영어 모의고사 (자동 편성)

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.

Classical economic models typically assume that people discount future rewards at a constant rate, ①valuing a reward received later somewhat less than an identical reward received now. Empirical observation, however, reveals a different pattern: people apply a much steeper discount to the immediate future than to the distant future, a phenomenon ②termed hyperbolic discounting. This inconsistency explains why an individual might sincerely resolve tonight to wake up early and exercise tomorrow, only to postpone the plan once tomorrow actually arrives and the immediate discomfort of getting out of bed ③become vivid and present. When the reward or cost in question lies safely in the future, its emotional weight remains muted, ④allowing 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 ⑤overriding the very plans made earlier with such apparent confidence.

Behavioral economists have long observed that people tend to feel the pain of losing something more ①intensely 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 ②recover, even when all available evidence indicates that selling and reinvesting elsewhere would be more rational. Such behavior, though it appears ③rational from a purely economic standpoint, becomes understandable once we recognize that the investor is trying to avoid the sharp discomfort associated with realizing a loss. Similarly, consumers often demand a much ④higher price to give up an item they already own than they would be willing to pay to acquire the same item in the first place. As a result, loss aversion frequently pushes individuals toward decisions that ⑤minimize potential regret over losses rather than toward outcomes that maximize their overall welfare.

Every time a smartphone connects to a cell tower or a Wi-Fi network, it ①quietly records a data point that can later be pieced together into a detailed map of where its owner has been. Most users agree to this tracking without reading the fine print, assuming that a single company's database poses ②little threat. The real danger, however, emerges when location data from multiple sources is combined. A pattern that reveals a person's home, workplace, and daily route can ③expose far more than any single app ever intended to share. Companies often argue that anonymized data cannot be traced back to individuals, yet researchers have ④repeatedly shown that a handful of location points is enough to identify a specific person with striking accuracy. As a result, privacy experts increasingly insist that location data deserves ⑤minimal legal protection, similar to that of medical records.

City governments increasingly market dense networks of surveillance cameras as a straightforward safety upgrade, promising ①faster emergency response and lower crime rates. In many cases, the technology delivers exactly what it promises, helping investigators identify suspects within hours rather than weeks. Yet the same infrastructure that catches criminals also creates a ②permanent record of where ordinary, law-abiding citizens go about their daily lives. Once a camera network exists, its purpose can quietly ③shrink, from tracking traffic accidents to monitoring political protests, often without new public debate or explicit approval. Civil liberties groups argue that a city should decide how much surveillance it wants before the cameras go up, not years ④afterward when the infrastructure is already impossible to remove. Convenience installed today, in other words, can quietly become ⑤control tomorrow.

Identical information can provoke strikingly different reactions depending on how it is worded, a phenomenon economists call the framing effect. Patients told that a surgical procedure carries a ninety percent survival rate tend to consent to it far more readily than patients told that the same procedure carries a ten percent mortality rate, even though the two descriptions convey exactly the same statistical reality. Recognizing how deeply framing shapes judgment is therefore essential, not because the underlying facts change, but because the very same facts, dressed in different language, can lead reasonable people toward ___________ conclusions.

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. Some policymakers initially treated internet access as a convenience, comparable to cable television, rather than as infrastructure essential to modern life. That assumption is increasingly being reconsidered, particularly as _______________. Closing this divide will require more than simply distributing devices.

The sunk cost fallacy also complicates decisions in personal relationships and long-term commitments. (A) A person who has invested years in a career path that no longer brings satisfaction may nonetheless continue along that path, reluctant to treat those years as time that cannot be reclaimed regardless of future choices. (B) This reluctance often stems less from genuine hope for improvement than from an unwillingness to admit that the time and effort already invested failed to produce the desired outcome. (C) Recognizing this pattern requires distinguishing between a decision genuinely worth continuing and one being sustained merely to justify past commitment, a distinction that is often uncomfortable to draw honestly.

Blockchain technology was originally promoted as a way to remove the need for trusted middlemen, allowing strangers to exchange value directly through a shared, tamper-resistant ledger. (A) In practice, however, a small number of large players have come to dominate many blockchain networks, controlling enough power to influence outcomes that were supposed to be decided collectively. (B) In theory, this design distributes power away from any single institution and toward the network as a whole. (C) Critics note a further irony: when something goes wrong, there is often no institution left to appeal to, since the system was designed to eliminate central authority.

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.