영어 모의고사 (자동 편성)

When individuals face uncertainty about how to behave, they frequently look to the actions of others for guidance, ①assuming 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. This reliance on collective behavior can be remarkably efficient, since it allows individuals ②to benefit from the accumulated judgment of a crowd without having to gather and evaluate every relevant fact themselves. However, social proof can also lead entire groups astray when the initial signal that ③trigger imitation is itself unreliable or coincidental. A restaurant that happens to attract a long line early in the evening may continue attracting customers throughout the night simply because passersby ④interpret the queue as evidence of superior quality. Financial markets exhibit an analogous pattern: investors who observe others buying a particular asset often join the buying themselves, ⑤reasoning that so many participants cannot all be mistaken.

Few ideas in policy debate ①provoke as much philosophical unease as the notion that a government might deliberately steer citizens toward better choices while leaving every option technically available. Defenders insist that freedom is preserved as long as no option is banned and no penalty is attached, ②arguing that a citizen who is merely steered, rather than coerced, remains free to choose otherwise. Critics counter that this defense rests on an impoverished notion of liberty, one that ③ignores how engineered defaults and calculated framing can shape decisions just as powerfully as an outright prohibition would. If a policy is designed because officials expect it to bypass conscious deliberation, these critics ask, can the resulting choice still ④call autonomous, even though no law was broken? The dispute ultimately turns on what freedom actually ⑤requires: the mere absence of coercion, or a decision-making process that remains transparent and undistorted.

Medieval philosophers told the story of a hungry donkey placed exactly midway between two identical, equally fragrant piles of hay, with no factor whatsoever tipping the balance toward either option. Because the donkey is assumed to be a perfectly ①rational creature that always chooses the option supported by the strongest reason, and because neither pile offers any advantage over the other, the donkey supposedly finds itself with no rational basis for choosing one pile rather than the other. ②Paralyzed by this perfect symmetry, the donkey starves to death precisely because it can find no reason to move in either direction. Critics of the story point out that real animals, and real humans, rarely face situations of such flawless symmetry, and that even a tiny, ③arbitrary preference is usually enough to break the tie in practice. The paradox nevertheless raises a serious question about whether purely rational deliberation can ever ④generate action on its own, without some additional nudge that reason alone ⑤willingly supplies.

Rewilding, a conservation strategy that seeks to restore natural processes with minimal human interference, has gained attention as traditional conservation struggles to halt biodiversity loss. Rather than managing landscapes according to a ①fixed blueprint, rewilding projects often reintroduce key species, such as large predators, whose presence can trigger cascading effects. Advocates point to the reintroduction of wolves in certain parks, where predation altered grazing behavior, allowing riverside vegetation to ②decline and stabilizing soil that had long been eroding. Skeptics, however, warn that rewilding can provoke ③serious conflict with nearby communities, particularly when predators prey on livestock or restored habitats limit land for agriculture. Moreover, critics argue that restoring landscapes to an imagined pristine state is scientifically ④dubious, since ecosystems have long been shaped by human activity. Compensation programs reimbursing farmers for livestock losses, alongside ecotourism initiatives creating local income, have proven ⑤essential to sustaining public support.

Millions of people now wear devices that continuously track their heart rate, sleep patterns, and daily activity. Users generally assume this information belongs to them, since it is drawn directly from their own bodies. In practice, however, the terms of service that few people read often grant the manufacturer broad rights to store, analyze, and even sell anonymized versions of that data. Advocates for reform argue that biological data deserves a category of protection stronger than ordinary consumer information, precisely because _______________.

Blockchain technology was originally promoted as a way to remove the need for trusted middlemen. In theory, this design distributes power away from any single institution and toward the network as a whole. In practice, however, _______________, controlling enough computing power or currency to influence outcomes that were supposed to be decided collectively. Whether decentralization can survive this concentration of power remains one of the technology's most unresolved questions.

As private companies develop the technology to mine asteroids for rare metals and water, a legal question has become urgent: who owns the resources of outer space? Existing international treaties state that no nation may claim sovereignty over celestial bodies, but they say remarkably little about whether a private company may extract and sell what it finds there. Some governments have already passed domestic laws granting their own companies rights to material mined in space, a move that other nations view as _______________.

Janis identified several warning signs, including an illusion of invulnerability that leads a group to underestimate risk, pressure on dissenters to fall in line, and self-appointed mindguards who shield the group from information that might disrupt its confidence. Even highly capable individuals can make disastrous collective decisions once they are absorbed into a tightly knit group, a phenomenon psychologist Irving Janis termed groupthink. ( ① ) Within cohesive committees, boards, and advisory councils, members often prioritize consensus and group harmony over a rigorous evaluation of alternatives, silencing doubts rather than risking the discomfort of dissent. ( ② ) Sociologists extend this analysis beyond small committees, noting that entire organizations can develop cultures that reward conformity and punish employees who raise inconvenient questions. ( ③ ) Historical inquiries into policy failures and corporate disasters frequently reveal that critical information existed within the organization but never reached decision makers. ( ④ ) This was not because it was hidden, but because no one felt safe enough to voice it aloud. ( ⑤ )

This admission, however, is precisely what the sunk cost fallacy makes so difficult to accept. Consider a construction firm that has spent several years and a substantial budget building a bridge, only to discover partway through that a cheaper and safer alternative route has since become available. ( ① ) A purely forward-looking analysis would compare the remaining cost of finishing the original bridge against the total cost of switching to the new route, ignoring whatever has already been spent. ( ② ) If the new route is genuinely cheaper going forward, the rational choice is to abandon the original project regardless of how much money it has already consumed. ( ③ ) Abandoning the project, however, requires the firm's leadership to publicly acknowledge that a significant portion of the original investment produced no lasting value. ( ④ ) As a result, firms often continue projects long after the numbers clearly favor stopping, simply to avoid confronting this uncomfortable truth. ( ⑤ ) The bridge, in such cases, becomes less a matter of engineering than a monument to the difficulty of admitting a costly mistake.

Ironically, the more confident these investors become, the less likely they are to seek out disconfirming evidence at all. Confirmation bias exerts a particularly strong influence in financial markets, where uncertainty leaves considerable room for interpretation. ( ① ) An investor convinced that a certain stock is undervalued will often read every piece of ambiguous news as further proof of that belief. ( ② ) Positive earnings are taken as confirmation of the stock's hidden potential, while disappointing earnings are dismissed as a temporary anomaly rather than a genuine warning sign. ( ③ ) This selective interpretation allows the investor's initial conviction to grow stronger with each new piece of information, regardless of whether that information actually supports the belief. ( ④ ) Financial advisors therefore recommend that investors deliberately seek out opinions that challenge their existing positions before making major decisions. ( ⑤ ) Only by actively exposing oneself to disconfirming evidence can one guard against the self-reinforcing cycle that confirmation bias tends to produce.