영어 모의고사 (자동 편성)

When engineers design the software ① that controls a self-driving car, they inevitably face a question that philosophers have debated for decades. If a crash becomes unavoidable, should the vehicle protect its own passenger at all costs, or should it be programmed ② minimizing total harm, even if that means steering toward the person inside? Surveys reveal an uncomfortable contradiction: most people say a car should be programmed to save the greater number of lives, yet the same people admit ③ they would never buy a vehicle designed to sacrifice its own owner. This gap between the ideal and the personal choice suggests that ethical programming cannot ④ be settled by public opinion alone. Manufacturers, regulators, and philosophers must instead agree on transparent rules before autonomous vehicles ⑤ are allowed to make such decisions on the road.

Among the many tools available to those who design choice environments, few are as quietly powerful as the default option, the alternative that ①takes effect automatically unless a person actively selects something else. Because changing a default requires deliberate effort, many individuals simply accept whatever arrangement has been preselected for them, regardless of whether that arrangement actually ②serve their interests best. This tendency has been documented across a remarkably wide range of contexts. Countries that automatically enroll citizens in organ donation programs, requiring an explicit request to opt out, consistently report far higher donor registration rates than countries that require citizens ③to actively opt in. Employers who automatically enroll new hires in retirement savings plans likewise see participation rates ④climb dramatically compared with employers who leave enrollment entirely voluntary. What makes default options so influential is not merely convenience; a default also functions as an implicit signal about what is considered normal or recommended, subtly ⑤shaping perceptions even among individuals who believe themselves to be deciding independently.

As more schools shift toward digital textbooks and online assignments, a student without reliable internet access at home faces a disadvantage that has little to do with talent or effort. During recent years, this gap became impossible to ignore, as families in rural areas or low-income neighborhoods ① struggled to complete schoolwork that assumed a stable connection and a personal device. Some policymakers initially treated internet access as a convenience, comparable to cable television, rather than as infrastructure ② essential to modern life. That assumption is increasingly ③ reconsidering, particularly as more essential services, from job applications to medical appointments, move online by default. Closing this divide will require more than simply distributing devices; it will demand sustained investment in the physical networks ④ that carry information into every home, ⑤ regardless of income or location.

Financial markets occasionally experience episodes in which asset prices rise far beyond any level that careful analysis of underlying fundamentals could justify, a phenomenon commonly attributed to herd psychology. During such episodes, individual investors, observing that prices have already risen substantially, often conclude that continuing to buy is ①reasonable simply because so many others are doing the same, rather than because any independent evaluation supports the purchase. This dynamic can become self-perpetuating: rising prices attract new buyers, whose purchases push prices higher still, thereby attracting yet another wave of buyers convinced that the upward trend itself constitutes ②reliable evidence of underlying value. Historical episodes of speculative excess display a strikingly similar pattern, suggesting that the underlying psychological mechanism remains ③variable even as the specific assets involved change considerably across centuries. Eventually, however, some triggering event, however minor, prompts a portion of investors to ④reconsider their assumptions, and the resulting wave of selling can trigger a collapse every bit as rapid and self-reinforcing as the original ⑤ascent.

Devices that translate brain activity directly into digital commands have moved from laboratory experiments to real medical use. As the technology improves, some developers envision a future in which these interfaces extend beyond restoring lost function toward enhancing healthy minds. This prospect raises a philosophical question: if a device can alter memory, mood, or decision-making, _______________. Neuroethicists argue that mental privacy may need to be recognized as a fundamental right before this technology becomes widespread.

The role of emotion in decision-making carries important implications for how financial advice should be delivered. (A) An advisor who presents only statistical projections and probability distributions, however accurate, may fail to help a client translate that information into a decision that feels manageable rather than overwhelming. (B) Effective financial communication, therefore, often pairs quantitative analysis with reassurance calibrated to the client's emotional state, particularly during periods of market turbulence. (C) Clients facing significant financial decisions are rarely persuaded by numbers alone, since anxiety about an uncertain outcome can override even a clear rational case for a particular course of action.

Retailers have discovered practical ways to counteract the negative effects of choice overload without simply reducing the number of products they offer. (A) One common strategy involves organizing an extensive product catalog into clearly labeled categories and subcategories, allowing customers to narrow their search gradually rather than confronting the entire array at once. (B) Another approach highlights a small number of curated recommendations, such as "staff picks" or "best sellers," giving hesitant customers a reasonable starting point without eliminating other options entirely. (C) Both strategies share a common principle: they do not reduce the objective number of choices available but instead reduce the cognitive burden of navigating them.

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.

In purely material terms, of course, rejecting the offer leaves the responder objectively worse off than accepting it would have. In a typical round of the ultimatum game, a proposer offers to keep eighty percent of a sum of money, leaving only twenty percent for the responder. ( ① ) A responder who values only material gain should accept this offer without hesitation, since twenty percent of something is still more than one hundred percent of nothing. ( ② ) In practice, however, a substantial proportion of responders reject such lopsided offers outright. ( ③ ) Both participants then receive nothing, an outcome that a purely self-interested calculator would never choose voluntarily. ( ④ ) Researchers interpret this pattern as evidence that people are willing to incur a personal cost in order to punish behavior they perceive as exploitative. ( ⑤ ) This willingness to sacrifice material gain for the sake of fairness appears consistently across many different cultures, though the specific threshold for what counts as an unfair offer can vary considerably.

Their actual forecasting accuracy, however, has repeatedly proven no better than that of far less experienced participants, and sometimes even worse. Overconfidence among financial professionals presents a puzzling contradiction. ( ① ) Fund managers and analysts typically possess years of specialized training, access to vast quantities of market data, and considerable professional experience. ( ② ) One might reasonably expect such expertise to translate into consistently superior predictions about future market movements. ( ③ ) Longitudinal studies tracking professional forecasts against actual outcomes reveal a persistent gap between confidence and accuracy. ( ④ ) This finding does not imply that expertise is worthless, but it does suggest that expertise can inflate confidence more readily than it improves genuine predictive accuracy. ( ⑤ ) Investors would therefore do well to treat confident predictions, however credentialed their source, with a healthy measure of skepticism.