영어 모의고사 (자동 편성)

Every time an antibiotic kills off a population of bacteria, a handful of cells ①carrying a random mutation that resists the drug are left behind to multiply without competition. Repeated over decades, across hospitals, farms, and households worldwide, this simple process of natural selection has produced strains of bacteria ②that survive treatments once considered reliably effective. The pharmaceutical industry, meanwhile, has slowed the pace at which new antibiotics reach the market, since a drug meant ③to be taken for only a week or two rarely earns back the enormous cost of developing it. Researchers are therefore searching in unconventional places, screening soil microbes, ocean sediment, and even genetic databases for molecules that kill bacteria through mechanisms resistant strains have not yet ④learn to evade. Some scientists have also revived an older approach, using viruses that infect only bacteria to hunt down resistant strains with a precision no broad-spectrum drug could ever ⑤match.

A cluster of neurons smaller than a pea can now spontaneously organize itself into layered structures that ①mimic, in miniature, the architecture of a developing human brain. Grown from stem cells coaxed to follow the same developmental cues that guide an embryo, these brain organoids have begun firing electrical signals in patterns that ②sharply resemble the activity recorded in an infant's brain. For researchers studying disorders such as autism or schizophrenia, this offers something long unavailable: a living model of human brain development that can be observed and manipulated directly, without ever touching an actual patient. Because organoids lack sensory organs, a body, or any connection to the outside world, most neuroscientists argue that the structures ③cannot generate anything resembling subjective experience, however brain-like their electrical activity may appear. Even so, the pace at which these organoids are growing more ④complex has convinced some ethicists that the field would benefit from establishing clear ⑤boundaries now, before the science outruns the conversation about what it means.

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.

Consider a large heap containing ten thousand grains of sand. Nearly everyone agrees that removing a single grain from such a heap leaves another heap behind; surely one grain could never make the difference between a heap and a non-heap. Yet if this principle is applied repeatedly, grain by grain, the heap eventually shrinks to a single lonely grain, or even to no grains at all, and logic alone seems to force us to accept that this final result still counts as a heap. Something has clearly gone wrong along the way, since no reasonable person would call one grain of sand a heap, but pinpointing exactly which single removal transformed a heap into a non-heap seems impossible. The puzzle exposes a deep discomfort with vague terms like "heap," "tall," or "bald," concepts that seem to admit no sharp boundary yet are used confidently in everyday language. Some philosophers conclude that _______________.

When individuals face uncertainty about how to behave, they frequently look to the actions of others for guidance, assuming that a behavior adopted by many people is more likely to be correct or appropriate than one adopted by few, a tendency known as social proof. Because conformity can substitute for independent judgment so seamlessly, individuals rarely notice when their own decisions have become ___________ rather than genuinely deliberated.

The debate over nudging often centers on a single, deceptively simple question: does saving people from their own cognitive errors amount to genuine assistance or subtle manipulation? (A) Supporters respond that every choice architecture, whether intentionally designed or not, already influences behavior in some direction, so deliberately choosing a beneficial default is preferable to leaving the arrangement to chance or to the interests of profit-driven designers. (B) Opponents of nudging argue that any attempt to steer behavior, however gently, treats citizens as incapable of making sound decisions on their own and therefore undermines the very autonomy it claims to respect. (C) This rebuttal shifts the debate away from whether influence should exist at all and toward the more practical question of who should be trusted to design it and for what purpose.

Loss aversion does not only influence individual financial choices; it also shapes how information is presented and interpreted in everyday transactions, a phenomenon that marketers and policymakers have learned to exploit deliberately. (A) For example, a retailer who frames a price reduction as "avoid losing a $10 discount by ordering today" typically generates a stronger customer response than one who simply advertises "get a $10 discount," even though both messages describe an identical saving. (B) In other words, the manner in which a choice is presented can activate the same psychological aversion to loss that governs decisions about resources already possessed, meaning that framing itself carries real economic weight. (C) This effect is not confined to retail settings, however; negotiators, too, often treat concessions as losses rather than as steps toward mutual gain, which makes compromise feel more costly than it objectively is.

주어진 문장: Psychologists first documented this delay nearly a century ago, and it has since become one of the most frequently replicated findings in cognitive science. Anyone who has tried to name the ink color of a word like red printed in blue letters knows how surprisingly difficult the task can feel. ( ① ) This everyday struggle, known as the Stroop effect, deserves more attention than casual curiosity grants it, because it reveals something fundamental about how the mind allocates its limited resources. ( ② ) Reading a familiar word is an automatic process practiced so extensively since childhood that it proceeds almost involuntarily, whereas naming a color requires deliberate, controlled attention. ( ③ ) When these two processes point toward conflicting answers, the automatic pathway tends to intrude upon the controlled one, slowing responses and increasing errors. ( ④ ) Educators should not dismiss this delay as a trivial curiosity confined to laboratories, since the same competition between habit and intention underlies far more consequential situations, such as a driver's struggle to resist checking a phone despite knowing the danger. ( ⑤ ) Recognizing how automatic responses can hijack conscious intentions is essential for designing environments, from classrooms to highways, that support rather than undermine our efforts at self-control.

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

Slips of paper covered with unfamiliar Chinese characters are passed in through a slot in the door, and he answers them by consulting his rulebook line by line. Imagine a man locked inside a room who does not understand a single word of Chinese, yet who possesses a giant rulebook written entirely in English. ( ① ) By matching each incoming symbol to an appropriate outgoing symbol, he produces replies that appear fluent to anyone outside. ( ② ) From the perspective of a native speaker reading the responses, the room seems to understand Chinese perfectly. ( ③ ) Yet the man inside understands nothing at all; he is merely manipulating shapes according to formal rules, without grasping their meaning. ( ④ ) This scenario was designed to challenge the assumption that a computer running a sophisticated program truly understands language simply because it produces convincing output. ( ⑤ ) Passing every external test of intelligence, the argument suggests, is not the same as possessing genuine understanding, since syntax alone can never generate semantics.