영어 모의고사 (자동 편성)

Identical information can provoke strikingly different reactions depending on how it ①is 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 ②told that the same procedure carries a ten percent mortality rate, even though the two descriptions convey exactly the same statistical reality. This discrepancy arises because language does more than transmit facts; it also supplies an emotional lens through which those facts ③interpreting. Positive framing, which emphasizes what will be preserved or gained, tends to encourage risk-averse choices, whereas negative framing, which emphasizes what might be lost, often ④pushes people toward riskier alternatives in an attempt to avoid the loss altogether. Recognizing how deeply framing shapes judgment is therefore essential, not because the underlying facts change, but because the very same facts, ⑤dressed in different language, can lead reasonable people toward entirely opposite conclusions.

A few years ago, spotting a manipulated video ①required a trained eye and specialized software. Today, freely available applications allow almost anyone ②to swap a face or fabricate a voice convincingly enough to fool casual viewers within minutes. This shift has quietly undermined one of the oldest assumptions in human communication: that seeing and hearing something ③are a reasonably reliable way to confirm it happened. Journalists now face the burden of ④verifying footage that once would have been accepted as self-evident proof. Perhaps more troubling than any single fake video is the broader effect on public trust, in which genuine footage can ⑤be dismissed as fabricated simply because deepfakes exist.

Hospitals are increasingly adopting artificial intelligence tools that can scan medical images and flag potential tumors ①faster and, in some trials, more accurately than experienced radiologists. Patients understandably welcome any technology that catches disease earlier, yet the growing reliance on these tools raises an uncomfortable legal question that hospitals have only begun to address. When an AI system misses a diagnosis that a human doctor would likely have caught, responsibility becomes ②easy to assign. The doctor may argue that they simply trusted a tool the hospital required them to use, the hospital may argue that the software company guaranteed its accuracy, and the software company may argue that no algorithm can be expected to be ③perfect. Until legal systems ④clarify this chain of responsibility, patients harmed by an algorithmic error may find themselves with no clear party to hold ⑤accountable.

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 arbitrary that number may be. 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 bargain. Such evidence indicates that rational deliberation alone cannot fully explain how value is perceived, since the ___________ ultimately shapes what buyers are willing to pay.

When a country physician named Edward Jenner noticed that milkmaids who had caught cowpox seemed immune to smallpox, he set in motion a medical revolution without fully understanding why it worked. (A) This method produced genuine successes, eventually eliminating smallpox worldwide and reducing diseases such as polio and measles, but each new vaccine still required years of laboratory work with no guarantee of success. (B) Advances in molecular biology eventually allowed researchers to isolate a single protein from a pathogen's surface, producing vaccines with fewer side effects, and the most recent shift toward delivering genetic instructions represents the latest chapter in this story. (C) For nearly two centuries afterward, vaccine development proceeded largely by trial and error, weakening or killing a pathogen and testing whether the resulting preparation could train the immune system without causing disease itself.

When consumers compare two products and assume that the one labeled "eco-friendly" is automatically the more sustainable choice, they often overlook the complexity involved in verifying such a claim. (A) Life cycle assessment, commonly abbreviated as LCA, is a systematic method developed to evaluate the environmental impact of a product across every stage of its existence. This method examines raw material extraction, manufacturing, transportation, use, and disposal, compiling data on energy consumption and emissions generated at each stage. (B) By tracing a product from its origin to its disposal, this approach reveals impacts that might otherwise remain hidden from consumers who see only the finished item on a shelf. For example, an electric vehicle may produce no emissions while being driven, yet the mining of metals for its battery can generate substantial environmental costs elsewhere. (C) Without accounting for these earlier stages, a superficial comparison could mistakenly present the vehicle as entirely emission-free. Therefore, researchers increasingly rely on life cycle assessment to make informed decisions rather than trusting labels alone.

The immune system produces an almost limitless variety of antibodies, each shaped to latch onto one particular molecular target with remarkable specificity. (A) Monoclonal antibody drugs harness this natural precision by cloning a single antibody-producing cell in the laboratory, generating an army of identical antibodies built to recognize one target, such as a protein on a cancer cell or a molecule driving an autoimmune disease. (B) Because the antibody binds only to its intended target, these drugs tend to spare healthy tissue far more effectively than traditional chemotherapy, which attacks any rapidly dividing cell regardless of whether it is cancerous. (C) Manufacturing monoclonal antibodies remains far more complicated than producing a conventional small-molecule pill, and this complexity keeps monoclonal antibody treatments considerably more expensive than most conventional drugs, a cost that continues to shape debates over pricing and access.

Military researchers have developed weapons systems capable of identifying and engaging targets without a human pressing the final button. (A) Human rights organizations counter that removing a person from the final decision strips away moral responsibility at the exact moment it matters most. (B) Advocates within defense agencies argue that autonomous systems can react faster than any human operator and may even reduce casualties. (C) Diplomatic negotiations toward an international treaty have repeatedly stalled, partly because military powers disagree on how to define autonomy precisely enough to regulate it.

Ordinary evidence cannot help here, since any proof gathered through the senses would itself be generated by the same simulation being tested. Suppose a mad scientist removed a living brain from its body, placed it in a vat of nutrient fluid, and connected its neurons to a supercomputer capable of generating perfectly realistic sensations. ( ① ) The brain would experience a full and convincing world, complete with a sky, a body, and other people, without ever suspecting that none of it existed outside the simulation. ( ② ) This scenario, unsettling as it sounds, raises a genuinely difficult question for anyone confident in their own perception: how could a person ever prove that they are not that very brain right now? ( ③ ) Some philosophers conclude that absolute certainty about the external world is simply unattainable. ( ④ ) Others argue, however, that the mere possibility of deception, however vivid, is not sufficient reason to abandon our everyday trust in what we perceive. ( ⑤ ) Ordinary caution, after all, can never fully settle which side is correct.

주어진 문장: Traditional economic models, in fact, offer no straightforward account of why unpaid, amateur labor should raise an object's perceived worth in the eyes of its very creator. Why do people often overvalue objects they have partly built themselves, even when the finished product is objectively inferior to something they could have simply purchased? ( ① ) This puzzle, which researchers named after a furniture retailer famous for selling items that require home assembly, challenges the standard economic assumption that value is determined solely by an object's inherent qualities. ( ② ) In a series of experiments, participants who assembled a plain storage box were willing to pay nearly as much for their own imperfect creation as they were for a professionally built version, despite being fully aware of its flaws. ( ③ ) Labor, it seems, functions as a kind of psychological investment: once effort has been poured into a task, individuals become reluctant to judge the outcome objectively, because doing so would require admitting that their effort was partly wasted. ( ④ ) This tendency helps explain why consumers often prefer products that demand some degree of personal assembly, even when a comparable finished item is available at a lower price and requires no time investment whatsoever. ( ⑤ )