영어 모의고사 (자동 편성)

Standard economic theory assumes that money is fungible, meaning that a dollar earned as salary is functionally ①identical to a dollar received as a tax refund or won in a lottery. In practice, however, people routinely sort their finances into separate mental accounts, treating money differently depending on its source or intended purpose. A household that would never dip into its retirement savings to pay for a vacation might nonetheless spend an unexpected bonus on that very trip without ②hesitation, even though both sums are, in strictly financial terms, equally available for either purpose. This ③compartmentalization can produce decisions that appear ④consistent when viewed through a purely rational lens: the same individual who diligently saves a portion of every paycheck may simultaneously carry high-interest credit card debt, effectively paying more to borrow than they earn on their savings. Mental accounting is not always harmful, however; by assigning specific categories to specific funds, individuals can also impose useful ⑤discipline on their spending, preventing money earmarked for essential needs from being diverted toward impulsive purchases.

Long before calculus existed, the Greek philosopher Zeno constructed a series of paradoxes designed to show that motion itself might be logically impossible. In one version, a swift runner named Achilles races a slow-moving tortoise that is given a modest head start. Common sense insists that Achilles will quickly overtake the tortoise, yet Zeno's argument suggests otherwise. By the time Achilles reaches the tortoise's starting point, the tortoise has crawled a little further ahead; by the time Achilles closes that new gap, the tortoise has advanced again, however slightly. This process repeats endlessly, generating _______________. Zeno concluded that Achilles could never actually catch the tortoise, a conclusion that plainly contradicts everyday experience.

Time travel to the past has long fascinated physicists and philosophers alike, but it also generates a famously troubling contradiction. Suppose a traveler journeyed backward in time and, through some combination of accident and intention, prevented their own grandfather from ever meeting their grandmother. If the grandfather never had children, the traveler themselves would never have been born, which means the traveler could never have existed to make the trip in the first place. Yet if the traveler never made the trip, the grandfather would have survived to meet the grandmother after all, allowing the traveler to be born and eventually travel back in time. The story therefore loops endlessly, undermining itself at every turn rather than settling into any stable outcome. Some physicists resolve the paradox by arguing that _______________.

As more schools shift toward digital textbooks and online assignments, a student without reliable internet access at home faces a disadvantage that has little to do with talent or effort. (A) That assumption is increasingly being reconsidered, particularly as more essential services, from job applications to medical appointments, move online by default. (B) Some policymakers initially treated internet access as a convenience, comparable to cable television, rather than as infrastructure essential to modern life. (C) Closing this divide will require more than simply distributing devices; it will demand sustained investment in the physical networks that carry information into every home.

Consider a large heap containing ten thousand grains of sand. (A) Something has clearly gone wrong along the way, since no reasonable person would call one grain of sand a heap, but pinpointing exactly which single removal transformed a heap into a non-heap seems impossible. (B) Nearly everyone agrees that removing a single grain from such a heap leaves another heap behind, since surely one grain could never make the difference between a heap and a non-heap. (C) 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, and logic alone seems to force us to accept that this final result still counts as a heap.

The immune system produces an almost limitless variety of antibodies, each shaped to latch onto one particular molecular target with remarkable specificity. (A) Monoclonal antibody drugs harness this natural precision by cloning a single antibody-producing cell in the laboratory, generating 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. (B) Because the antibody binds only to its intended target, these drugs tend to spare healthy tissue far more effectively than traditional chemotherapy, which attacks any rapidly dividing cell regardless of whether it is cancerous. (C) Manufacturing monoclonal antibodies remains far more complicated than producing a conventional small-molecule pill, and this complexity keeps monoclonal antibody treatments considerably more expensive than most conventional drugs, a cost that continues to shape debates over pricing and access.

Consequently, even seasoned professionals who believe themselves immune to such influence often fail to notice how much their final judgment has shifted. The anchoring effect can be surprisingly resistant to conscious correction. ( ① ) Even when individuals are explicitly warned in advance that a number they are about to see is randomly generated and therefore meaningless, their subsequent estimates still drift toward that arbitrary figure. ( ② ) This occurs because the mind uses the initial number as a starting point and then adjusts insufficiently away from it, a process that leaves the final judgment biased toward the anchor. ( ③ ) Experimental studies have repeatedly demonstrated this effect across a wide range of tasks, from estimating historical dates to appraising real estate. ( ④ ) The bias persists not because people lack expertise, but because the adjustment process itself is inherently incomplete. ( ⑤ ) Awareness of the anchoring effect, therefore, does not guarantee immunity from it, which is precisely what makes the bias so difficult to counteract in practice.

In other instances, the danger came not from the immune system at all but from where the new gene happened to land. For patients born with a single faulty gene, the disease has traditionally been treated indirectly, managing symptoms for a lifetime rather than addressing the genetic error itself. ( ① ) Gene therapy attempts something more ambitious: delivering a corrected copy of the gene directly into a patient's cells, often using a disabled virus stripped of its ability to cause illness as a delivery vehicle. ( ② ) Once inside the nucleus, the corrected gene can begin producing the protein the patient's body had always lacked, in some cases reversing symptoms that medication alone had never been able to touch. ( ③ ) Early trials were haunted by serious setbacks, including cases in which the delivery virus triggered a dangerous immune reaction. ( ④ ) The virus, in such cases, inserted the new gene in a spot that disrupted other essential genes. ( ⑤ ) Refined delivery methods have since made the treatment considerably safer, and regulators in several countries have now approved gene therapies for a small but growing number of rare inherited disorders.

No further reminders, willpower, or repeated decisions are required once the initial commitment has been made. The design of behavioral savings programs deliberately minimizes the number of decisions a participant must make over time. ( ① ) At the moment of hiring, an employee is asked only once whether to commit future salary increases to retirement savings. ( ② ) If the employee agrees, that single decision governs all future contribution increases automatically. ( ③ ) This stands in sharp contrast to conventional savings advice, which typically asks individuals to make a fresh decision to save more each time their income changes. ( ④ ) Because each additional decision creates another opportunity for procrastination or reconsideration, minimizing the number of required decisions substantially increases the likelihood that saving actually occurs. ( ⑤ ) The program's success, in this sense, stems less from persuading people to value saving more than from reducing the number of moments at which they could choose not to.

Yet the objective probability of survival in both scenarios is, of course, mathematically identical. Framing effects appear with particular force in decisions involving risk and uncertainty. ( ① ) When physicians describe a treatment option in terms of a survival rate, patients tend to view the treatment favorably and are more inclined to proceed. ( ② ) When the very same statistic is instead presented as a mortality rate, patient enthusiasm for the identical treatment drops noticeably. ( ③ ) This asymmetry persists even among physicians themselves, who might be expected to evaluate probabilities more analytically than the general public. ( ④ ) The persistence of this bias among trained professionals suggests that framing effects operate below the level of deliberate reasoning, influencing judgment before conscious analysis even begins. ( ⑤ ) Understanding this tendency allows communicators to present information more responsibly, regardless of which frame ultimately proves more persuasive.