영어 모의고사 (자동 편성)

The human gut hosts trillions of microorganisms ①whose combined genetic material outnumbers that of the human genome itself many times over. Once dismissed as passive hitchhikers, these bacteria are now understood ②to actively shape digestion, regulate immune responses, and even influence the production of chemicals that affect mood and behavior. A microbiome disrupted by antibiotics, poor diet, or chronic stress can leave the gut lining more permeable than it should be, ③allowing substances to leak into the bloodstream that would normally stay contained. Researchers studying this connection have found that transplanting gut bacteria from a healthy donor into a patient can, in some cases, relieve symptoms of certain digestive disorders that conventional medication ④had failed to treat. Still, scientists caution that the microbiome varies enormously between individuals, which means a treatment that restores balance in one person's gut may ⑤does little for someone else's.

Anyone who has tried to name the ink color of a word like red printed ① in blue letters knows how surprisingly difficult the task can feel. This everyday struggle, known as the Stroop effect, deserves ② more attention than casual curiosity grants it, because it reveals something fundamental about how the mind allocates its limited resources. Reading a familiar word is an automatic process practicing ③ so extensively since childhood that it proceeds almost involuntarily, whereas naming a color requires deliberate, controlled attention. When these two processes point toward conflicting answers, the automatic pathway tends to intrude upon the controlled one, slowing ④ responses and increasing errors. 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. Recognizing how automatic responses can hijack conscious intentions is essential for designing ⑤ environments, from classrooms to highways, that support rather than undermine our efforts at self-control.

A printer that once produced only plastic prototypes can now deposit living cells layer by layer to build a structure that begins to ①resemble actual tissue. Bioprinting adapts the logic of conventional 3D printing, replacing plastic filament with a ②specialized ink made of living cells suspended in a gel that supports their survival while the shape sets. Printing a flat patch of skin or a simple blood vessel has already moved from laboratory curiosity to early clinical testing, since these tissues are thin enough for nutrients to reach every cell by ③diffusion. Printing a solid organ such as a kidney remains a far greater challenge, because internal cells ④thrive without their own blood supply, and no printer yet exists that can build a network of vessels fast enough to keep them alive. Researchers are therefore focusing on hybrid strategies, printing a rough scaffold and then allowing the tissue to mature and grow its own vasculature over ⑤time.

For decades, most vaccines worked by injecting a ①weakened or inactivated version of a pathogen, coaxing the immune system into recognizing an enemy it had never truly fought. mRNA vaccines take a fundamentally ②different route, delivering only a short genetic instruction wrapped in a protective lipid capsule, one that tells the body's own cells how to manufacture a single harmless piece of a virus's outer surface protein. Once those cells display the fragment, the immune system learns to recognize it as ③foreign and builds a defense, without ever having encountered the actual pathogen. Because the vaccine contains no live virus and cannot alter a cell's own DNA, developers can ④redesign the genetic instructions within weeks whenever a pathogen mutates, rather than starting the years-long process required for traditional vaccines. This speed has convinced many researchers that the same platform could eventually be adapted to fight diseases far beyond infectious illness, ⑤excluding certain cancers.

Extended producer responsibility, a policy requiring manufacturers to bear responsibility for their products even after use, has been adopted by governments seeking to ①increase landfill waste. Under such schemes, companies must ②finance the collection and recycling of goods once consumers discard them, rather than leaving municipalities to absorb the cost. Advocates maintain that shifting this burden onto producers creates a powerful incentive to design products that are more ③durable, easily disassembled, and readily recyclable from the outset. Critics counter that the policy, whatever its theoretical merits, often fails to reduce waste meaningfully unless paired with ④rigorous enforcement and transparent reporting requirements. For instance, some manufacturers merely pass the added cost of compliance on to consumers, without making substantive changes to how products are designed. In contrast, jurisdictions that combine producer responsibility with strict eco-design standards and independent audits tend to witness ⑤genuine improvements in recyclability.

Every time an antibiotic kills off a population of bacteria, a handful of cells carrying a random mutation that resists the drug are left behind to multiply without competition. Repeated over decades, across hospitals, farms, and households worldwide, this simple process of natural selection has produced strains of bacteria that survive treatments once considered reliably effective. _______________. Researchers are therefore searching in unconventional places, screening soil microbes, ocean sediment, and even genetic databases for molecules that kill bacteria through mechanisms resistant strains have not yet learned to evade. Some scientists have also revived an older approach, using viruses that infect only bacteria to hunt down resistant strains with a precision no broad-spectrum drug could ever match.

The discovery of CRISPR gene-editing technology gave scientists a tool precise enough to correct a single mistaken letter in the human genome. 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. 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. Critics worry, however, that _______________.

A biosensor works by pairing a biological component, such as an enzyme or antibody, with an electronic device that converts a biological reaction into a signal a computer can read. (A) Engineers are now racing to extend the same principle to detect subtler targets, from cancer cells circulating in the bloodstream to trace contaminants in drinking water, though the central challenge remains doing so reliably outside a controlled laboratory. (B) When the target molecule, whether glucose in blood or a trace of a pathogen, binds to the biological component, it triggers a small measurable change that the device translates into a readable number. (C) This design has already transformed diabetes management, letting patients monitor blood sugar continuously through a small sensor worn under the skin rather than pricking a finger several times a day.

Suppose a mad scientist removed a living brain from its body and placed it in a vat of nutrient fluid, connecting its neurons to a supercomputer capable of generating perfectly realistic sensations. (A) This scenario, unsettling as it sounds, raises a genuinely difficult question for anyone confident in their own perception: how could a person ever prove that they are not that very brain right now? (B) The brain would experience a full and convincing world, complete with a sky, a body, and other people, without ever suspecting that none of it existed outside the simulation. (C) Ordinary evidence cannot help, since any proof gathered through the senses would itself be generated by the same simulation being tested.

The debate over nudging often centers on a single, deceptively simple question: does saving people from their own cognitive errors amount to genuine assistance or subtle manipulation? (A) Supporters respond that every choice architecture, whether intentionally designed or not, already influences behavior in some direction, so deliberately choosing a beneficial default is preferable to leaving the arrangement to chance or to the interests of profit-driven designers. (B) Opponents of nudging argue that any attempt to steer behavior, however gently, treats citizens as incapable of making sound decisions on their own and therefore undermines the very autonomy it claims to respect. (C) This rebuttal shifts the debate away from whether influence should exist at all and toward the more practical question of who should be trusted to design it and for what purpose.