영어 모의고사 (자동 편성)

A single fertilized egg eventually gives rise to every cell type in the human body, from neurons to bone, a feat that has ①fascinated biologists for more than a century. Embryonic stem cells retain much of that original ②versatility, capable in principle of developing into almost any tissue, which is why researchers have long viewed them as a promising raw material for repairing damaged organs. Because harvesting these cells traditionally required destroying a human embryo, the research ③eliminated ethical objections fierce enough to slow funding and legislation in several countries for years. A breakthrough arrived when scientists discovered that ordinary adult skin cells could be reprogrammed into a state resembling embryonic versatility without ever touching an embryo. These induced pluripotent cells have not entirely erased the ethical debate, but they have opened a path for stem cell research that far more scientists and funding agencies are ④willing to ⑤support.

Bacteria have been cutting up invading viral DNA for billions of years, long before any scientist thought to borrow the trick for use in a ①laboratory. The CRISPR-Cas9 system, as it is now known, relies on a short guide RNA that ②matches a specific DNA sequence, leading a scissor-like enzyme called Cas9 directly to that exact location in the genome. Once Cas9 arrives at the target site, it ③repairs both strands of the DNA helix, and the cell's own repair machinery rushes in to mend the cut, often introducing a small change in the process. By supplying the cell with a template during this repair step, scientists can direct that machinery to ④insert a specific new sequence rather than merely disabling the original gene. What once required years of painstaking work to alter a single gene can now be accomplished within days, a shift in ⑤speed that has reshaped nearly every corner of biological research.

A rational approach to decision-making dictates that only future costs and benefits should influence a choice, since resources already spent cannot be recovered regardless of what is decided next. In practice, however, people routinely allow such irrecoverable expenditures, known as sunk costs, to shape their subsequent decisions, a pattern referred to as the sunk cost fallacy. Economists therefore urge decision-makers to evaluate each choice based solely on its prospective outcomes, treating past expenditures as ___________ to the decision at hand.

People routinely seek out information that confirms what they already believe while overlooking or dismissing evidence that contradicts those beliefs, a pattern known as confirmation bias. Investors who believe a particular company will succeed tend to interpret ambiguous news about that company favorably, while skeptical investors interpret identical news unfavorably, even though both groups are examining the same underlying facts. Correcting for this bias therefore requires deliberate effort, since the mind offers no natural signal indicating that its search for information has been ___________ rather than balanced.

Socialization is the lifelong process through which individuals absorb the norms, values, and roles that allow them to function within a society, beginning in the family and continuing through schools, peer groups, and workplaces. (B) These institutions frequently begin the process with what Goffman termed a mortification of self, removing personal possessions and erasing markers of prior status. (A) Resocialization, by contrast, refers to a deliberate and often abrupt process in which an individual is stripped of a previous identity, typically within what sociologist Erving Goffman called a total institution. (C) While resocialization can help individuals adapt to demanding new roles, critics note that total institutions can also produce lasting psychological strain.

When sociologist Émile Durkheim studied suicide rates across different societies, he noticed something puzzling: rates rose not only during economic depression but also during sudden prosperity. (B) Decades later, Robert Merton extended the concept to explain deviance within stable societies, proposing that anomie also arises when a culture insists that everyone pursue identical goals while denying many people the legitimate means to achieve them. (A) He concluded that both crises share a common feature, the collapse of shared norms, a state Durkheim called anomie, arguing that rapid social change can strip away the moral guidelines that regulate human desire. (C) Faced with this gap between aspiration and opportunity, some individuals conform, but others turn to innovation, ritual, retreat, or rebellion.

Erving Goffman extended this framework with his dramaturgical approach, comparing social life to a theatrical performance in which individuals manage impressions, present different faces in different settings, and carefully control what audiences see backstage versus onstage. Symbolic interactionism approaches society not as a fixed structure imposed from above but as something continuously constructed through everyday face-to-face interaction, in which individuals interpret and respond to the symbolic meanings that objects, actions, and other people hold for them. ( ① ) Sociologist George Herbert Mead argued that the self itself emerges through this interactive process, as individuals learn to see themselves from the perspective of others. ( ② ) He called this process the internalization of the generalized other, a composite sense of society's expectations. ( ③ ) Unlike structural theories that emphasize large institutions, symbolic interactionism focuses on the small, repeated exchanges through which shared meaning is negotiated. ( ④ ) Even stable social structures, in this view, ultimately depend on countless everyday interactions. ( ⑤ )

This is a decision, in short, that no single person should be allowed to make alone. The discovery of CRISPR gene-editing technology gave scientists a tool precise enough to correct a single mistaken letter in the human genome, raising hope for curing inherited diseases that have resisted treatment for generations. ( ① ) Yet the same precision that makes CRISPR so promising also makes it dangerous in the wrong hands. ( ② ) Editing a gene in a sperm, egg, or early embryo does not simply change one patient. ( ③ ) It alters the genetic code passed down to every future generation. ( ④ ) Scientific organizations around the world have therefore drawn a careful line, permitting gene editing to treat disease in existing patients while banning any edit that would be inherited by their descendants. ( ⑤ ) Critics worry, however, that this line will become harder to enforce than it is to draw.

Consequently, even seasoned professionals who believe themselves immune to such influence often fail to notice how much their final judgment has shifted. The anchoring effect can be surprisingly resistant to conscious correction. ( ① ) Even when individuals are explicitly warned in advance that a number they are about to see is randomly generated and therefore meaningless, their subsequent estimates still drift toward that arbitrary figure. ( ② ) This occurs because the mind uses the initial number as a starting point and then adjusts insufficiently away from it, a process that leaves the final judgment biased toward the anchor. ( ③ ) Experimental studies have repeatedly demonstrated this effect across a wide range of tasks, from estimating historical dates to appraising real estate. ( ④ ) The bias persists not because people lack expertise, but because the adjustment process itself is inherently incomplete. ( ⑤ ) Awareness of the anchoring effect, therefore, does not guarantee immunity from it, which is precisely what makes the bias so difficult to counteract in practice.

The player may choose to take only Box B, or to take both boxes, and the prediction has already been made and cannot change at this point. Suppose a mysterious being with a near-perfect track record of predicting human choices presents a player with two boxes. ( ① ) Box A always contains a visible thousand dollars, while Box B contains either a million dollars or nothing at all, depending on a prediction the being made before the game even began. ( ② ) If the being predicted the player would take only Box B, it placed a million dollars inside; if it predicted the player would take both boxes, it left Box B empty. ( ③ ) One line of reasoning says taking both boxes is strictly better, since whatever is already inside the boxes cannot be altered by the player's choice. ( ④ ) A second line of reasoning says taking only Box B is better, since the being's near-perfect accuracy means that choosing both boxes almost guarantees an empty Box B. ( ⑤ ) This apparent conflict between two seemingly sound arguments has made the puzzle a lasting challenge for decision theory.