely to eliminate that kind of central authority. Whether decentralization can ④survive this concentration of power remains one of the technology's most ⑤unresolved questions.

When people are asked to judge how risky or beneficial a particular technology is, they rarely conduct anything resembling a careful cost-benefit analysis. Instead, they consult a quick emotional impression, an instinctive sense of whether the technology feels good or feels bad, and let that impression guide their entire judgment. This mental shortcut, known as the affect heuristic, produces a curious pattern that traditional risk theory struggles to explain: _______________. For example, when researchers presented a fictional industrial chemical alongside a brief description emphasizing its convenience, participants rated it not only as more useful but also, illogically, as less dangerous.

For much of its history, economic theory treated emotion as a distortion to be eliminated from otherwise rational calculation. More recent research, however, suggests that emotion functions not merely as noise but as an integral component of sound judgment. Financial regulators have begun incorporating this understanding into policy design, recognizing that decisions made under conditions of acute emotional arousal, such as panic during a market downturn, often depart substantially from the ___________ that individuals would exhibit under calmer circumstances.

Two patients diagnosed with the same disease and prescribed the same medication can respond in strikingly different ways, one recovering quickly while the other experiences little benefit or even harmful side effects. (A) This approach has proven especially valuable in cancer treatment, where tumors from two patients with the same diagnosis may carry entirely different genetic mutations that respond to entirely different drugs, though widespread adoption still faces real obstacles, since genetic sequencing remains expensive in many regions. (B) By sequencing a patient's DNA before treatment begins, doctors can increasingly predict which medication is likely to work best and at what dose, replacing a strategy once described as one-size-fits-all with something closer to a tailored fit. (C) Precision medicine starts from the observation that this variation often traces back to differences buried in each patient's genome, differences that determine how efficiently a body absorbs, breaks down, or responds to a given drug.

Hospitals are increasingly adopting artificial intelligence tools that can scan medical images and flag potential tumors faster than experienced radiologists. (A) The doctor may argue that they simply trusted a tool the hospital required them to use, while the hospital may blame the software company instead. (B) Yet the growing reliance on these tools raises an uncomfortable legal question: when an AI system misses a diagnosis, who is responsible? (C) Until legal systems clarify this chain of responsibility, patients harmed by an algorithmic error may find themselves with no clear party to hold accountable.

The rejection of unfair offers in the ultimatum game raises an intriguing evolutionary question. (A) One explanation suggests that a willingness to punish unfairness, even at a personal cost, may have conferred long-term advantages within small communities where reputation and repeated interaction mattered greatly. (B) If punishing unfairness is costly in the short term, why would such a tendency have persisted across generations rather than being eliminated by more narrowly self-interested behavior? (C) An individual known to reject unfair offers discourages others from proposing unfair terms in future interactions, ultimately securing fairer treatment over the course of a lifetime.

Whether this asymmetry of influence should be celebrated as protective or condemned as paternalistic remains a genuinely open question. Consider a nudge designed to help elderly patients adhere to complex medication schedules by defaulting them into automatic pharmacy refills and reminder calls. ( ① ) Advocates point out that many elderly patients struggle to manage complicated schedules independently, and that a well-designed default can meaningfully improve health outcomes without removing any patient's ability to opt out. ( ② ) Skeptics respond that elderly patients may be less likely than younger populations to notice that a default has been set on their behalf, let alone to exercise the option of opting out even when they might prefer to. ( ③ ) Both sides agree that the intervention influences behavior more powerfully among vulnerable patients than it would among a more attentive population. ( ④ ) What they dispute is not the existence of this heightened influence but its proper ethical interpretation. ( ⑤ ) Ultimately, resolving this disagreement requires weighing the genuine health benefits of the program against the diminished practical capacity of some patients to resist it.