영어 모의고사 (자동 편성)

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.

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. During recent years, this gap became impossible to ignore, as families in rural areas or low-income neighborhoods ①struggled to complete schoolwork that assumed a stable connection and a personal device. Some policymakers initially treated internet access as a convenience, comparable to cable television, rather than as infrastructure ②essential to modern life. That assumption is increasingly ③reconsidering, particularly as more essential services, from job applications to medical appointments, move online by default. Closing this divide will require more than simply distributing devices; it will demand sustained investment in the physical networks ④that carry information into every home, ⑤regardless of income or location.

When engineers design the software ①that controls a self-driving car, they inevitably face a question that philosophers have debated for decades. If a crash becomes unavoidable, should the vehicle protect its own passenger at all costs, or should it be programmed ②minimizing total harm, even if that means steering toward the person inside? 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 ③they would never buy a vehicle designed to sacrifice its own owner. This gap between the ideal and the personal choice suggests that ethical programming cannot ④be settled by public opinion alone. Manufacturers, regulators, and philosophers must instead agree on transparent rules before autonomous vehicles ⑤are allowed to make such decisions on the road.

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

Classical economic models typically assume that people discount future rewards at a constant rate. Empirical observation, however, reveals a different pattern: people apply a much steeper discount to the immediate future than to the distant future, a phenomenon termed hyperbolic discounting. This dynamic helps explain chronic procrastination, since tasks that carry long-term benefits are perpetually deferred in favor of activities offering ___________ satisfaction.

Picture a woman who receives 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 owned 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. Owners consistently demand more money to give something up than buyers are willing to offer for that very same item, _______________. Some economists argue that this effect explains why negotiations over inherited property so often collapse, since each side quietly attaches a different value to what it currently holds.

Prospect theory proposes that the subjective value of money is not a straight line but a curved function. In the domain of gains, the function bends downward as amounts increase. A parallel pattern appears among losses, where the curve bends in the opposite direction, yet sensitivity still fades as the amount grows larger. This tendency, known as diminishing sensitivity, explains why _______________. Understanding this curvature allows economists to predict decisions that a simple, linear model of value could never anticipate.

The discovery of CRISPR gene-editing technology gave scientists a tool precise enough to correct a single mistaken letter in the human genome, raising hope for curing inherited diseases. (A) Scientific organizations around the world have therefore drawn a careful line, permitting gene editing to treat disease in existing patients while banning any edit that would be inherited by their descendants. (B) Yet editing a gene in a sperm, egg, or early embryo does not simply change one patient; it alters the genetic code passed down to every future generation. (C) Critics worry, however, that as the technology becomes cheaper and more widely available, this line will become harder to enforce than it is to draw.

Several cities have already reported cases in which an innocent person was detained based on a flawed match. Facial recognition software has moved rapidly from airport security lines into shopping malls, schools, and even private apartment buildings, promising convenience in exchange for a quick scan of one's face. ( ① ) Proponents note that the technology can unlock doors, catch shoplifters, and speed up identity checks far faster than any human guard could manage. ( ② ) Independent studies, however, have repeatedly found that many commercial systems perform less accurately on women and people with darker skin tones. ( ③ ) This gap can lead to wrongful identification with serious real-world consequences. ( ④ ) Until these systems can prove equally reliable for everyone, critics argue, deploying them at all represents a form of quiet discrimination dressed up as efficiency. ( ⑤ )

주어진 문장: This asymmetry is troubling precisely because, in reality, risk and benefit are often unrelated or even inversely related. When people are asked to judge how risky or beneficial a particular technology is, they rarely conduct anything resembling a careful cost-benefit analysis. ( ① ) Instead, they consult a quick emotional impression, an instinctive sense of whether the technology feels good or feels bad, and let that impression guide their entire judgment. ( ② ) This mental shortcut, known as the affect heuristic, produces a curious 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. ( ③ ) 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, illogically, as less dangerous. ( ④ ) Because emotional impressions form so rapidly and feel so trustworthy, correcting for this heuristic requires deliberate effort; simply presenting more accurate statistics to already anxious or enthusiastic audiences rarely changes their underlying judgment. ( ⑤ )