영어 모의고사 (자동 편성)

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.

Suppose a mysterious being with a near-perfect track record of ①predicting human choices presents a player with two boxes. Box A always contains a visible thousand dollars, while Box B contains either a million dollars or nothing at all, depending on a prediction the being made before the game even began. If the being predicted the player would take only Box B, it ②placed a million dollars inside; if it predicted the player would take both boxes, it left Box B empty. The player may choose to take only Box B, or to take both boxes, and the prediction has already ③been made and cannot change. One line of reasoning says taking both boxes is strictly better, since whatever is already inside the boxes cannot ④be altered by the player's choice at this point. A second line of reasoning says taking only Box B is better, since the being's near-perfect accuracy means that choosing both boxes almost ⑤guaranteeing an empty Box B.

A printer that once produced only plastic prototypes can now ①deposit living cells layer by layer to build a structure that begins to resemble actual tissue. Bioprinting adapts the logic of conventional 3D printing, ②replacing plastic filament with a specialized 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 ③is thin enough for nutrients to reach every cell by diffusion. Printing a solid organ such as a kidney remains a far greater challenge, because internal cells starve without their own blood supply, and no printer yet exists that can build a network of vessels fast enough ④to keep them alive. Researchers are therefore focusing on hybrid strategies, printing a rough scaffold and then ⑤allowing the tissue to mature and grow its own vasculature over time.

The immune system produces an almost limitless variety of antibodies, each ①shaped to latch onto one particular molecular target with remarkable specificity. Monoclonal antibody drugs harness this natural precision by cloning a single antibody-producing cell in the laboratory, ②generating 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 effectively than traditional chemotherapy, ③which attacks any rapidly dividing cell regardless of whether it is cancerous. Manufacturing monoclonal antibodies remains far more complicated than producing a conventional small-molecule pill, since living cells must ④cultivating in carefully controlled bioreactors for weeks before the antibody can be purified and prepared for use. This complexity keeps monoclonal antibody treatments considerably more expensive than most conventional drugs, a cost that continues ⑤to shape debates over pricing and access.

The discovery of CRISPR gene-editing technology gave scientists a tool ①precise enough to correct a single mistaken letter in the human genome, raising hope for curing inherited diseases that have resisted treatment for generations. Yet the same precision that makes CRISPR so promising also makes it ②dangerous in the wrong hands. 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, a decision no single person should be allowed to make ③alone. Scientific organizations around the world have therefore drawn a careful line, ⑤permitting gene editing to treat disease in existing patients while ④permitting any edit that would be inherited by their descendants. Critics worry, however, that as the technology becomes cheaper and more widely available, this line will become harder to enforce than it is to draw.

In the late nineteenth century, the psychologist Hermann Ebbinghaus undertook a rigorous investigation of forgetting by serving as his own experimental subject. He memorized thousands of ①meaningless three-letter syllables so that prior knowledge could not skew his results. After learning each list to perfection, he tested his retention at intervals ranging from twenty minutes to a month later. He ②ignored how many repetitions were required to relearn the material each time. The resulting curve revealed a consistent pattern. Forgetting proceeds rapidly during the initial hours following learning, then gradually decelerates until the rate of loss becomes almost imperceptible. Roughly half of the acquired information ③vanished within the first hour alone. Yet whatever survived that initial plunge tended to ④persist for much longer periods. Ebbinghaus further found that distributing study sessions across several days produced better retention than cramming the same repetition into one sitting. This finding, now central to modern learning theory, implies that revisiting material shortly before it would otherwise be forgotten ⑤interrupts the decline of the forgetting curve.

Working memory refers to the mental workspace in which information is temporarily held and manipulated while a person performs a cognitive task. Such tasks include solving an arithmetic problem, following a rapid conversation, or holding a phone number in mind before dialing it. In the mid-twentieth century, the psychologist George Miller proposed that this workspace could accommodate roughly seven discrete items. His claim proved so influential that it became widely known as the magic number seven. Subsequent research, however, revealed that Miller's estimate was somewhat generous, since it failed to account for the complexity of the material being remembered. Nelson Cowan later argued that when rehearsal strategies are prevented and attention is tightly controlled, _______________. This discrepancy suggests that what earlier studies had measured was not raw storage capacity itself but a hybrid quantity inflated by clever strategies. Contemporary psychologists therefore distinguish between the fixed limit of working memory and the flexible techniques that allow individuals to transcend that limit.

Students are frequently told that where they study makes little difference, provided that they put in enough hours. Cognitive research on memory retrieval, however, suggests that this advice oversimplifies an important process. According to the encoding specificity principle, information becomes intertwined with the context in which it was originally learned. Cues present during encoding therefore facilitate retrieval far more effectively than cues encountered elsewhere. A striking demonstration involved divers who memorized word lists either underwater or on dry land. When tested later, _______________. This held true regardless of which environment that happened to be. This finding implies that reviewing material exclusively in a quiet bedroom may not adequately prepare a student for the noisy atmosphere of an actual examination hall. Rather than assuming that memorization is a context-free process, students ought to consider deliberately varying study locations and conditions. Doing so would ensure that retrieval cues remain available regardless of how a future test is administered.

When people are asked to judge how risky or beneficial a particular technology is, they rarely conduct anything resembling a careful cost-benefit analysis. (A) This mental shortcut, known 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. (B) 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. (C) For example, when researchers presented 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 changes their underlying judgment.

주어진 문장: This principle applies just as powerfully outside the realm of personal finance. People often recognize, in calm reflection, that their future selves will be tempted to abandon a goal they currently value. ( ① ) Rather than relying solely on willpower at the critical moment, they may choose to restrict their own future options in advance, a strategy known as precommitment. ( ② ) By making certain choices costly, inconvenient, or impossible to reverse, individuals can protect a long-term goal from a short-term impulse that has not yet arisen. ( ③ ) A person hoping to save money might lock funds into an account that penalizes early withdrawal, removing the very temptation that would otherwise be difficult to resist. ( ④ ) Similarly, someone determined to finish a project might publicly announce a deadline, transforming private intentions into a commitment that carries social consequences if broken. ( ⑤ ) What unites these examples is a simple insight: because future desires cannot always be trusted, the wisest moment to act may be now, while judgment remains clear and temptation has not yet taken hold.