영어 모의고사 (자동 편성)

Eyewitness testimony ①has long carried weight in courtrooms, yet decades of research reveal that memories of witnessed events are more malleable than most people assume. When individuals who observe an event ②are later exposed to misleading information about what they saw, whether through a leading question or a conversation with another witness, their recollections frequently incorporate details that never occurred, a phenomenon known as the misinformation effect. In one classic paradigm, participants who watched a video of a traffic accident and ③were then asked how fast the cars were going when they smashed into each other reported higher speed estimates and were more likely to falsely recall broken glass than participants asked the identical question using the milder verb hit. Crucially, these distorted memories often feel genuine to the person experiencing them, since the original memory trace ④become blended with the newly introduced information rather than existing as a separate, contradictory record. Such findings ⑤have prompted legal systems to adopt cautious interviewing protocols designed to minimize suggestive questioning during investigations.

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.

It would be comforting to believe that anything sufficiently large or obvious appearing ①within our field of vision will automatically capture our attention, yet decades of research into inattentional blindness suggest otherwise. When people are absorbed ②in 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 ③the stimulus perfectly well, but from the fact that conscious perception depends heavily on where attention has been directed. Policymakers ought to take this finding more seriously than they currently do, because it implies that simply placing ④a warning sign within someone's visual range offers no guarantee that it will be consciously registered. Designing safer environments, therefore, requires account ⑤ for the limits of attention itself, not merely assuming that visibility alone ensures awareness.

In the late nineteenth century, the psychologist Hermann Ebbinghaus undertook a rigorous investigation of forgetting by serving as his own experimental subject. He memorized thousands of ①meaningless three-letter syllables so that prior knowledge could not skew his results. After learning each list to perfection, he tested his retention at intervals ranging from twenty minutes to a month later. He ②ignored how many repetitions were required to relearn the material each time. The resulting curve revealed a consistent pattern. Forgetting proceeds rapidly during the initial hours following learning, then gradually decelerates until the rate of loss becomes almost imperceptible. Roughly half of the acquired information ③vanished within the first hour alone. Yet whatever survived that initial plunge tended to ④persist for much longer periods. Ebbinghaus further found that distributing study sessions across several days produced better retention than cramming the same repetition into one sitting. This finding, now central to modern learning theory, implies that revisiting material shortly before it would otherwise be forgotten ⑤interrupts the decline of the forgetting curve.

Factories that once employed hundreds of workers on an assembly line now run with a ①fraction of that staff, as robotic arms handle tasks that used to require human hands. Economists have long debated whether this shift destroys jobs or simply transforms them. Historical evidence offers some ②comfort: previous waves of automation eventually created new categories of work that no one had predicted. However, critics point out that earlier transitions unfolded over generations, giving workers ③ample time to retrain, whereas today's robots are being deployed at a pace that leaves little room for adjustment. A factory worker displaced this year cannot simply wait for a new industry to emerge decades from now. For this reason, many economists argue that the real ④challenge is not the robots themselves, but the ⑤sluggish speed at which society is expected to adapt to them.

John Rawls proposed an unusual thought experiment to determine what principles of justice a society ought to adopt. (A) Imagine a group of rational people gathered to design the basic rules of their future society, but placed behind what he called a veil of ignorance, unaware of their own race, gender, wealth, or social position. (B) Since no one can predict whether they will be born into privilege or poverty, each person has a strong incentive to choose rules that protect the worst-off members of society. (C) Rawls argued that rational people placed in this position would favor arrangements that guarantee basic liberties for everyone and permit unequal outcomes only when they benefit the least advantaged.

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 vivid, as though it had been etched into the mind with photographic precision; researchers have termed such recollections flashbulb memories. (A) 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 fidelity, effectively exempting them from the gradual decay that afflicts ordinary memories. (B) This persistent mismatch between subjective certainty and objective consistency implies that flashbulb memories, far from being flawless recordings, are reconstructed narratives shaped by rehearsal, media exposure, and the passage of time. (C) 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 unwavering confidence in their accuracy.

주어진 문장: In other words, the coin cannot somehow sense that it owes the observer a tails after so many heads. 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. ( ① ) This intuition, though psychologically compelling, rests on a basic misunderstanding of probability, since each flip of a fair coin remains entirely independent of every flip that came before it. ( ② ) The coin possesses no memory of its previous outcomes, and its probability of landing on tails on the sixth flip stays fixed at fifty percent regardless of how many heads preceded it. ( ③ ) Casinos have long profited from this misconception, watching gamblers place larger bets after a losing streak simply because they mistakenly believe that a win has become statistically overdue. ( ④ ) 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 in a row. ( ⑤ )

주어진 문장: As a result, the frequency of an event in someone's memory can feel like solid proof of its real-world frequency, even when the two have little real connection. Imagine two travelers preparing for the same trip: one refuses to fly after watching news coverage of a recent plane crash, while the other books a flight without hesitation. ( ① ) Statistically, air travel remains far safer than driving the same distance by car, yet vivid, emotionally charged images tend to dominate human judgment more powerfully than dry statistics ever could. ( ② ) 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. ( ③ ) News broadcasts that repeatedly feature rare disasters can leave viewers convinced that such events are common, even though official records clearly show the opposite. ( ④ ) Advertisers and politicians alike exploit this pattern, knowing that a single striking anecdote often persuades audiences more effectively than pages of careful statistics ever manage to. ( ⑤ ) Recognizing why memorable examples overshadow objective probability therefore matters, both for making sound personal choices and for noticing when public fear has drifted far from measurable reality.

Scarcity cues of this kind are becoming increasingly common across online retail platforms, appearing on everything from hotel bookings to concert tickets. A shopper browsing an online store notices that a particular item is marked as "only three left in stock." ( ① ) Before seeing this notice, the shopper had regarded the item with only mild interest, uncertain whether it was worth purchasing at all. ( ② ) After seeing the notice, however, the same shopper suddenly feels a pressing urge to complete the purchase before the remaining stock disappears, even though nothing about the item itself has changed. ( ③ ) This shift in urgency illustrates how scarcity cues can transform hesitation into immediate action within moments. ( ④ ) Retailers are well aware of this dynamic, which is why such notices frequently appear even when actual stock levels are difficult for customers to verify independently. ( ⑤ ) Whether the stated scarcity is genuine or exaggerated, its psychological effect on the shopper's behavior remains remarkably similar.