영어 모의고사 (자동 편성)

Many households save far less for retirement than conventional financial advice would recommend, not necessarily because they ①lacks the resources to do so, but because a combination of procrastination, present bias, and the discomfort of forgoing current consumption repeatedly delays the decision to begin saving. Recognizing this gap between intention and action, some economists have proposed a savings program in which employees commit today to ②allocating a portion of their future salary increases toward retirement savings, rather than being asked to reduce their current take-home pay immediately. Because the sacrifice applies only to income not yet received, the commitment ③feels far less painful than an equivalent reduction in present earnings would, making employees considerably more willing to enroll. Once enrolled, the contribution rate automatically rises with each subsequent raise, ④gradually increasing savings without requiring any further deliberate action from participants. Field trials of such programs have reported substantial increases in average savings rates over several years, alongside participant satisfaction that ⑤remains notably high.

Building brand loyalty has traditionally been considered one of the most valuable goals in marketing, since loyal customers ①tend to spend more and recommend products to others. Companies invest significant resources in loyalty programs, ②offering points, discounts, and exclusive access to encourage repeat purchases. Genuine loyalty, critics contend, should be earned through consistent quality and honest treatment of customers, not through artificial incentives that merely ③delays a customer's departure. Furthermore, excessive focus on retaining existing customers can cause companies ④to neglect innovation, since they assume loyal buyers will continue purchasing regardless of improvements. Relying solely on loyalty programs without addressing underlying product quality may ultimately ⑤backfire.

As a result, the ads that appear on a person's screen often feel remarkably ①specific, sometimes referencing items browsed only minutes earlier. Supporters argue that this level of precision benefits consumers by ②reducing exposure to irrelevant advertisements and highlighting products they genuinely need. Some researchers have found that people who see highly personalized advertisements make impulsive purchases ③less frequently than those who see generic ones. Because these algorithms operate largely without public oversight, few consumers fully understand how their personal data shapes what they eventually buy. Greater ④transparency, many experts argue, would allow consumers to make more ⑤informed decisions about their own online behavior.

Standard economic theory assumes that money is fungible, meaning that a dollar earned as salary is functionally ①identical to a dollar received as a tax refund or won in a lottery. In practice, however, people routinely sort their finances into separate mental accounts, treating money differently depending on its source or intended purpose. A household that would never dip into its retirement savings to pay for a vacation might nonetheless spend an unexpected bonus on that very trip without ②hesitation, even though both sums are, in strictly financial terms, equally available for either purpose. This ③compartmentalization can produce decisions that appear ④consistent when viewed through a purely rational lens: the same individual who diligently saves a portion of every paycheck may simultaneously carry high-interest credit card debt, effectively paying more to borrow than they earn on their savings. Mental accounting is not always harmful, however; by assigning specific categories to specific funds, individuals can also impose useful ⑤discipline on their spending, preventing money earmarked for essential needs from being diverted toward impulsive purchases.

Traditional economic models predict that a rational individual offered any positive sum of money, however small, should ①accept it without hesitation, since even a modest gain is preferable to receiving nothing at all. When the proposer offers a division perceived as ②unfair, such as retaining ninety percent of the sum for themselves, the second participant frequently rejects the offer entirely, leaving both parties with nothing rather than accepting an outcome viewed as insulting. This behavior indicates that individuals value fairness as an end in itself, sometimes willingly ③sacrificing material gain to punish perceived exploitation. Neuroscientific investigations complement this finding, revealing that unfair offers activate brain regions associated with ④pleasure and negative emotion, suggesting that the rejection of unfairness is not merely a calculated strategic move but also an emotionally driven response. Such evidence challenges the assumption that economic actors pursue only their own material self-interest, demonstrating instead that considerations of equity can ⑤override the straightforward pursuit of maximum individual gain.

For much of its history, economic theory treated emotion as a distortion to be eliminated from otherwise rational calculation. More recent research, however, suggests that emotion functions not merely as noise but as an integral component of sound judgment. Financial regulators have begun incorporating this understanding into policy design, recognizing that decisions made under conditions of acute emotional arousal, such as panic during a market downturn, often depart substantially from the ___________ that individuals would exhibit under calmer circumstances.

The ethical debate surrounding nudging often intensifies when the technique is applied to particularly vulnerable populations. (A) Elderly individuals facing complex decisions about long-term care, for example, may be especially susceptible to defaults and framing effects, raising the stakes of any given choice architecture considerably. (B) Some ethicists argue that heightened vulnerability actually strengthens the case for carefully designed nudges, since vulnerable individuals may otherwise fall prey to more overtly exploitative influences, such as aggressive sales tactics, if a beneficial default is not established first. (C) Others insist that heightened vulnerability demands greater caution rather than more intervention, since those least equipped to resist a nudge are also least equipped to recognize when it no longer serves their genuine interests.

The reason, they explain, is simple: a first reading leaves little room for anything beyond the plot. Many readers assume that once they finish a book, there is no reason to open it again. ( ① ) Yet teachers who study reading often disagree, arguing that a second reading can reveal details a first reading misses completely. ( ② ) During a first reading, most of a student's attention goes toward simply following the plot, wondering what will happen next. ( ③ ) Once the ending is already known, a second reading frees the mind to notice smaller things, such as a clever hint the author placed early in the story or a change in a character's tone. ( ④ ) Some students who reread their favorite novel report that it feels almost like reading a different book, because they now understand the characters' motives more deeply. ( ⑤ ) Teachers therefore encourage students not to rush toward new titles alone, but to occasionally return to a book they already loved, since a second visit often teaches more than the first.

The same mechanism that helps citizens save more for retirement, in other words, can just as easily be turned against their financial interests. Default settings are not inherently virtuous; their ethical value depends entirely on whose interests they serve. ( ① ) A retirement plan that automatically enrolls employees at a reasonable contribution rate generally benefits those employees by overcoming their tendency toward inertia. ( ② ) A subscription service that automatically renews at a higher price unless the customer actively cancels, however, exploits that very same inertia for the company's benefit rather than the customer's. ( ③ ) Both arrangements rely on the identical psychological tendency to accept whatever has been preselected. ( ④ ) Distinguishing between beneficial and exploitative uses of default settings therefore requires examining not the mechanism itself but the intentions and incentives of whoever designed it. ( ⑤ ) Regulators increasingly demand transparency about default settings precisely because the mechanism alone cannot reveal whether it serves the consumer or merely the company offering it.

This is a decision, in short, that no single person should be allowed to make alone. The discovery of CRISPR gene-editing technology gave scientists a tool precise enough to correct a single mistaken letter in the human genome, raising hope for curing inherited diseases that have resisted treatment for generations. ( ① ) Yet the same precision that makes CRISPR so promising also makes it dangerous in the wrong hands. ( ② ) Editing a gene in a sperm, egg, or early embryo does not simply change one patient. ( ③ ) It alters the genetic code passed down to every future generation. ( ④ ) Scientific organizations around the world have therefore drawn a careful line, permitting gene editing to treat disease in existing patients while banning any edit that would be inherited by their descendants. ( ⑤ ) Critics worry, however, that this line will become harder to enforce than it is to draw.