영어 모의고사 (자동 편성)

Last summer, I ①worked part-time at a small coffee shop near my house. At first, I only wanted to earn some spending money, but the job ②taught me far more than that. I learned how to stay calm during busy hours when orders ③piled up quickly. One day, a customer complained loudly about a mistake in her order. Instead of ④argue, I apologized and quickly made a new drink for her. She left with a smile, and my manager praised my patience ⑤afterward.

When engineers design the software ①that controls a self-driving car, they inevitably face a question that philosophers have debated for decades. If a crash becomes unavoidable, should the vehicle protect its own passenger at all costs, or should it be programmed ②minimizing total harm, even if that means steering toward the person inside? Surveys reveal an uncomfortable contradiction: most people say a car should be programmed to save the greater number of lives, yet the same people admit ③they would never buy a vehicle designed to sacrifice its own owner. This gap between the ideal and the personal choice suggests that ethical programming cannot ④be settled by public opinion alone. Manufacturers, regulators, and philosophers must instead agree on transparent rules before autonomous vehicles ⑤are allowed to make such decisions on the road.

Traditional economic models predict that a rational individual offered any positive sum of money, however small, should accept it without hesitation, since even a modest gain is preferable to ①receiving nothing at all. A simple experimental exercise known as the ultimatum game, in which one participant proposes how to split a sum of money and a second participant may either accept or reject the proposed division, consistently ②contradicts this prediction. When the proposer offers a division perceived as unfair, the second participant frequently rejects the offer entirely, leaving both parties with nothing rather than ③accepting an outcome viewed as insulting. This behavior indicates that individuals value fairness as an end in itself, sometimes willingly ④sacrificing material gain to punish perceived exploitation. Neuroscientific investigations complement this finding, revealing that unfair offers ⑤activates brain regions associated with disgust and negative emotion.

Have you ever noticed your mood shifting after scrolling through a friend's ①gloomy post online? However, researchers have ②discovered that emotional contagion also occurs online, where only text or images are exchanged, without any physical presence at all. For instance, when someone posts a ③negative comment beneath a cheerful photo, the comments that follow often turn noticeably more negative in tone. In contrast, a single ④kind comment can shift an entire thread toward positivity within minutes. Consequently, many experts now argue that being ⑤careless of what we post matters more than we typically assume.

As companies collect enormous amounts of personal data to improve their products and target advertisements, serious ethical questions have emerged about how that information should be handled. Employees who work with big data now face ①minimal responsibilities that previous generations rarely encountered, since a single careless decision can expose millions of people's private information. Some argue that strict regulations should govern data collection, even if such rules ②slow innovation and increase costs for businesses. Others insist that self-regulation within companies, guided by clear ethical training, can protect consumers just as ③effectively without stifling progress. Most experts agree that professionals handling sensitive data must be trained not only in technical skills but also in ethical ④decision-making. Universities have begun adding data ethics courses, recognizing that future employees will need to ⑤balance innovation with responsibility.

Generative AI systems learn to write, draw, and compose by studying ①enormous collections of existing human work, much of which was created without the artists' knowledge or consent. Supporters of the technology argue that this process resembles how a human student learns by studying the masters, ②absorbing style and technique rather than copying specific pieces. Critics respond that the comparison ③holds up perfectly at scale, since a single AI model can absorb millions of works in days. Courts around the world are now being asked to decide whether training an algorithm on copyrighted material counts as fair use or as ④infringement. Until clearer rules emerge, artists, developers, and publishers remain locked in a legal ⑤gray zone that satisfies almost no one.

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.

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.

As private companies develop the technology to mine asteroids for rare metals and water, a legal question once confined to science fiction has suddenly become urgent: who, if anyone, owns the resources of outer space? (A) Some governments have already passed domestic laws granting their own companies rights to material mined in space, a move other nations view as a unilateral attempt to settle a shared question. (B) Existing international treaties state that no nation may claim sovereignty over celestial bodies, but they say remarkably little about whether a private company may extract and sell what it finds there. (C) Supporters of space mining argue that new resources could ease shortages on Earth, while critics warn that treating space as an open frontier for extraction risks repeating past mistakes.

If the theory is applied consistently to the entire sealed box, the cat itself would have to be considered simultaneously alive and dead. Physicist Erwin Schrödinger devised a now-famous thought experiment not to describe an actual laboratory procedure, but to expose an absurdity hidden within a leading interpretation of quantum mechanics. ( ① ) Imagine a cat sealed inside a closed box together with a radioactive atom, a Geiger counter, and a vial of poison gas rigged to break open the instant the atom decays. ( ② ) Because the atom's decay is governed by genuine quantum randomness, standard quantum theory describes the atom, before anyone looks, as existing in a superposition of having decayed and not having decayed at the same time. ( ③ ) Until an observer opens the lid and looks inside, no measurement has yet forced the system into one definite outcome or the other. ( ④ ) Schrödinger intended this image to sound obviously ridiculous. ( ⑤ ) He used the cat's absurd fate to question whether observation truly determines physical reality, or whether the mathematics is simply being pushed too far.