영어 모의고사 (자동 편성)

Extended producer responsibility, a policy ①requiring manufacturers to bear responsibility for their products even after use, has been adopted by governments seeking to reduce landfill waste. Under such schemes, companies must finance the collection and recycling of goods once consumers ②discard them, rather than leaving municipalities to absorb the cost. Advocates maintain that shifting this burden onto producers creates a powerful incentive to design products that are more durable, easily ③disassembled, and readily recyclable from the outset. Critics counter that the policy, whatever its theoretical merits, often fails to reduce waste meaningfully unless ④paired with rigorous enforcement and transparent reporting requirements. For instance, some manufacturers merely pass the added cost of compliance on to consumers, without making substantive changes to how products are designed. In contrast, jurisdictions that combine producer responsibility with strict eco-design standards and independent audits tend to witness genuine improvements in recyclability. Therefore, policymakers hoping to harness this approach must resist treating it as self-executing and instead invest in oversight that ⑤determine whether producers actually change behavior.

When people look back on a multi-day journey, they rarely ① recall every hour with equal clarity; instead, memory tends to compress the entire experience into just a few representative moments. Psychologists have found that two points carry disproportionate weight in this process: the single moment when emotion, whether joy or discomfort, ② reached its highest intensity, and whatever happened right before the experience concluded. Consider two hikers who complete an identical five-day trek. The first finishes with a grueling, rain-soaked final climb, while the second enjoys a calm, scenic descent on the last afternoon despite having ③ endure an equally difficult ascent earlier in the trip. Even though both hikers faced comparable hardship overall, the second is far more likely to remember the journey fondly, simply because the trip ④ ended pleasantly. This pattern reveals that overall satisfaction is not calculated as an average of every experienced moment; rather, it is shaped disproportionately by whichever moments ⑤ felt most intense and by however the experience happened to end.

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 ① compelling, rests on a basic misunderstanding of probability, since each flip of a fair coin remains entirely ② independent 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 ③ fixed 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 ④ mistakenly 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 ⑤ sporadically.

When people face a difficult decision, they often weigh not only the expected outcome of each option but also how ① pleasant it would feel to discover later that a different choice had been better. This anticipation of future regret, rather than the size of the potential loss itself, frequently becomes the ② dominant factor shaping the final decision. Investors, for example, sometimes continue holding a declining stock rather than selling it, not because they expect the price to recover, but because selling would force them to confront the possibility of having made a clear mistake. Researchers have found that people feel ③ sharper regret over losses that resulted from taking action than over identical losses that resulted from doing nothing, which helps explain why so many individuals default to inaction whenever a decision feels ④ uncertain. Ironically, this strategy of avoiding regret can itself produce outcomes that are later regretted even more ⑤ deeply than the ones it was originally designed to prevent.

Until last spring, Minji ①**rarely** thought twice about tossing a paper cup into the trash after finishing her coffee. Environmental issues seemed ②**distant**, something scientists and politicians should handle rather than an ordinary student like her. That changed when her class was assigned a documentary about plastic waste drifting through the ocean, footage she initially expected to find boring. Instead, watching seabirds mistake plastic fragments for food left her strangely ③**comforted**, and she found herself thinking about the assignment long after class ended. The next morning, almost without deciding to, she slipped her old tumbler into her backpack instead of buying a disposable cup on the way to school. It felt like a small, ④**meaningless** gesture at first. However, as weeks passed, she realized that consistently choosing the tumbler, declining a plastic straw, and reusing a shopping bag were quietly ⑤**adding up**. Small choices, she discovered, become meaningful once repeated.

One reason many consumers hesitate to switch to greener options involves a specific pricing gap that economists have named. (A) This price gap frequently discourages shoppers who support sustainability in principle but cannot justify the additional expense, while wealthier consumers can absorb the premium more easily, which creates unequal participation in green markets. (B) This gap, known as the green premium, describes the extra cost that consumers must pay when they choose an environmentally friendly product over a cheaper, conventional alternative; for example, an electric vehicle or solar-powered appliance often carries a higher price tag than its gasoline-powered or coal-based counterpart, even though it produces fewer emissions. (C) To narrow this gap, governments have introduced subsidies and tax credits that lower upfront costs, and as production scales up and innovation continues, many economists expect the premium to shrink steadily.

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.

Mira grew up in a small village where fishing and farming had sustained her family for generations. (A) International organizations, however, still struggle to agree on how to protect people like her, since climate migrants are not officially recognized as refugees under current law. (B) Mira missed her old house terribly, yet she slowly began to build a new life in the crowded city, learning to adapt just as her ancestors once had. (C) When the sea finally swallowed the rice paddies that had fed her village for generations, her parents decided that staying was no longer possible. Together with many neighbors, they packed what little they could carry and moved inland, becoming what experts now call climate migrants, people forced to abandon their homes because of rising seas, droughts, or other disasters. This term, rarely used a decade ago, has become increasingly common as extreme weather displaces communities worldwide.

Yuna bought a disposable coffee cup every morning on her way to school. (A) One day, her science teacher showed the class a photo of a beach covered with plastic cups and bottles. Yuna felt shocked because she realized her small daily habit was part of a larger problem. (B) She never thought about where those cups ended up after she threw them away. (C) That evening, she found an old tumbler hidden in a kitchen drawer and decided to use it every day. At first, carrying the tumbler felt inconvenient, and she often forgot to bring it to school. However, she kept a reminder note on her bag, which helped her remember it each morning. Within a month, using the tumbler had become as natural as brushing her teeth. Her friends noticed the change and asked where she had bought the tumbler.

주어진 문장: This asymmetry alone can be enough to prevent an otherwise reasonable deal from ever being reached. 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. ( ① ) 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. ( ② ) 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. ( ③ ) 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. ( ④ ) 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. ( ⑤ ) Understanding this bias, therefore, helps explain why simply owning something, even briefly, can distort how fairly people judge its true worth.