영어 모의고사 (자동 편성)

People often recognize, in calm reflection, that their future selves will be tempted to ①abandoning a goal they currently value. Rather than relying solely on willpower at the critical moment, they may choose to restrict their own future options in advance, a strategy ②known as precommitment. 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 ③arisen. 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 ④resist. Similarly, someone ⑤determined to finish a project might publicly announce a deadline, transforming private intentions into a commitment that carries social consequences if broken.

When sociologist Émile Durkheim studied suicide rates across different societies, he noticed something ①puzzling: rates rose not only during economic depression but also during sudden prosperity. He concluded that both crises share a common feature, the collapse of shared norms that once told individuals what to expect and how ②to behave. Durkheim called this state of normlessness anomie, arguing that rapid social change can strip away the moral guidelines ③what regulate human desire, leaving individuals disoriented even when material conditions improve. Decades later, Robert Merton extended the concept to explain deviance within stable societies, ④proposing that anomie also arises when a culture insists that everyone pursue identical goals. Faced with this gap between aspiration and opportunity, some individuals conform, but others turn to innovation, ritual, retreat, ⑤or rebellion.

Rewilding, a conservation strategy that ①seek to restore natural processes with minimal human interference, has gained attention as traditional conservation struggles to halt biodiversity loss. Rather than managing landscapes according to a fixed blueprint, rewilding projects often ②reintroduce key species, such as large predators, whose presence can trigger cascading effects. Advocates point to the reintroduction of wolves in certain parks, where predation ③altered grazing behavior, allowing riverside vegetation to recover and stabilizing soil that had long been eroding. Skeptics, however, warn that rewilding can ④provoke serious conflict with nearby communities, particularly when predators prey on livestock or restored habitats limit land for agriculture. Compensation programs ⑤reimbursing farmers for livestock losses, alongside ecotourism initiatives creating local income, have proven essential to sustaining public support.

Sensors buried in the soil now report moisture levels in real time, drones survey entire fields for signs of disease within minutes, and automated systems adjust irrigation without a farmer ever walking the rows. For large operations with the capital to invest, these tools have ①measurably increased yields while ②reducing water waste, addressing two problems that traditional farming has struggled with for generations. Smaller family farms, however, often ③cannot afford the upfront cost of this equipment, and some worry that the gap between high-tech and traditional operations will only widen as the technology advances further. There is also a quieter cultural cost that rarely appears in productivity reports: generations of farming knowledge risk being ④preserved by dashboards and automated alerts that few young farmers are taught to question, a loss productivity reports rarely ⑤capture.

Over the past two decades, insights drawn from behavioral economics have moved beyond academic journals and into the machinery of government itself, reshaping 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 ①increased 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 proved more ②ineffective 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 to write down a concrete plan for the following week were considerably more likely to follow through than those who received only ③general advice. What unites these disparate interventions is a shared recognition that small, carefully tested adjustments to how choices are presented can produce measurable improvements in outcomes, often at a fraction of the cost required by traditional programs involving substantial financial incentives or extensive ④enforcement. This accumulated evidence has encouraged many governments to establish dedicated units tasked with applying behavioral insights ⑤systematically to policy problems across an increasingly broad range of domains.

Where structural functionalism emphasizes cooperation and stability, conflict theory begins from the premise that society is best understood as an ongoing ①struggle between groups with competing interests over scarce resources such as wealth, power, and prestige. Rooted in the writings of Karl Marx, classical conflict theory focused on the economic struggle between those who own productive resources and those who must sell their labor to survive, arguing that dominant groups shape laws, education, and even widely shared beliefs in ways that quietly ②undermine their own advantage. Later sociologists ③broadened the framework well beyond economic class, applying conflict analysis to struggles organized around race, gender, and other categories of unequal social power. Unlike functionalists, who often interpret existing social arrangements as serving a ④necessary purpose, conflict theorists argue that apparent social order frequently masks underlying tension that dominant groups actively work to ⑤contain.

The rejection of unfair offers in the ultimatum game raises an intriguing evolutionary question. (A) One explanation suggests that a willingness to punish unfairness, even at a personal cost, may have conferred long-term advantages within small communities where reputation and repeated interaction mattered greatly. (B) If punishing unfairness is costly in the short term, why would such a tendency have persisted across generations rather than being eliminated by more narrowly self-interested behavior? (C) An individual known to reject unfair offers discourages others from proposing unfair terms in future interactions, ultimately securing fairer treatment over the course of a lifetime.

This reduction in cognitive burden, rather than a reduction in variety itself, appears to be the decisive factor in easing customers' decisions. An online retailer once tested how the size of a product display affected customer behavior. ( ① ) In one setting, customers encountered a table displaying twenty-four varieties of a specialty product, while in another setting they encountered a table displaying only six varieties. ( ② ) A larger proportion of customers stopped to sample items at the larger display, suggesting that abundance initially attracts attention and curiosity. ( ③ ) When it came to actual purchases, however, customers exposed to the smaller display were significantly more likely to buy something than those exposed to the larger one. ( ④ ) Follow-up interviews revealed that customers at the larger display often felt overwhelmed and uncertain about which option truly suited their preferences. ( ⑤ ) The retailer concluded that presenting a carefully limited selection, rather than an exhaustive one, could improve both sales and customer confidence.

주어진 문장: This asymmetry is troubling precisely because, in reality, risk and benefit are often unrelated or even inversely related. When people are asked to judge how risky or beneficial a particular technology is, they rarely conduct anything resembling a careful cost-benefit analysis. ( ① ) 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. ( ② ) 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. ( ③ ) 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. ( ④ ) 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. ( ⑤ )

주어진 문장: Such assessments are grounded in the principle that potential harm should be identified before a project begins, rather than addressed only after damage has already occurred. Before a large-scale construction project such as a highway or dam receives government approval, planners in many countries are required to conduct an environmental impact assessment, a formal process designed to predict and evaluate the ecological consequences of a proposed development. ① This process begins with a baseline survey, in which specialists document existing conditions, including wildlife, water quality, and air composition, so that future changes can be measured against a reference point. ② Analysts then model how the project might alter these conditions, drawing on data from comparable developments. ③ For instance, a proposed highway that would bisect a forest might be evaluated for its potential to fragment habitats, disrupting migration routes on which certain species depend. ④ If the assessment identifies unacceptable risks, planners may be required to redesign the project or adopt mitigation measures such as wildlife corridors. ⑤ Critics contend, however, that assessments are sometimes treated as a bureaucratic formality rather than a genuine constraint, since developers who commission the studies retain strong influence over how the findings are interpreted. ① ② ③ ④ ⑤