영어 모의고사 (자동 편성)

Imagine standing at a crowded party where dozens of conversations ①blend into a wall of noise, yet you effortlessly track the words of the friend beside you. Curiously, if someone across the room utters your name, your attention snaps toward that voice almost instantly. This happens even though you ②had not consciously been listening to that conversation at all. This phenomenon, known as the cocktail party effect, reveals that selective attention ③does not simply block out every unattended sound. Early theorists such as Donald Broadbent proposed that unattended information is filtered out entirely before reaching awareness. Yet the fact that a person's own name can break through this filter ④contradict such a rigid model. Anne Treisman later refined this account, suggesting that unattended channels are merely attenuated rather than eliminated altogether. Especially meaningful stimuli, including one's own name, can still surpass the threshold of conscious recognition. This refinement suggests that attention operates less like a gate and more like a dimmer switch, ⑤adjusting the salience of competing streams of information.

Behavioral economists have long observed that people tend to feel the pain of losing something more intensely than the pleasure of gaining an equivalent amount, a tendency ①known as loss aversion. This asymmetry, which ②was first documented through a series of carefully designed experiments, suggests that the psychological weight of a loss can be roughly twice that of a comparable gain. Consider an investor who refuses to sell a declining stock, ③clings to the hope that its price will eventually recover, even when all available evidence indicates that selling and reinvesting elsewhere would be more rational. Such behavior, though it ④appears irrational from a purely economic standpoint, becomes understandable once we recognize that the investor is trying to avoid the sharp discomfort associated with realizing a loss. Similarly, consumers often demand a much higher price to give up an item they already own than they would be ⑤willing to pay to acquire the same item in the first place.

Imagine a man locked inside a room who does not understand a single word of Chinese, yet who ①possesses a giant rulebook written entirely in English. Slips of paper covered with Chinese characters ②are passed in through a slot, and by following the rulebook's instructions step by step, he produces replies that appear fluent to anyone outside. From the perspective of a native speaker reading the responses, the room seems ③understanding Chinese perfectly. Yet the man inside understands nothing at all; he is merely manipulating shapes according to formal rules, without ④grasping their meaning. This scenario was designed to challenge the assumption that a computer running a sophisticated program truly understands language simply because it produces convincing output, ⑤passing every external test of intelligence.

Change blindness refers to a striking limitation of human perception in which observers fail to notice substantial alterations to a visual scene, provided the change occurs ① during a brief disruption such as an eye movement or a momentary obstruction. In a now-famous demonstration, researchers showed ② participants two versions of a photograph in alternation, separated by a short blank screen, and asked them to identify what had changed. Even when an entire building disappeared or a person's clothing shifted color, many viewers stared at the picture without detecting ③ anything unusual. This phenomenon occurs because visual attention, rather than passively recording every detail like a camera, actively selects only a narrow subset of information for processing at any given moment. Whatever falls outside that narrow spotlight represents ④ only sparsely, if at all, leaving it vulnerable to being overwritten without notice. Consequently, change blindness demonstrates that our impression of a rich, complete visual world is, to a surprising extent, an illusion constructed ⑤ by the mind, not a faithful record of external reality.

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. When an Earthling and a Twin Earthling each say the word "water," they seem to mean the ①same thing, since neither could tell the substances apart without a chemistry lab. 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. Even though the two speakers hold ②opposing thoughts and mental images when they use the word, their statements refer to ③two different substances, because the underlying chemical composition, not personal belief, fixes what a word ultimately picks out. Meaning, Putnam concluded, depends ④partly on the world outside the mind, not merely on the ⑤private mental states of whoever happens to be speaking.

Every time a smartphone connects to a cell tower or a Wi-Fi network, it ①quietly records a data point that can later be pieced together into a detailed map of where its owner has been. Most users agree to this tracking without reading the fine print, assuming that a single company's database poses ②little threat. The real danger, however, emerges when location data from multiple sources is combined. A pattern that reveals a person's home, workplace, and daily route can ③expose far more than any single app ever intended to share. Companies often argue that anonymized data cannot be traced back to individuals, yet researchers have ④repeatedly shown that a handful of location points is enough to identify a specific person with striking accuracy. As a result, privacy experts increasingly insist that location data deserves ⑤minimal legal protection, similar to that of medical records.

Marketers have long recognized that perceived scarcity can dramatically increase a product's desirability, even when the item's intrinsic qualities remain entirely unchanged. A retailer who labels a product as "limited edition" or displays a countdown timer beside a discounted offer prompts customers to make hurried purchase decisions they might otherwise postpone or reconsider. Consumers who later reflect calmly on such purchases frequently discover that the item's actual usefulness fell well short of the ___________ they experienced at the moment of decision.

Imagine a brilliant scientist named Mary who has spent her entire life inside a black-and-white room, learning everything physical science could ever teach about color. (A) Despite this complete physical knowledge, Mary herself has never actually seen a color, since every book, screen, and object in her world has been carefully restricted to shades of gray. (B) Suppose that one day Mary is finally released from the room and shown a ripe red tomato for the first time. (C) Philosopher Frank Jackson argued that Mary would learn something entirely new at that moment, namely what it actually feels like to see red, even though she already possessed every physical fact about color.

Generative AI systems learn to write, draw, and compose by studying enormous collections of existing human work, much of which was created without the artists' knowledge or consent. (A) Critics respond that the comparison breaks down at scale, since a single AI model can absorb millions of works in days and compete with the very artists who trained it. (B) Supporters of the technology argue that this process resembles how a human student learns by studying the masters. (C) Courts around the world are now being asked to decide whether training an algorithm on copyrighted material counts as fair use or as infringement.

In purely material terms, of course, rejecting the offer leaves the responder objectively worse off than accepting it would have. In a typical round of the ultimatum game, a proposer offers to keep eighty percent of a sum of money, leaving only twenty percent for the responder. ( ① ) A responder who values only material gain should accept this offer without hesitation, since twenty percent of something is still more than one hundred percent of nothing. ( ② ) In practice, however, a substantial proportion of responders reject such lopsided offers outright. ( ③ ) Both participants then receive nothing, an outcome that a purely self-interested calculator would never choose voluntarily. ( ④ ) Researchers interpret this pattern as evidence that people are willing to incur a personal cost in order to punish behavior they perceive as exploitative. ( ⑤ ) This willingness to sacrifice material gain for the sake of fairness appears consistently across many different cultures, though the specific threshold for what counts as an unfair offer can vary considerably.