영어 모의고사 (자동 편성)

German sociologist Ferdinand Tönnies distinguished between two fundamentally different forms of social organization, ①which he termed Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft. Gemeinschaft, often ②translated as community, describes relationships bound by close kinship, shared tradition, and face-to-face familiarity, typical of small villages where individuals know one another across an entire lifetime and act according to unwritten customs. Gesellschaft, often translated as society, describes relationships organized around impersonal contracts, self-interest, and formal law, typical of large cities where interactions occur between relative strangers ③who cooperate for specific, limited purposes. Tönnies did not regard one form as simply superior to the other; rather, he saw the shift from Gemeinschaft toward Gesellschaft as a defining feature of modernization, one that brought greater efficiency and individual freedom while ④weaken the dense emotional bonds that once held communities together. Contemporary sociologists continue to debate whether digital networks represent a genuine revival of Gemeinschaft-style community or merely ⑤extend Gesellschaft's impersonal logic into new spaces.

A biosensor works by pairing a biological component, such as an enzyme or antibody, with an electronic device that ①convert a biological reaction into a signal a computer can read. When the target molecule, whether glucose in blood or a trace of a pathogen, ②binds to the biological component, it triggers a small measurable change that the device translates into a readable number. This design has already transformed diabetes management, ③letting patients monitor blood sugar continuously through a small sensor worn under the skin rather than pricking a finger several times a day. Engineers are now racing to extend the same principle ④to detect subtler targets, from cancer cells circulating in the bloodstream to trace contaminants in drinking water. The central challenge is not detecting the target but doing so reliably outside a controlled laboratory, since a sensor that performs well on a clean lab bench can behave erratically once ⑤exposed to a real body or a real river.

In the late nineteenth century, the psychologist Hermann Ebbinghaus undertook a rigorous investigation of forgetting ①by serve as his own experimental subject. He memorized thousands of meaningless three-letter syllables ②so that prior knowledge could not skew his results. After learning each list to perfection, he tested his retention at intervals ③ranging from twenty minutes to a month later. He recorded 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 ④decelerates until the rate of loss becomes almost imperceptible. Roughly half of the acquired information vanished within the first hour alone. Yet whatever survived that initial plunge tended to persist for much longer periods. Ebbinghaus further found that ⑤distributing study sessions across several days produced better retention than cramming the same repetition into one sitting.

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. Within cohesive committees, boards, and advisory councils, members often prioritize consensus and group harmony over a rigorous evaluation of alternatives, ①silencing doubts rather than risking the discomfort of dissent. Janis identified several warning signs, including an illusion of invulnerability that leads a group to ②underestimate risk, pressure on dissenters to fall in line, and self-appointed mindguards who ③shield the group from information that might disrupt its confidence. Sociologists extend this analysis beyond small committees, noting that entire organizations can develop cultures that ④punish conformity and reward employees who raise inconvenient questions. Historical inquiries into policy failures frequently reveal that critical information existed within the organization but never reached decision makers, because no one felt ⑤safe enough to voice it aloud.

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. 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. This tendency, in which people estimate how likely an event is based on _______________, quietly shapes countless everyday decisions. News broadcasts that repeatedly feature rare disasters can leave viewers convinced that such events are common, even though official records clearly show the opposite. 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.

Classical economic theory long assumed that decision makers gather all relevant information, calculate every possible outcome, and select the single option that maximizes their benefit. (A) Herbert Simon, however, questioned this assumption, arguing that human beings operate under real constraints of time, knowledge, and mental capacity that make such exhaustive calculation practically impossible. (B) Instead of searching endlessly for the theoretically perfect choice, people typically stop once they find an option that seems good enough to meet their immediate needs, a strategy Simon termed satisficing. (C) A shopper comparing refrigerators, for example, rarely examines every model available; she instead sets a few practical criteria, such as price and size, and selects the first appliance that satisfies them adequately. This approach is not a failure of reasoning but rather a sensible adaptation to a world where information is costly and time is genuinely limited. Consequently, models assuming unlimited rationality often fail to predict actual behavior, while frameworks acknowledging these cognitive boundaries offer a far more realistic account of how ordinary decisions are actually made.

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 are asked 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. (A) Communicators who ignore this pattern risk burying their most important point where it will predictably be forgotten. A more effective strategy, therefore, places the crucial message at the beginning or end, precisely where memory proves most reliable. (B) The advantage for early items, called the primacy effect, arises because those items receive more rehearsal and are more likely to be transferred into long-term storage before subsequent items compete for attention. (C) The advantage for final items, known as the recency effect, occurs 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.

주어진 문장: Psychologists first documented this delay nearly a century ago, and it has since become one of the most frequently replicated findings in cognitive science. Anyone who has tried to name the ink color of a word like red printed in blue letters knows how surprisingly difficult the task can feel. ( ① ) This everyday struggle, known as the Stroop effect, deserves more attention than casual curiosity grants it, because it reveals something fundamental about how the mind allocates its limited resources. ( ② ) Reading a familiar word is an automatic process practiced so extensively since childhood that it proceeds almost involuntarily, whereas naming a color requires deliberate, controlled attention. ( ③ ) When these two processes point toward conflicting answers, the automatic pathway tends to intrude upon the controlled one, slowing responses and increasing errors. ( ④ ) Educators should not dismiss this delay as a trivial curiosity confined to laboratories, since the same competition between habit and intention underlies far more consequential situations, such as a driver's struggle to resist checking a phone despite knowing the danger. ( ⑤ ) Recognizing how automatic responses can hijack conscious intentions is essential for designing environments, from classrooms to highways, that support rather than undermine our efforts at self-control.

Something has clearly gone wrong along the way, since no reasonable person would call one grain of sand a heap. Consider a large heap containing ten thousand grains of sand. ( ① ) Nearly everyone agrees that removing a single grain from such a heap leaves another heap behind; surely one grain could never make the difference between a heap and a non-heap. ( ② ) Yet if this principle is applied repeatedly, grain by grain, the heap eventually shrinks to a single lonely grain, or even to no grains at all. ( ③ ) Logic alone seems to force us to accept that this final result still counts as a heap. ( ④ ) Pinpointing exactly which single removal transformed a heap into a non-heap seems impossible. ( ⑤ ) The puzzle exposes a deep discomfort with vague terms like "heap," "tall," or "bald," concepts that seem to admit no sharp boundary yet are used confidently in everyday language.

The reason, he insisted, lies outside the speaker's mind entirely, in the actual chemical composition of the substance being referred to. Imagine a distant planet identical to Earth in every visible respect, except that the clear liquid its inhabitants call "water" is not H2O but a different compound, XYZ, that happens to look, taste, and behave exactly the same. ( ① ) When an Earthling and a Twin Earthling each say the word "water," they seem to mean the same thing, since neither could tell the substances apart without a chemistry lab. ( ② ) Philosopher Hilary Putnam used this scenario to argue that the meaning of a word is not determined solely by what happens inside a speaker's head. ( ③ ) Even though the two speakers hold identical thoughts and mental images when they use the word, their statements refer to two different substances. ( ④ ) Meaning, Putnam concluded, depends partly on the world outside the mind, not merely on the private mental states of whoever happens to be speaking. ( ⑤ )