영어 모의고사 (자동 편성)

Over the past two decades, insights drawn from behavioral economics have moved beyond academic journals and into the machinery of government itself, ①reshaping how numerous public programs are designed and implemented. Tax authorities in several countries, for example, discovered that simply informing citizens how many of their neighbors had already paid overdue taxes on time substantially ②increased subsequent compliance rates, outperforming letters that merely threatened legal penalties for continued nonpayment. Public health agencies have applied similar principles to encourage preventive care, finding that appointment reminders phrased to emphasize the personal cost of a missed visit ③proved more effective than neutral reminders listing only the date and time. Employment offices redesigned job-seeking assistance programs around specific, actionable steps rather than general encouragement, discovering that participants who were asked ④to write down a concrete plan for the following week were considerably more likely to follow through than those who received only general advice. What unites these disparate interventions ⑤are a shared recognition that small, carefully tested adjustments to how choices are presented can produce measurable improvements in outcomes.

Hospitals are increasingly adopting artificial intelligence tools that can scan medical images and flag potential tumors faster and, in some trials, more accurately than experienced radiologists. Patients understandably welcome any technology that catches disease earlier, yet the growing reliance on these tools raises an uncomfortable legal question that hospitals ①have only begun to address. When an AI system misses a diagnosis that a human doctor would likely ②have caught, responsibility becomes difficult to assign. The doctor may argue that they simply trusted a tool the hospital ③required them to use, the hospital may argue that the software company guaranteed its accuracy, and the software company may argue that no algorithm can ④expect to be perfect. Until legal systems clarify this chain of responsibility, patients harmed by an algorithmic error may find themselves with no clear party ⑤to hold accountable.

A few years ago, spotting a manipulated video required a trained eye and ①specialized software. Today, freely available applications allow almost anyone to swap a face or fabricate a voice ②convincingly enough to fool casual viewers within minutes. This shift has quietly ③reinforced one of the oldest assumptions in human communication: that seeing and hearing something is a reasonably reliable way to confirm it happened. Journalists now face the burden of verifying footage that once would have been accepted as ④self-evident proof. Perhaps more troubling than any single fake video is the broader effect on public trust, in which genuine footage can be ⑤dismissed as fabricated simply because deepfakes exist.

Imagine watching a fair coin land on heads five times in a row and feeling an increasingly strong intuition that the next flip is somehow due to produce tails. This intuition, though psychologically ①compelling, rests on a basic misunderstanding of probability, since each flip of a fair coin remains entirely ②independent of every flip that came before it. The coin possesses no memory of its previous outcomes, and its probability of landing on tails on the sixth flip stays ③fixed at fifty percent regardless of how many heads preceded it. Casinos have long profited from this misconception, watching gamblers place larger bets after a losing streak simply because they ④mistakenly believe that a win has become statistically overdue. Economists have even documented the same error among trained professionals, including loan officers who grow more likely to approve a risky application simply because they recently rejected several applications ⑤sporadically.

When people encounter an individual who appears to memorize enormous quantities of specialized information effortlessly, they often assume that person possesses an innate gift. Cognitive psychologists, however, contend that such feats rarely stem from raw talent alone. Instead, such feats arise from _______________. A landmark study of chess players demonstrated this principle. When shown a board arranged according to plausible game positions, grandmasters reproduced the layout perfectly. Yet when the same pieces were scattered randomly, their performance collapsed to the level of novices. This pattern reveals that expert memory is not larger in raw capacity but is instead organized around patterns accumulated through years of deliberate practice. If chunking, rather than innate aptitude, underlies expert performance, then educators should stop treating talent as fixed and destiny-bound. Curricula ought to be redesigned to cultivate pattern recognition explicitly, since doing so would grant far more students access to expertise once presumed reserved for the naturally gifted.

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.

Picture a woman who receives a plain ceramic mug as a free gift at a conference and, later that afternoon, refuses to sell it for anything less than triple its price in the gift shop downstairs. (A) In fact, before she owned the mug, she would never have paid extra for it; once it became hers, however, its value in her mind rose sharply, simply because she now possessed it. (B) Researchers have repeatedly observed this pattern across many everyday objects, from coffee mugs and concert tickets to office chairs and old furniture inherited from relatives. (C) Owners consistently demand more money to give something up than buyers are willing to offer for that very same item, revealing a curious asymmetry rooted purely in possession itself. Some economists argue that this effect explains why negotiations over inherited property so often collapse, since each side quietly attaches a different value to what it currently holds. Understanding this bias, therefore, helps explain why simply owning something, even briefly, can distort how fairly people judge its true worth.

As more schools shift toward digital textbooks and online assignments, a student without reliable internet access at home faces a disadvantage that has little to do with talent or effort. (A) That assumption is increasingly being reconsidered, particularly as more essential services, from job applications to medical appointments, move online by default. (B) Some policymakers initially treated internet access as a convenience, comparable to cable television, rather than as infrastructure essential to modern life. (C) Closing this divide will require more than simply distributing devices; it will demand sustained investment in the physical networks that carry information into every home.

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

None of them knows in advance their own race, gender, wealth, talents, or position in the society they are designing. John Rawls proposed an unusual thought experiment to determine what principles of justice a society ought to adopt. ( ① ) Imagine a group of rational people gathered behind what he called a veil of ignorance to design the basic rules of their future society. ( ② ) Since no one can predict whether they will be born into privilege or poverty, each person has a strong incentive to choose rules that protect the worst-off members of society. ( ③ ) Rawls argued that rational people placed in this position would not gamble on inequality. ( ④ ) Instead, they would favor arrangements that guarantee basic liberties for everyone and permit unequal outcomes only when those outcomes actually benefit the least advantaged. ( ⑤ ) Justice, on this view, is what impartial reasoning produces once self-interest is stripped away.