영어 모의고사 (자동 편성)

문제 1

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.

문제 2

Philosophers often pair the classic trolley problem with a companion case ①designed to test whether our moral intuitions are actually consistent. Imagine a brilliant surgeon who has five patients, each dying from the failure of a different organ, and one healthy visitor in the waiting room whose organs ②happen to be a perfect match for all five. If the surgeon secretly killed the healthy visitor and transplanted the organs, five lives would ③save at the cost of one, exactly the same arithmetic used to justify diverting a runaway trolley onto a track with a single worker. Yet almost everyone who accepts the trolley diversion ④recoils immediately at the idea of the surgeon cutting up an unwilling patient, even though the numbers are identical in both cases. Philosophers use this contrast to argue that outcomes alone cannot fully explain our moral judgments, something that appears ⑤to matter deeply to most people's sense of right and wrong.

문제 3

As private companies develop the technology to mine asteroids for rare metals and water, a legal question once confined to science fiction has suddenly ①become urgent: who, if anyone, 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 ②whether a private company may extract and sell what it finds there. Some governments have already passed domestic laws ③granting their own companies rights to material mined in space, a move that other nations view as a unilateral attempt to settle a question that should ④decide collectively. Supporters of space mining argue that new resources could ease shortages on Earth and fund further exploration, while critics warn that treating space as an open frontier for extraction risks ⑤repeating the same environmental and political mistakes that colonization caused on Earth.

문제 4

Traditional economic models predict that a rational individual offered any positive sum of money, however small, should ①accept it without hesitation, since even a modest gain is preferable to receiving nothing at all. When the proposer offers a division perceived as ②unfair, such as retaining ninety percent of the sum for themselves, the second participant frequently rejects the offer entirely, leaving both parties with nothing rather than accepting an outcome viewed as insulting. This behavior indicates that individuals value fairness as an end in itself, sometimes willingly ③sacrificing material gain to punish perceived exploitation. Neuroscientific investigations complement this finding, revealing that unfair offers activate brain regions associated with ④pleasure and negative emotion, suggesting that the rejection of unfairness is not merely a calculated strategic move but also an emotionally driven response. Such evidence challenges the assumption that economic actors pursue only their own material self-interest, demonstrating instead that considerations of equity can ⑤override the straightforward pursuit of maximum individual gain.

문제 5

Philosopher Robert Nozick asked his readers to imagine a machine capable of producing any experience they ①desired, from writing a great novel to falling in love, all indistinguishable from reality once they were plugged in. Neuroscientists would simply stimulate the brain to generate a lifetime of perfectly satisfying experiences, and the person floating in the tank would have no memory of ever choosing to enter it. If pleasure and the avoidance of pain were truly all that mattered, as classical hedonism claims, then everyone should ②rush to connect themselves permanently to such a machine. Yet when people actually consider the offer, most ③eagerly accept, and many refuse outright. Nozick took this reluctance as evidence that human beings care about more than the quality of their internal sensations; people also want to actually ④do certain things, to actually be a certain kind of person, and to maintain genuine ⑤contact with a reality beyond their own mind.

문제 6

The ancient puzzle known as the ship of Theseus asks a deceptively simple question: if every plank of a wooden ship is replaced one by one over many years, is the vessel that eventually results still the same ship it once was? (A) Suppose a careful collector gathered every discarded plank and reassembled them into a second vessel, built exactly as the original once stood. (B) Two ships would then exist side by side, each with an equal claim to being the genuine one, and no obvious way to decide between them. (C) Most people's first instinct is to answer yes, since each individual replacement seems too small to erase the ship's identity, but the puzzle grows far sharper once a second twist is introduced.

문제 7

City governments increasingly market dense networks of surveillance cameras as a straightforward safety upgrade, promising faster emergency response and lower crime rates. (A) Yet the same infrastructure that catches criminals also creates a permanent record of where ordinary, law-abiding citizens go about their daily lives. (B) In many cases, the technology delivers exactly what it promises, helping investigators identify suspects within hours rather than weeks. (C) Once a camera network exists, its purpose can quietly expand, from tracking traffic accidents to monitoring political protests, often without new public debate.

문제 8

Consider a student who genuinely intends to study for tomorrow's exam yet, when the evening actually arrives, chooses to watch another episode of a favorite show instead, promising herself she will surely study harder next week. (A) Behavioral economists note that this preference weakens considerably once both options are pushed into the future, which is why planning a diet starting next month feels effortless compared with skipping dessert tonight. Such inconsistency helps explain why gym memberships go unused and retirement accounts remain underfunded, despite people's stated intentions. Recognizing this pull toward the present, therefore, allows individuals and institutions to design commitments that quietly protect long-term goals from short-term temptation. (B) People do not necessarily fail to understand that the future reward matters more; rather, whatever happens right now simply feels disproportionately more urgent and vivid than anything scheduled for later. (C) This pattern, in which the pull of an immediate pleasure overwhelms the value of a distant benefit, appears again and again across ordinary life, from postponed exercise to delayed savings.

문제 9

주어진 문장: Beyond these practical objections, some conservationists raise a more fundamental theoretical concern about what rewilding is ultimately trying to achieve. 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. ① Rather than managing landscapes according to a fixed blueprint, rewilding projects often reintroduce key species, such as large predators, whose presence can trigger cascading effects. ② Advocates point to the reintroduction of wolves in certain parks, where predation altered grazing behavior, allowing riverside vegetation to recover and stabilizing soil that had long been eroding. ③ Skeptics, however, warn that rewilding can provoke serious conflict with nearby communities, particularly when predators prey on livestock or restored habitats limit land for agriculture. ④ Moreover, critics argue that restoring landscapes to an imagined pristine state is scientifically dubious, since ecosystems have long been shaped by human activity. ⑤ Compensation programs reimbursing farmers for livestock losses, alongside ecotourism initiatives creating local income, have proven essential to sustaining public support. Ultimately, rewilding succeeds not by removing human influence but by renegotiating the relationship between people and the wild species they must coexist with. ① ② ③ ④ ⑤

문제 10

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.