영어 모의고사 (자동 편성)

Consider a student who genuinely intends to study for tomorrow's exam yet, when the evening actually arrives, chooses to ①watch another episode of a favorite show instead, ②promising herself she will surely study harder next week. This pattern, in which the pull of an immediate pleasure overwhelms the value of a distant benefit, ③appear again and again across ordinary life, from postponed exercise to delayed savings. 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. Behavioral economists note that this preference weakens considerably once both options are ④pushed 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 ⑤unused and retirement accounts remain underfunded, despite people's stated intentions.

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.

Factories that once employed hundreds of workers on an assembly line now run with a fraction of that staff, as robotic arms handle tasks ①that used to require human hands. Economists have long debated whether this shift destroys jobs or simply ②transforms them. Historical evidence offers some comfort: previous waves of automation eventually created new categories of work that no one ③had predicted. However, critics point out that earlier transitions unfolded over generations, ④given workers time to retrain, whereas today's robots are being deployed at a pace that leaves little room for adjustment. For this reason, many economists argue that the real challenge is not the robots themselves, but the speed at which society ⑤is expected to adapt to them.

Individuals confronted with a set of options frequently default to whichever alternative requires no active decision at all. Decision-makers often treat the current arrangement as a reasonable ①baseline simply because it already exists, even when switching would plainly serve their interests better. When employees must actively opt into a retirement savings plan, participation rates remain stubbornly ②low; yet when the same plan is presented as automatic unless an employee opts out, participation rises ③dramatically, despite the fact that the underlying financial terms are identical in both cases. Two forces appear to drive this asymmetry: first, the cognitive effort required to evaluate alternatives and initiate change, and second, an aversion to the potential regret that might follow an active decision that turns out poorly. Because inaction carries no such vivid regret, the status quo comes to feel ④riskier than it objectively is, illustrating how mere inertia can ⑤masquerade as a deliberate preference.

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.

Generative AI systems learn to write, draw, and compose by studying enormous collections of existing human work. Supporters argue that this resembles how a human student learns by studying the masters. Critics respond that the comparison breaks down at scale: _______________. Courts around the world are now being asked to decide whether training an algorithm on copyrighted material counts as fair use or as infringement.

Hospitals are increasingly adopting AI tools that can scan medical images and flag potential tumors faster than experienced radiologists. When an AI system misses a diagnosis that a human doctor would likely have caught, responsibility becomes difficult to assign. The doctor may argue that they simply trusted a required tool, the hospital may blame the software company, and the software company may argue that no algorithm can be expected to be perfect. As a result, _______________.

The human gut hosts trillions of microorganisms whose combined genetic material outnumbers that of the human genome itself many times over. (A) A microbiome disrupted by antibiotics, poor diet, or chronic stress can leave the gut lining more permeable than it should be, allowing substances to leak into the bloodstream that would normally stay contained. (B) Once dismissed as passive hitchhikers, these bacteria are now understood to actively shape digestion, regulate immune responses, and even influence the production of chemicals that affect mood and behavior. (C) Researchers studying this connection have found that transplanting gut bacteria from a healthy donor into a patient can relieve symptoms of certain digestive disorders, though the microbiome varies enormously between individuals, so a treatment that helps one person's gut may do little for someone else's.

He termed the resulting gap cultural lag, describing the friction that appears when institutions have not yet caught up with new technological realities. Sociologist William Ogburn observed that when a society undergoes technological change, its material culture, meaning tools and inventions, tends to advance faster than its nonmaterial culture, meaning norms, laws, and values. ( ① ) The rise of the automobile, for instance, transformed daily mobility long before traffic laws, insurance systems, and urban planning fully adapted to the risks it introduced. ( ② ) A contemporary example can be found in genetic testing, which now allows individuals to learn detailed information about inherited disease risk well before most legal systems have settled questions about its use. ( ③ ) Cultural lag theory reminds us that technological progress is not automatically matched by social progress. ( ④ ) The resulting gap can produce confusion or exploitation until laws and customs eventually adjust to new material conditions. ( ⑤ )

Cultural relativism transformed fields ranging from anthropology to international development, encouraging researchers to suspend quick judgment and seek local meaning before drawing conclusions. When anthropologists first began systematically studying societies far removed from their own, many unconsciously judged unfamiliar customs against the standards of their home culture, a tendency now known as ethnocentrism. ( ① ) Cultural relativism emerged as a corrective principle, holding that a society's practices should be understood within their own cultural context rather than measured against an outside standard presumed to be universal. ( ② ) Anthropologist Franz Boas argued that no culture possesses an inherently superior set of values, and that apparent oddities, once examined closely, typically serve coherent functions within their own social systems. ( ③ ) Critics caution, however, that taken to an extreme, the principle risks excusing practices that cause genuine harm. ( ④ ) Refusing to judge any custom by outside standards, they note, can make it difficult to criticize injustice wherever it occurs. ( ⑤ )