영어 모의고사 (자동 편성)

Social psychologists describe a phenomenon called the bystander effect, in which individuals become less likely ①helping a victim as the number of witnesses increases. Each observer assumes someone else will step in, and this diffusion of responsibility leaves no one ②willing to act. Cyberbullying magnifies this problem, since a single humiliating post can be witnessed by thousands of people ③scattered across the internet rather than a few standing nearby. Anonymity intensifies the effect further, allowing silent observers ④to scroll past cruel comments without feeling accountable for their inaction. Some bystanders even worry that intervening publicly might make them the bully's next target, so they choose ⑤to remain silent instead.

The Riverside Summer Festival will take place from August 1st ①to August 3rd at Riverside Park. During the day, local farmers and small businesses ②will sell fresh fruits, snacks, and handmade crafts at outdoor booths. In the evening, live music performances and a fireworks show ③lighting up the night sky. Children can enjoy water games and face painting near the fountain area, ④which is located in the center of the park. Visitors ⑤are encouraged to bring their own water bottles and wear comfortable shoes.

As private companies develop the technology to mine asteroids for rare metals and water, a legal question once confined to science fiction has suddenly ① become 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 ② whether a private company may extract and sell what it finds there. Some governments have already passed domestic laws ③ granting 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 ④ decide 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 ⑤ repeating the same environmental and political mistakes that colonization caused on Earth.

Behavioral economists have long observed that people tend to feel the pain of losing something more intensely than the pleasure of gaining an equivalent amount, a tendency ①known as loss aversion. This asymmetry, which ②was first documented through a series of carefully designed experiments, suggests that the psychological weight of a loss can be roughly twice that of a comparable gain. Consider an investor who refuses to sell a declining stock, ③clings to the hope that its price will eventually recover, even when all available evidence indicates that selling and reinvesting elsewhere would be more rational. Such behavior, though it ④appears irrational from a purely economic standpoint, becomes understandable once we recognize that the investor is trying to avoid the sharp discomfort associated with realizing a loss. Similarly, consumers often demand a much higher price to give up an item they already own than they would be ⑤willing to pay to acquire the same item in the first place.

City governments increasingly market dense networks of surveillance cameras as a straightforward safety upgrade, promising ① faster emergency response and lower crime rates. In many cases, the technology delivers exactly what it promises, helping investigators identify suspects within hours rather than weeks. Yet the same infrastructure that catches criminals also creates a ② permanent record of where ordinary, law-abiding citizens go about their daily lives. Once a camera network exists, its purpose can quietly ③ shrink, from tracking traffic accidents to monitoring political protests, often without new public debate or explicit approval. Civil liberties groups argue that a city should decide how much surveillance it wants before the cameras go up, not years ④ afterward when the infrastructure is already impossible to remove. Convenience installed today, in other words, can quietly become ⑤ control tomorrow.

When individuals face uncertainty about how to behave, they frequently look to the actions of others for guidance. This reliance on collective behavior can be remarkably ①efficient, since it allows individuals to benefit from the accumulated judgment of a crowd without having to gather and evaluate every relevant fact themselves. However, social proof can also lead entire groups astray when the initial signal that triggers imitation is itself ②unreliable or coincidental. A restaurant that happens to attract a long line early in the evening may continue attracting customers throughout the night simply because passersby interpret the queue as evidence of ③inferior quality. Financial markets exhibit an analogous pattern: investors who observe others buying a particular asset often join the buying themselves, reasoning that so many participants cannot all be mistaken, a dynamic that can ④inflate prices well beyond any reasonable estimate of underlying value. Because conformity can substitute for independent judgment so ⑤seamlessly, individuals rarely notice when their own decisions have become mere imitations rather than genuinely deliberated.

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

Artificial intelligence is creating job titles that did not exist a decade ago. (A) AI ethics officers, for instance, check whether a company's technology treats users fairly. (B) These new roles clearly require more than just technical skill. (C) Prompt engineers, for example, design instructions that help AI programs produce accurate results.

Their actual forecasting accuracy, however, has repeatedly proven no better than that of far less experienced participants, and sometimes even worse. Overconfidence among financial professionals presents a puzzling contradiction. ( ① ) Fund managers and analysts typically possess years of specialized training, access to vast quantities of market data, and considerable professional experience. ( ② ) One might reasonably expect such expertise to translate into consistently superior predictions about future market movements. ( ③ ) Longitudinal studies tracking professional forecasts against actual outcomes reveal a persistent gap between confidence and accuracy. ( ④ ) This finding does not imply that expertise is worthless, but it does suggest that expertise can inflate confidence more readily than it improves genuine predictive accuracy. ( ⑤ ) Investors would therefore do well to treat confident predictions, however credentialed their source, with a healthy measure of skepticism.

Yet the objective probability of survival in both scenarios is, of course, mathematically identical. Framing effects appear with particular force in decisions involving risk and uncertainty. ( ① ) When physicians describe a treatment option in terms of a survival rate, patients tend to view the treatment favorably and are more inclined to proceed. ( ② ) When the very same statistic is instead presented as a mortality rate, patient enthusiasm for the identical treatment drops noticeably. ( ③ ) This asymmetry persists even among physicians themselves, who might be expected to evaluate probabilities more analytically than the general public. ( ④ ) The persistence of this bias among trained professionals suggests that framing effects operate below the level of deliberate reasoning, influencing judgment before conscious analysis even begins. ( ⑤ ) Understanding this tendency allows communicators to present information more responsibly, regardless of which frame ultimately proves more persuasive.