영어 모의고사 (자동 편성)

Suppose a mysterious being with a near-perfect track record of ①predicting human choices presents a player with two boxes. Box A always contains a visible thousand dollars, while Box B contains either a million dollars or nothing at all, depending on a prediction the being made before the game even began. If the being predicted the player would take only Box B, it ②placed a million dollars inside; if it predicted the player would take both boxes, it left Box B empty. The player may choose to take only Box B, or to take both boxes, and the prediction has already ③been made and cannot change. One line of reasoning says taking both boxes is strictly better, since whatever is already inside the boxes cannot ④be altered by the player's choice at this point. A second line of reasoning says taking only Box B is better, since the being's near-perfect accuracy means that choosing both boxes almost ⑤guaranteeing an empty Box B.

Anyone designing a presentation, a curriculum, or a grocery list should attend to a well-documented pattern in human memory known as the serial position effect. When people ①are asking to recall items from a list right after studying it, they consistently remember the items presented at the beginning and end far better than those buried in the middle. The advantage for early items, called the primacy effect, ②arises because those items receive more rehearsal and are more likely to be transferred into long-term storage before subsequent items compete for attention. The advantage for final items, known as the recency effect, ③occurs because those items remain accessible in short-term memory at the moment of recall. Middle items suffer because they must compete for limited rehearsal opportunities while lacking the stability afforded by extended processing. Communicators who ④ignore this pattern risk burying their most important point where it will predictably be forgotten. A more effective strategy, therefore, ⑤places the crucial message at the beginning or end, precisely where memory proves most reliable.

When people face a difficult decision, they often weigh not only the expected outcome of each option but also how painful it would feel ①to discover later that a different choice had been better. This anticipation of future regret, rather than the size of the potential loss itself, frequently becomes the dominant factor ②shaping the final decision. Investors, for example, sometimes continue holding a declining stock rather than ③selling it, not because they expect the price to recover, but because selling would force them to confront the possibility ④of having made a clear mistake. Researchers have found that people feel sharper regret over losses that resulted from taking action than over identical losses that resulted from doing nothing, which ⑤help explain why so many individuals default to inaction whenever a decision feels uncertain.

When people recall precisely where they were and what they were doing at the moment they learned of some momentous public event, the resulting memory often feels extraordinarily ①vivid, as though it had been etched into the mind with photographic precision; researchers have termed such recollections flashbulb memories. Proponents of this concept once argued that the emotional intensity and surprise accompanying such events trigger a distinct neural mechanism that preserves details with unusual ②fidelity, effectively exempting them from the ③gradual decay that afflicts ordinary memories. Subsequent longitudinal studies, however, have complicated this picture considerably: when researchers compared accounts gathered within days of an event to accounts gathered years later, they discovered that details had frequently been altered, omitted, or even fabricated, even though the individuals reporting them expressed ④unwavering confidence in their accuracy. This persistent mismatch between subjective certainty and objective consistency implies that flashbulb memories, far from being flawless recordings, are ⑤accurate narratives shaped by rehearsal, media exposure, and the passage of time.

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 ①consent to it far more readily than patients told that the same procedure carries a ten percent mortality rate. This discrepancy arises because language does more than transmit facts; it also supplies an ②emotional lens through which those facts are interpreted. Positive framing, which emphasizes what will be ③preserved or gained, tends to encourage risk-averse choices, whereas negative framing, which emphasizes what might be lost, often pushes people toward ④safer alternatives in an attempt to avoid the loss altogether. Marketers, healthcare providers, and policymakers alike ⑤exploit this asymmetry, sometimes to help audiences make sounder decisions and sometimes merely to steer them toward a predetermined conclusion.

Many large companies now rely on artificial intelligence to screen job applications before a human ever sees them. These systems promise efficiency, scanning thousands of resumes in seconds and ranking candidates according to patterns drawn from previous hiring decisions. However, this reliance on historical data creates a troubling risk. 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. Unlike a human interviewer, the system offers no explanation for its choices, which means that _______________. Some researchers argue that fairness cannot be added afterward; it must be built into the system's design from the very beginning.

It would be comforting to believe that anything sufficiently large or obvious appearing within our field of vision will automatically capture our attention, yet decades of research into inattentional blindness suggest otherwise. When people are absorbed in a demanding task, such as counting how many times a ball is passed between players, they frequently fail to notice an unexpected and conspicuous event unfolding in plain sight, even something as unlikely as a person in a costume walking through the scene. This failure does not stem from a defect in the eyes, which register the stimulus perfectly well, but from the fact that _______________. Policymakers ought to take this finding more seriously than they currently do, because it implies that simply placing a warning sign within someone's visual range offers no guarantee that it will be consciously registered. Designing safer environments, therefore, requires accounting for the limits of attention itself, not merely assuming that visibility alone ensures awareness.

Cognitive load theory begins from the premise that working memory, the mental workspace in which incoming information is temporarily held and manipulated, can accommodate only a limited number of novel elements at any given moment, in stark contrast to the comparatively vast capacity of long-term memory. (A) Because much of this burden arises not from the intrinsic difficulty of the subject matter itself but from the manner in which information is presented, instructional designers can substantially reduce unnecessary strain by eliminating redundant explanations, aligning visual and verbal elements so that learners need not mentally integrate scattered sources, and gradually withdrawing guidance as competence develops. (B) When instructional materials introduce more interacting elements than this narrow workspace can simultaneously process, learners experience what theorists call cognitive overload, a condition under which comprehension deteriorates and errors multiply regardless of how motivated the learner might be. (C) Ignoring these principles, by contrast, risks overwhelming novices with demands that exceed their processing capacity, however well-organized the underlying content may be.

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 )

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