영어 모의고사 (자동 편성)

A cotton plant that manufactures its own insecticide sounds like science fiction, yet it has been ①growing in fields around the world for decades. Scientists achieved this by isolating a gene from a soil bacterium that produces a protein toxic to specific insect pests but harmless to humans, then ②inserting that gene into the plant's own genome so that every cell manufactures the protective protein. Other genetically modified crops carry a gene that allows them ③survive direct exposure to a particular herbicide, letting farmers spray a field to kill weeds without harming the crop growing among them. Supporters point to yield increases and reduced pesticide spraying documented across millions of hectares, while critics worry about weeds and insects ④evolving resistance to these built-in defenses over time, much as bacteria evolve resistance to antibiotics. Regulatory agencies in most countries now require extensive testing before a genetically modified crop reaches the market, ⑤evaluating everything from its nutritional content to its potential effects on nearby ecosystems.

As nudging has moved from academic theory into widespread practice, a persistent ethical question has accompanied its rise: at what point ①does subtly guiding behavior for someone's own benefit shade into manipulation that undermines their capacity for autonomous choice? Proponents typically distinguish nudges from manipulation by pointing to transparency and reversibility, arguing that a legitimate nudge ②operate openly, can be easily resisted by anyone who wishes to opt out, and ultimately serves the interests of the person being nudged rather than the interests of whoever designed the intervention. Critics counter that this distinction often collapses in practice, since many effective nudges work precisely because they ③exploit cognitive processes operating below conscious awareness, meaning that the person being influenced may never fully register that a nudge is even occurring. A supermarket that arranges healthier foods at eye level, for instance, differs only in the direction of its influence, not in its underlying mechanism, from a supermarket that ④arranges the most profitable items at eye level. This tension suggests that the ethical status of a nudge cannot be evaluated by examining its psychological mechanism alone; instead, it must be judged according to the intentions of the party who ⑤designs it and the outcome that design is intended to produce.

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.

Sensors buried in the soil now report moisture levels in real time, drones survey entire fields for signs of disease within minutes, and automated systems adjust irrigation without a farmer ever walking the rows. For large operations with the capital to invest, these tools have ①measurably increased yields while ②reducing water waste, addressing two problems that traditional farming has struggled with for generations. Smaller family farms, however, often ③cannot afford the upfront cost of this equipment, and some worry that the gap between high-tech and traditional operations will only widen as the technology advances further. There is also a quieter cultural cost that rarely appears in productivity reports: generations of farming knowledge risk being ④preserved by dashboards and automated alerts that few young farmers are taught to question, a loss productivity reports rarely ⑤capture.

When people estimate the value of an unfamiliar product, they rarely rely on objective calculation alone; instead, they anchor their judgment to whatever numerical reference happens to be presented first, however ①arbitrary that number may be. This phenomenon exerts a ②disproportionate influence on price perception precisely because initial figures function as a kind of cognitive gravity that subsequent estimates struggle to escape. A shopper who first sees a jacket listed at $300 before it is marked down to $150 will likely judge the discounted price as an excellent ③bargain, regardless of whether $150 actually reflects the jacket's true worth. Retailers, well aware of this bias, frequently display a ④deflated "original price" beside a discounted one, not because the higher figure is meaningful, but because it recalibrates customers' expectations. Even professionals are not immune: negotiators who open with an extreme initial offer often secure more ⑤favorable final terms than those who begin with a moderate one.

Behavioral economists have long observed that people tend to feel the pain of losing something more intensely than the pleasure of gaining an equivalent amount, a tendency known as loss aversion. Consider an investor who refuses to sell a declining stock, clinging to the hope that its price will eventually recover, even when all available evidence indicates that selling and reinvesting elsewhere would be more rational. As a result, loss aversion frequently pushes individuals toward ___________ rather than toward the outcome that would maximize their overall welfare.

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.

Beyond restoring lost function, engineers are now exploring implants and prosthetics designed to give healthy people abilities beyond ordinary human limits. (A) Critics counter that earlier enhancements were broadly available to anyone regardless of wealth, while cutting-edge implants are likely to remain expensive for decades, potentially splitting society along economic lines. (B) Supporters frame this as simply the next step in a long history of human enhancement, no different in principle from eyeglasses or vaccines. (C) What began as a medical tool for restoring what was lost, in other words, may end up redefining the baseline of what counts as an ordinary human being.

Fairness, in other words, is not a feature that can simply be patched in once a problem is discovered. Many large companies now rely on artificial intelligence to screen job applications before a human ever sees them. ( ① ) These systems promise efficiency, scanning thousands of resumes in seconds and ranking candidates according to patterns drawn from previous hiring decisions. ( ② ) However, this reliance on historical data creates a troubling risk. ( ③ ) If a company's past hiring favored a particular group, the algorithm may learn to treat that pattern as a marker of success and quietly reproduce it, even when no one intended discrimination. ( ④ ) Unlike a human interviewer, the system offers no explanation for its choices, which makes the bias difficult to detect until an outside audit reveals it. ( ⑤ ) Some researchers argue that fairness cannot be added afterward; it must be built into the system's design from the very beginning.

Because no alternative is ever removed, defenders insist that the intervention remains fully compatible with individual liberty. One of the most frequently cited nudge programs involves the redesign of cafeteria layouts to encourage healthier eating among students. ( ① ) Rather than banning unhealthy snacks outright, administrators simply relocate them to less convenient shelves while placing fruit and vegetables within easy reach. ( ② ) Students remain completely free to seek out the relocated items if they wish to do so. ( ③ ) Data collected across numerous schools show that this modest rearrangement increases the selection of healthier options by a meaningful margin, without any accompanying complaints about restricted choice. ( ④ ) Skeptics nonetheless point out that the very effectiveness of such nudges depends on exploiting the same mental shortcuts, such as convenience and visibility, that lead people to make less healthy choices in the first place. ( ⑤ ) Whether this exploitation is ethically troubling or simply a pragmatic use of known psychological tendencies remains a matter of ongoing disagreement.