영어 모의고사 (자동 편성)

The discovery of CRISPR gene-editing technology gave scientists a tool precise enough ①to correct a single mistaken letter in the human genome, raising hope for curing inherited diseases that have resisted treatment for generations. Yet the same precision that makes CRISPR so promising also makes it dangerous in the wrong hands. Editing a gene in a sperm, egg, or early embryo does not simply change one patient; it alters the genetic code ②passed down to every future generation, a decision no single person should ③allow to make alone. Scientific organizations around the world have therefore drawn a careful line, ④permitting gene editing to treat disease in existing patients while banning any edit that would be inherited by their descendants. Critics worry, however, that this line will become harder to enforce than it ⑤is to draw.

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 ①struggled 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 ②essential to modern life. That assumption is increasingly ③reconsidering, 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 ④that carry information into every home, ⑤regardless of income or location.

Imagine two travelers preparing for the same trip: one ①agrees to fly after watching news coverage of a recent plane crash, while the other books a flight without hesitation. Statistically, air travel remains far ②safer than driving the same distance by car, yet vivid, emotionally charged images tend to ③dominate human judgment more powerfully than dry statistics ever could. This tendency, in which people estimate how likely an event is based on how easily examples come to mind rather than on actual data, quietly shapes countless everyday decisions. News broadcasts that repeatedly feature rare disasters can leave viewers convinced that such events are ④common, even though official records clearly show the opposite. Advertisers and politicians alike ⑤exploit this pattern, knowing that a single striking anecdote often persuades audiences more effectively than pages of careful statistics ever manage to.

Imagine watching a fair coin land on heads five times in a row and feeling an increasingly strong intuition that the next flip is somehow due to produce tails. This intuition, though psychologically ①compelling, rests on a basic misunderstanding of probability, since each flip of a fair coin remains entirely ②independent of every flip that came before it. The coin possesses no memory of its previous outcomes, and its probability of landing on tails on the sixth flip stays ③fixed at fifty percent regardless of how many heads preceded it. Casinos have long profited from this misconception, watching gamblers place larger bets after a losing streak simply because they ④mistakenly believe that a win has become statistically overdue. Economists have even documented the same error among trained professionals, including loan officers who grow more likely to approve a risky application simply because they recently rejected several applications ⑤sporadically.

A few years ago, spotting a manipulated video required a trained eye and specialized software. Today, freely available applications allow almost anyone to fabricate convincing fake footage within minutes. Perhaps more troubling than any single fake video is the broader effect on public trust, sometimes called the liar's dividend, in which _______________. In this environment, the mere possibility of manipulation can be almost as damaging as manipulation itself.

The ancient puzzle known as the ship of Theseus asks a deceptively simple question. If every plank of a wooden ship is replaced one by one over many years, is the vessel that eventually results still the same ship it once was? Most people's first instinct is to answer yes, since each individual replacement seems too small to erase the ship's identity. The puzzle grows far sharper, however, once a second twist is introduced. Suppose a careful collector gathered every discarded plank and reassembled them into a second vessel, built exactly as the original once stood. Two ships would then exist side by side, each with an equal claim to being the genuine one, and no obvious way to decide between them. Philosophers return to this old story again and again, not because they care about timber, but because it forces us to ask whether identity depends on continuous material, continuous form, or _______________.

Overconfidence bias is not confined to amateur investors; even seasoned financial professionals display strikingly similar patterns. (A) Fund managers surveyed about the accuracy of their own market predictions, for example, consistently rate their forecasts as more reliable than an objective analysis of their historical track record would support. (B) This gap between perceived and actual accuracy suggests that professional training and experience do not automatically immunize individuals against overconfidence. (C) Some researchers argue instead that professionals may be especially susceptible, since repeated exposure to a domain can breed a false sense of mastery over outcomes that remain fundamentally unpredictable.

Imagine a teleportation device that scans every atom in your body, transmits that information to a distant station, and reconstructs an exact physical duplicate there, while destroying the original body in the process. (A) Philosophers, however, are troubled by a version of the same device that malfunctions: instead of destroying the original, it leaves the original body intact while still creating a perfect duplicate elsewhere. (B) Now two people exist, each with identical memories and an equally strong claim to being the original traveler, and there is no principled way to decide which one is the real continuation of the person who entered the machine. (C) From the traveler's point of view, stepping into the machine and stepping out on the other side would feel utterly seamless, complete with continuous memories and a sense of having simply walked through a door.

주어진 문장: In other words, memory is not a fixed archive but an ever-changing record that is rewritten each time it is accessed. For much of the twentieth century, memory researchers assumed that once a memory had been consolidated—transformed from a fragile, short-term trace into a stable, long-term representation—it remained essentially fixed, immune to further modification unless the underlying neural circuitry was physically damaged. ( ① ) This assumption, however, was overturned by a body of research demonstrating that the act of retrieval itself can destabilize a previously consolidated memory, rendering it temporarily susceptible to alteration before it is, in a sense, filed away again. ( ② ) During this narrow window, which typically lasts only a few hours, the memory can be strengthened, weakened, or even subtly distorted by new information encountered in the interim, after which it must undergo a second round of stabilization, a process now widely referred to as reconsolidation. ( ③ ) Consequently, what we experience as a stable recollection may actually be a continuously revised construction, ( ④ ) reshaped every time it is summoned into conscious awareness and returned to storage. ( ⑤ )

Until clearer rules emerge, artists, developers, and publishers remain locked in a legal gray zone that satisfies almost no one. Generative AI systems learn to write, draw, and compose by studying enormous collections of existing human work, much of which was created without the artists' knowledge or consent. ( ① ) Supporters of the technology argue that this process resembles how a human student learns by studying the masters. ( ② ) Critics respond that the comparison breaks down at scale, since a single AI model can absorb millions of works in days. ( ③ ) Courts around the world are now being asked to decide whether training an algorithm on copyrighted material counts as fair use or as infringement. ( ④ ) This is a question the law was never designed to answer. ( ⑤ )