영어 모의고사 (자동 편성)

When people are ①asked to judge how risky or beneficial a particular technology is, they rarely conduct anything ②resembling a careful cost-benefit analysis. 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. This mental shortcut, ③known 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. For example, when researchers ④presented 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. 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 ⑤change their underlying judgment.

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.

Two drivers, equally distracted by their phones, run a red light in exactly the same careless manner. By pure chance, a child happens to be crossing the street in front of one driver but not the other; the first driver kills the child, while the second driver drives through safely and never even notices the danger. Although both drivers behaved ①identically and made exactly the same reckless choice, society judges them very differently: one faces criminal charges and lifelong guilt, while the other receives, at most, a minor traffic ticket. Philosophers call this troubling ②asymmetry moral luck, since factors entirely outside a person's control end up determining how severely we judge their moral character. If moral responsibility is supposed to ③depend heavily on luck and circumstance rather than on what a person chooses and intends, this outcome seems deeply unfair, yet few people are willing to excuse the unlucky driver as if nothing worse had happened. Moral luck suggests that our everyday judgments rest on a foundation far ④shakier than we usually like to admit, a fact many find genuinely ⑤unsettling.

Imagine two travelers preparing for the same trip: one refuses to fly after watching news coverage of a recent plane crash, while the other books a flight without hesitation. Statistically, air travel remains far safer than driving the same distance by car, yet vivid, emotionally charged images tend to dominate human judgment more powerfully than dry statistics ever could. This tendency, in which people estimate how likely an event is based on _______________, quietly shapes countless everyday decisions. News broadcasts that repeatedly feature rare disasters can leave viewers convinced that such events are common, even though official records clearly show the opposite. Advertisers and politicians alike exploit this pattern, knowing that a single striking anecdote often persuades audiences more effectively than pages of careful statistics ever manage to.

A liver no longer has to sit inside a human body to be studied closely. (A) Unlike flat cultures grown on a plastic dish, which lose many of the cues that guide normal development, organoids let cells interact in three dimensions much as they would inside the body, yielding tissue that behaves in strikingly realistic ways. (B) This fidelity has made organoids invaluable for testing how a drug affects human tissue before any patient is exposed, and some laboratories have even grown organoids from a single patient's own cells, raising the possibility of trialing a treatment on a miniature copy of that patient's organ. (C) By coaxing stem cells to organize themselves within a nutrient-rich gel, scientists can now grow miniature three-dimensional structures called organoids, which reproduce much of the architecture and function of a real organ.

주어진 문장: Because this competition can occur in either temporal direction, learners cannot avoid it simply by focusing on new material, which is precisely why deliberately spacing out study sessions matters so much. 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. ( ① ) 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. ( ② ) 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. ( ③ ) Both processes suggest that memories compete for the same limited retrieval pathways rather than resting in isolated compartments. ( ④ ) This insight carries real implications for how students approach studying multiple similar subjects. ( ⑤ ) 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.

주어진 문장: Businesses have since learned to design such decoys deliberately, not expecting them to be purchased at all, but hoping they will make a specific target option look far more attractive by comparison. A small bakery once sold a basic loaf of bread for three dollars and a premium loaf for six dollars, and most customers, uncertain about the added value of the pricier option, simply bought the cheaper one. ( ① ) The owner then introduced a third option: a slightly larger premium loaf priced at seven dollars, one that was clearly inferior to the six-dollar loaf in terms of value for money. ( ② ) Almost nobody chose the new seven-dollar loaf, yet sales of the six-dollar loaf rose sharply. ( ③ ) It now appeared to be an obvious bargain when placed beside the inferior newcomer. ( ④ ) This pattern, confirmed across countless pricing experiments in other markets, demonstrates that people rarely judge options in isolation; instead, they evaluate choices relative to whatever alternatives happen to be nearby. ( ⑤ )

Ordinary evidence cannot help here, since any proof gathered through the senses would itself be generated by the same simulation being tested. 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. ( ① ) 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. ( ② ) 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? ( ③ ) Some philosophers conclude that absolute certainty about the external world is simply unattainable. ( ④ ) Others argue, however, that the mere possibility of deception, however vivid, is not sufficient reason to abandon our everyday trust in what we perceive. ( ⑤ ) Ordinary caution, after all, can never fully settle which side is correct.

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

주어진 문장: Traditional economic models, in fact, offer no straightforward account of why unpaid, amateur labor should raise an object's perceived worth in the eyes of its very creator. Why do people often overvalue objects they have partly built themselves, even when the finished product is objectively inferior to something they could have simply purchased? ( ① ) This puzzle, which researchers named after a furniture retailer famous for selling items that require home assembly, challenges the standard economic assumption that value is determined solely by an object's inherent qualities. ( ② ) In a series of experiments, participants who assembled a plain storage box were willing to pay nearly as much for their own imperfect creation as they were for a professionally built version, despite being fully aware of its flaws. ( ③ ) Labor, it seems, functions as a kind of psychological investment: once effort has been poured into a task, individuals become reluctant to judge the outcome objectively, because doing so would require admitting that their effort was partly wasted. ( ④ ) This tendency helps explain why consumers often prefer products that demand some degree of personal assembly, even when a comparable finished item is available at a lower price and requires no time investment whatsoever. ( ⑤ )