영어 모의고사 (자동 편성)

A striking proportion of individual investors believe their own stock-picking ability to be above average, a statistical impossibility given that only half of any population can genuinely outperform the rest, yet a pattern that ①persists with remarkable consistency across surveys. This tendency, known as overconfidence bias, leads investors ②to trade more frequently than a more cautious assessment of their own skill would justify. Extensive research comparing the trading records of numerous individual accounts has demonstrated that investors who trade most frequently ③tends to earn substantially lower returns than those who trade rarely, largely because transaction costs accumulate and because frequent trading often reflects overconfident reactions to short-term noise rather than genuine insight. Overconfidence also manifests in the tendency to underestimate the range of possible outcomes, ④causing investors to concentrate their holdings in a small number of assets they feel certain about rather than diversifying across a broader portfolio. Paradoxically, then, the very confidence that motivates investors to act decisively often ⑤undermines the outcomes they are trying to achieve.

Philosophers sometimes ask their students to imagine a creature physically identical to an ordinary human being in every measurable respect, one that walks, talks, laughs, and even cries out in apparent pain when injured, yet that has no inner conscious experience whatsoever. This imagined being, commonly called a philosophical zombie, behaves ②completely differently from a conscious person, since every neuron fires in precisely the same pattern, but there is supposedly nothing it is like to be that creature from the inside. Defenders of the argument claim that because such a zombie is at least ①conceivable without any logical contradiction, consciousness itself cannot be fully explained by physical processes alone. Critics respond that mere conceivability ③proves very little about what is genuinely possible in the real world, and that our intuition about zombies may simply ④reflect the limits of imagination rather than a real gap in ⑤nature.

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.

Suppose a mad scientist removed a living brain from its body, placed it in a vat of nutrient fluid, and connected its neurons to a supercomputer capable of generating perfectly realistic sensations. 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. This scenario 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? Ordinary evidence cannot help, since _______________. Some philosophers conclude that absolute certainty about the external world is simply unattainable, while others argue that the mere possibility of deception is not sufficient reason to abandon our everyday trust in what we perceive.

Conventional economic wisdom holds that more options are always preferable to fewer. Empirical research on consumer behavior, however, complicates this assumption considerably. When shoppers are presented with an extensive array of choices, they frequently experience heightened anxiety about making the wrong selection and, paradoxically, become less likely to make any purchase or decision at all. Businesses that recognize this dynamic have begun deliberately curating smaller, carefully selected assortments, betting that ___________ can sometimes generate more sales and greater customer satisfaction than abundance.

Political philosophers have long debated how much authority, if any, a government may legitimately claim over free individuals. Robert Nozick imagined a hypothetical starting point in which people live without any state at all, each relying on private arrangements to protect their own person and property. He argued that a minimal state, limited strictly to enforcing contracts and protecting citizens from violence, theft, and fraud, could arise gradually through a series of voluntary exchanges, without anyone's rights ever being violated along the way. Critics on one side, the anarchists, insist that even this minimal government inevitably violates the rights of those who never consented to join it. Critics on the other side argue that a state limited to bare protection cannot address deeper inequalities that arise naturally in any free market. Nozick's thought experiment therefore _______________.

Medieval philosophers told the story of a hungry donkey placed exactly midway between two identical, equally fragrant piles of hay, with no factor whatsoever tipping the balance toward either option. (A) Because the donkey is assumed to be a perfectly rational creature that always chooses the option supported by the strongest reason, it supposedly finds itself with no rational basis for choosing one pile rather than the other. (B) Paralyzed by this perfect symmetry, the donkey starves to death precisely because it can find no reason to move in either direction. (C) Critics of the story point out that real animals, and real humans, rarely face situations of such flawless symmetry, since even a tiny, arbitrary preference is usually enough to break the tie in practice.

Memory researchers have long recognized that learning is not simply a matter of accumulating information without cost. Newly acquired material can collide with what the mind already holds, producing measurable disruptions in recall. (A) Conversely, when material learned later undermines the recollection of something acquired earlier, the process is labeled retroactive interference. This second mechanism explains why switching to a new keyboard layout can temporarily impair typing on a familiar one. (B) Both processes suggest that memories compete for the same limited retrieval pathways rather than resting in isolated compartments. This insight carries real implications for how students approach studying multiple similar subjects. Instead of cramming closely related material back to back, spacing out review sessions can reduce competition between overlapping traces. Varying study contexts further helps preserve accuracy for both old and new information alike. (C) When earlier knowledge interferes with the retrieval of information learned afterward, psychologists call this proactive interference. This phenomenon explains why someone who memorized an old phone number for years may struggle to recall a new one.

주어진 문장: In other words, no phase of a product's existence is excluded from consideration, from the extraction of raw materials to its final disposal. When consumers compare two products and assume that the one labeled "eco-friendly" is automatically the more sustainable choice, they often overlook the complexity involved in verifying such a claim. ① Life cycle assessment, commonly abbreviated as LCA, is a systematic method developed to evaluate the environmental impact of a product across every stage of its existence. ② This method examines raw material extraction, manufacturing, transportation, use, and disposal, compiling data on energy consumption and emissions generated at each stage. By tracing a product from its origin to its disposal, this approach reveals impacts that might otherwise remain hidden from consumers who see only the finished item on a shelf. ③ For example, an electric vehicle may produce no emissions while being driven, yet the mining of metals for its battery can generate substantial environmental costs elsewhere. ④ Without accounting for these earlier stages, a superficial comparison could mistakenly present the vehicle as entirely emission-free. ⑤ Therefore, researchers increasingly rely on life cycle assessment to make informed decisions rather than trusting labels alone. ① ② ③ ④ ⑤

Critics note a further irony: when something goes wrong, such as a hacked exchange or a lost password, there is often no institution left to appeal to. Blockchain technology was originally promoted as a way to remove the need for trusted middlemen, allowing strangers to exchange value directly and verify transactions through a shared, tamper-resistant ledger. ( ① ) In theory, this design distributes power away from any single institution and toward the network as a whole. ( ② ) In practice, however, a small number of large players have come to dominate many blockchain networks. ( ③ ) They control enough computing power or currency to influence outcomes that were supposed to be decided collectively. ( ④ ) Whether decentralization can survive this concentration of power remains one of the technology's most unresolved questions. ( ⑤ )