영어 모의고사 (자동 편성)

Beyond restoring lost function, engineers are now exploring implants and prosthetics ①designed to give healthy people abilities beyond ordinary human limits, from night vision to reaction times faster than any athlete could achieve through training alone. Supporters frame this as simply the next step in a long history of human enhancement, no different in principle from eyeglasses or vaccines, only more direct. Critics counter that earlier enhancements ②were broadly available to anyone regardless of wealth, while cutting-edge neural and physical implants are likely ③remaining expensive for decades, potentially splitting society into those who can afford enhancement and those who cannot. If such a divide hardens, competitive advantages in school, sports, and the workplace could come to depend less on effort than on access to capital. What began as a medical tool for restoring what was lost, in other words, may end up ④redefining the baseline of what counts as an ordinary human being ⑤altogether.

People routinely seek out information that confirms what they already believe while overlooking or dismissing evidence that ①contradicts those beliefs, a pattern known as confirmation bias. This tendency operates not because individuals are deliberately dishonest, but because the mind finds it cognitively less taxing ②to absorb information that fits an existing framework than to reconstruct that framework from scratch. Investors who believe a particular company will succeed, for instance, tend to interpret ambiguous news about that company favorably, while investors who ③are skeptical of the same company interpret identical news unfavorably, even though both groups are examining the same underlying facts. Social media platforms can intensify this effect by algorithmically presenting users with content similar to what they have previously engaged with, thereby ④narrowing the range of perspectives an individual regularly encounters. Over time, such selective exposure can harden initial impressions into convictions that ⑤feels objectively verified, even though they rest on a systematically filtered sample of evidence.

As consumers become more aware of global social and environmental issues, many now expect companies ①to take responsibility beyond simply selling products. This expectation has given rise to ethical consumption, in which shoppers consider factors such as fair wages, humane treatment of animals, and environmental sustainability before making purchases. Companies that ignore these concerns risk public backlash, especially when unethical practices are exposed through investigative journalism or social media. Some corporations have responded by publishing detailed sustainability reports, though critics ②questions whether these documents reflect genuine change or merely serve as public relations tools. Real accountability, according to many experts, ③requires independent verification rather than self-reported claims that cannot be easily checked. Consumers, for their part, must also ④remain vigilant, since a company's marketing language does not always ⑤match its actual practices.

A striking proportion of individual investors believe their own stock-picking ability to be above average, a statistical ①impossibility given that only half of any population can genuinely outperform the rest, yet a pattern that persists with remarkable consistency across surveys. This tendency, known as overconfidence bias, leads investors to trade more ②frequently than a more cautious assessment of their own skill would justify. Extensive research comparing the trading records of numerous individual accounts has ③demonstrated that investors who trade most frequently tend to earn substantially ④higher returns than those who trade rarely, largely because transaction costs accumulate and because frequent trading often reflects overconfident reactions to short-term noise rather than genuine insight. Overconfidence also manifests in the tendency to underestimate the range of possible outcomes, causing investors to concentrate their holdings in a small number of assets they feel certain about rather than diversifying across a broader portfolio. Paradoxically, then, the very confidence that motivates investors to act decisively often ⑤undermines the outcomes they are trying to achieve.

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.

Émile Durkheim insisted that sociology could become a genuine science only if it identified a distinct subject matter that could not be reduced to individual psychology. (A) Language, currency, legal codes, and religious ritual all qualify as social facts, since a person is born into these systems already fully formed and must conform to them regardless of personal preference. (B) He termed this subject matter social facts, defined as ways of thinking, feeling, and acting that exist outside any single individual yet exert a coercive influence over that individual's behavior. (C) Durkheim insisted that social facts should be studied as things, meaning they must be examined empirically through observable patterns such as statistics.

Loyalty programs have become a standard feature of modern retail strategy. (A) Critics counter that such programs often reward habit rather than genuine satisfaction with a product. (B) Supporters claim that points and rewards encourage customers to return again and again. (C) True loyalty, they argue, should be built through consistent quality rather than artificial incentives.

Many large companies now rely on artificial intelligence to screen job applications before a human ever sees them. (A) Unlike a human interviewer, the system offers no explanation for its choices, which makes the bias difficult to detect until an outside audit reveals it. (B) These systems promise efficiency, scanning thousands of resumes in seconds and ranking candidates according to patterns drawn from previous hiring decisions. (C) However, this reliance on historical data creates a troubling risk, because the algorithm may learn to treat a past discriminatory pattern as a marker of success.

Consequently, even seasoned professionals who believe themselves immune to such influence often fail to notice how much their final judgment has shifted. The anchoring effect can be surprisingly resistant to conscious correction. ( ① ) Even when individuals are explicitly warned in advance that a number they are about to see is randomly generated and therefore meaningless, their subsequent estimates still drift toward that arbitrary figure. ( ② ) This occurs because the mind uses the initial number as a starting point and then adjusts insufficiently away from it, a process that leaves the final judgment biased toward the anchor. ( ③ ) Experimental studies have repeatedly demonstrated this effect across a wide range of tasks, from estimating historical dates to appraising real estate. ( ④ ) The bias persists not because people lack expertise, but because the adjustment process itself is inherently incomplete. ( ⑤ ) Awareness of the anchoring effect, therefore, does not guarantee immunity from it, which is precisely what makes the bias so difficult to counteract in practice.

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.