영어 모의고사 (자동 편성)

The immune system produces an almost limitless variety of antibodies, each ①shaped to latch onto one particular molecular target with remarkable specificity. Monoclonal antibody drugs harness this natural precision by cloning a single antibody-producing cell in the laboratory, ②generating 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. Because the antibody binds only to its intended target, these drugs tend to spare healthy tissue far more effectively than traditional chemotherapy, ③which attacks any rapidly dividing cell regardless of whether it is cancerous. Manufacturing monoclonal antibodies remains far more complicated than producing a conventional small-molecule pill, since living cells must ④cultivating in carefully controlled bioreactors for weeks before the antibody can be purified and prepared for use. This complexity keeps monoclonal antibody treatments considerably more expensive than most conventional drugs, a cost that continues ⑤to shape debates over pricing and access.

Every time a smartphone connects to a cell tower or a Wi-Fi network, it quietly records a data point that can later ①be pieced together into a detailed map of where its owner has been. Most users agree to this tracking without ②reading the fine print, assuming that a single company's database poses little threat. The real danger, however, emerges when location data from multiple sources ③combining. A pattern that reveals a person's home, workplace, and daily route can expose far more than any single app ever intended to share. Companies often argue that anonymized data cannot be traced back to individuals, yet researchers have repeatedly ④shown that a handful of location points is enough to identify a specific person. As a result, privacy experts increasingly insist that location data ⑤deserves the same legal protection as medical records.

Picture a woman who ①receive a plain ceramic mug as a free gift at a conference and, later that afternoon, refuses to sell it for anything less than triple its price in the gift shop downstairs. Before she ②owned the mug, she would never have paid extra for it; once it became hers, however, its value in her mind rose sharply, simply because she now possessed it. Researchers have repeatedly observed this pattern across many everyday objects, from coffee mugs and concert tickets to office chairs and old furniture ③inherited from relatives. Owners consistently demand more money ④to give something up than buyers are willing to offer for that very same item, revealing a curious asymmetry rooted purely in possession itself. Some economists argue that this effect explains why negotiations over inherited property so often collapse, since each side quietly ⑤attaches a different value to what it currently holds.

When people are asked to judge how risky or beneficial a particular technology is, they ①often conduct anything resembling a careful cost-benefit analysis. Instead, they consult a quick emotional impression, an ②instinctive sense of whether the technology feels good or feels bad, and let that impression guide their entire judgment. This mental shortcut, known as the affect heuristic, produces a ③curious pattern that traditional risk theory struggles to explain: activities people like tend to be judged as both safer and more beneficial, while activities they dislike are judged as both riskier and less beneficial, even when no logical relationship between risk and benefit exists. For example, when researchers presented a fictional industrial chemical alongside a brief description emphasizing its convenience, participants rated it not only as more useful but also, ④illogically, as less dangerous. Because emotional impressions form so rapidly and feel so trustworthy, correcting for this heuristic requires ⑤deliberate effort; simply presenting more accurate statistics to already anxious or enthusiastic audiences rarely changes their underlying judgment.

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. This assumption, however, was overturned by a body of research demonstrating that _______________, rendering it temporarily susceptible to alteration before it is, in a sense, filed away again. 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. Consequently, what we experience as a stable recollection may actually be a continuously revised construction, reshaped every time it is summoned into conscious awareness and returned to storage.

When engineers design the software that controls a self-driving car, they face a question philosophers have debated for decades: should a crashing vehicle protect its own passenger, or minimize total harm even at the passenger's expense? Surveys reveal an uncomfortable contradiction: most people say a car should be programmed to save the greater number of lives, yet the same people admit they would never buy a vehicle designed to sacrifice its own owner. This suggests that _______________. Manufacturers, regulators, and philosophers must instead agree on transparent rules before autonomous vehicles are allowed to make such decisions.

The anchoring effect is not limited to shopping decisions; it also plays a subtle but powerful role in legal and financial judgments. (A) Similarly, jurors who are told that a plaintiff is seeking an unusually large sum in damages tend to award higher compensation than jurors who hear no specific figure at all, even when the evidence presented is identical. (B) This pattern suggests that anchors can distort judgments requiring careful, case-by-case reasoning, not merely quick, intuitive estimates of price. (C) For instance, experienced judges asked to set a sentence after being exposed to an arbitrary number, such as one generated by rolling dice, have been shown in experimental settings to hand down harsher sentences when the number was high.

Hyperbolic discounting has direct implications for how retirement savings programs ought to be designed. (A) If employees are asked at the moment of hiring whether they wish to increase their contribution rate at a specific point in the future, many agree readily, since the sacrifice feels distant and therefore painless. (B) When that future date eventually arrives, however, the automatic increase proceeds smoothly precisely because the decision was locked in before the immediate discomfort of a smaller paycheck became salient. (C) This design, sometimes described as committing one's future self in advance, effectively exploits the very inconsistency that hyperbolic discounting predicts, turning a psychological weakness into a practical advantage.

This evidentiary standard, ironically, has made behavioral interventions more rigorously tested than many of the traditional programs they were designed to complement. Government adoption of behavioral insights has generally been governed by a strict evidentiary standard: officials demand proof that a proposed intervention works before authorizing its use. ( ① ) This demand led to the routine use of randomized controlled trials, in which a proposed change is tested on a small population before being rolled out more broadly. ( ② ) Such trials allow policymakers to determine with reasonable confidence whether an intervention produces the intended effect before committing significant public resources to it. ( ③ ) Many long-standing government programs, by contrast, were implemented decades ago without ever being subjected to comparably rigorous evaluation. ( ④ ) Behavioral units within government have, as a result, gradually earned a reputation for evidence-based rigor that extends well beyond their original, narrow mandate. ( ⑤ ) That reputation has, in turn, given behavioral approaches an outsized voice in policy discussions relative to their still-modest budgets.

None of these individual passersby, however, has any direct evidence that the food itself is worth the wait. Consider how a line forms outside a small restaurant on an otherwise quiet street. ( ① ) The first few patrons may have arrived simply because of a personal recommendation or a delayed reservation, factors entirely unrelated to the restaurant's actual quality. ( ② ) As the line grows, passersby begin to notice it and, assuming that such popularity must be earned, decide to join the queue themselves. ( ③ ) Each additional person who joins makes the line appear even more compelling to the next passerby, creating a self-reinforcing cycle of imitation. ( ④ ) They are, in effect, relying entirely on the visible behavior of strangers as a proxy for information they do not personally possess. ( ⑤ ) The restaurant's true culinary merit, whatever it may be, has become almost irrelevant to the continued growth of the line.