[1~5]

[I] The most glaring weakness of utilitarianism, many argue, is that it fails to respect individual rights. By caring only about the sum of satisfactions, it can run roughshod over individual people. For the utilitarian, ⓐ_________, but only in the sense that each person’s preferences should be counted along with everyone else’s. But this means that the utilitarian logic, if consistently applied, could sanction ways of treating persons that violate what we think of as fundamental norms of decency and respect, as the following cases illustrate.

The city of happiness

[II] The second version of the torture case (the one involving the innocent daughter) brings to mind a short story by Ursula K. Le Guin. The story (“The Ones Who Walked Away from Omelas”) tells of a city called Omelas—a city of happiness and civic celebration, a place without kings or slaves, without advertisements or a stock exchange, a place without the atomic bomb. Lest we find (ㄱ)this place too unrealistic to imagine, the author tells us one more thing about it: “In a basement under one of the beautiful public buildings of Omelas, or perhaps in the cellar of one of its spacious private homes, there is a room. It has one locked door, and no window.” And in this room sits a child. The child is feeble-minded, malnourished, and neglected. (ㄴ)It lives out its days in wretched misery.

[III] “They all know (ㄷ)it is there, all the people of Omelas. … They all know that it has to be there. … [T]hey all understand that their happiness, the beauty of their city, the tenderness of their friendships, the health of their children, … even the abundance of their harvest and the kindly weathers of their skies, depend wholly on this child’s abominable misery. … If the child were brought up into the sunlight out of the vile place, if it were cleaned and fed and comforted, ⓑ_________, indeed; but if it were done, in that day and hour all the prosperity and beauty and delight of Omelas would wither and be destroyed. Those are the terms.”

Are those terms morally acceptable? The first objection to Bentham’s utilitarianism, the one that appeals to fundamental human rights, says ⓒ_________—even if (ㄹ)they lead to a city of happiness. It would be wrong to violate the rights of the innocent child, even for the sake of the happiness of the multitude.

Objection 2: A Common Currency of Value

[IV] Utilitarianism claims to offer a science of morality, based on measuring, aggregating, and calculating happiness. It weighs preferences without judging them. Everyone’s preferences count equally. ⓓ_________ is the source of much of its appeal. And its promise to make moral choice a science informs much contemporary economic reasoning. But in order to aggregate preferences, it is necessary to measure them on a single scale. Bentham’s idea of utility offers one such common currency.

[V] But is it possible to translate all moral goods into a single currency of value without losing something in the translation? The second objection to utilitarianism doubts ⓔ_________. According to this objection, all values can’t be captured by a common currency of value.

To explore this objection, consider the way utilitarian logic is applied in cost-benefit analysis, a form of decision-making that is widely used by governments and corporations. Cost-benefit analysis tries to bring rationality and rigor to complex social choices by translating all costs and benefits into monetary terms—and then comparing (ㅁ)them.

1. 윗글의 밑줄 친 (ㄱ)~(ㅁ)가 의미하는 내용으로 적절하지 않은 것을 고르시오.

① (ㄱ): a city called Omelas
② (ㄴ): a child
③ (ㄷ): a city called Omelas
④ (ㄹ): those terms
⑤ (ㅁ): monetary terms

2. 윗글의 빈칸 ⓐ~ⓔ에 들어갈 표현으로 적절하지 않은 것을 2개 고르시오.

① ⓐ: individuals matter
② ⓑ: that would be a good thing
③ ⓒ: they are
④ ⓓ: This nonjudgmental spirit
⑤ ⓔ: that it is not

3. 윗글 (I)~(V)의 내용과 일치하는 것을 2개 고르시오.

① (I): Utilitarianism is often criticized for not valuing individual rights.
② (II): The story by Ursula K. Le Guin is about a city known for its misery and suffering. 
③ (III): The child’s suffering is necessary for Omelas’s prosperity.
④ (IV): Under utilitarianism, the importance of one’s preferences is influenced by their social status.
⑤ (V): The second objection to utilitarianism supports the idea that all values can be measured by a common currency.

4. 윗글에서 답을 찾을 수 없는 질문을 2개 고르시오.

① What is the primary ethical dilemma presented in Ursula K. Le Guin’s story?
② What is the name of the child in the basement in the story?
③ How many objections to utilitarianism are suggested in the passage?
④ Where does much of utilitarianinsm’s appeal originate?
⑤ What example of cost-benefit analysis is used in the passage?

5. 윗글을 읽고 이해한 내용으로 적절한 것은?
① The utilitarian approach to morality is universally accepted as the most ethical framework due to its emphasis on the collective happiness over individual suffering.
② The story of Omelas is a metaphor for the potential consequences of utilitarianism, where the suffering of one can be justified by the happiness of many.
③ The people of Omelas are unaware of the child’s suffering, which allows them to enjoy their prosperity without moral conflict or concern for individual rights.
④ The utilitarian principle of giving equal weight to everyone’s preferences inherently respects and upholds fundamental human rights.
⑤ Cost-benefit analysis is often criticized for potentially oversimplifying complex costs and benefits by reducing them to monetary comparisons.

[6~8] Pain for pay

It is not obvious how this dispute can be resolved. But some empirically minded social scientists have tried. In the 1930s, Edward Thorndike, a social psychologist, tried to prove what utilitarianism assumes: namely, that it is possible to translate our seemingly disparate desires and aversions into a common  currency of pleasure and pain. He conducted a survey of young recipients of government relief, asking them how much they would have to be paid to suffer various experiences. For example: “How much would you have to be paid to have one upper front tooth pulled out?” Or “to have the little toe of one foot cut off?” Or “to eat a live earthworm six inches long?” Or “to choke a stray cat to death with your bare hands?” Or “to live all the rest of your life on a farm in Kansas, ten miles from any town?”—

Which of these items do you think commanded the highest price, and which the least? Here is the price list his survey produced (in 1937 dollars): Tooth $4,500 / Toe $57,000  / Worm $100,000 / Cat $10,000 / Kansas $300,000

Thorndike thought his findings lent support to the idea that all goods can be measured and compared on a single scale. “Any want or satisfaction which exists at all, exists in some amount and is therefore measurable,” he wrote. “The life of a dog or a cat or a chicken . . . consists largely of and is determined by appetites, cravings, desires and their gratification. … So also does the life of man, though the appetites and desires are more numerous, subtle, and complicated.”

But the preposterous character of Thorndike’s price list suggests the absurdity of such comparisons. Can we really conclude that the respondents considered the prospect of life on a farm in Kansas to be three times as disagreeable as eating an earthworm, or do these experiences differ in ways that don’t admit meaningful comparison? Thorndike conceded that up to one-third of the respondents stated that no sum would induce them to suffer some of these experiences, suggesting that they considered them “immeasurably repugnant.”

6. 윗글에 대한 이해로 적절한 것은?

① Edward Thorndike’s experiment was universally accepted as a valid method for quantifying human desires and aversions in terms of pleasure and pain.
② All of the respondents in Thorndike’s survey were willing to assign a monetary value to every discomforting experience presented to them.
③ Thorndike’s survey results indicate that the respondents found the idea of living on a farm in Kansas more distressing than the physical pain of losing a tooth.
④ Edward Thorndike’s survey proved that all desires and aversions can be measured and compared on a m single scale.  
⑤ Thorndike’s survey was an attempt to refute the utilitarian assumption that all human experiences can be measured on a single scale of pleasure and pain. 

*refute: 반박하다

7. 윗글에서 답을 찾을 수 없는 질문을 고르시오.
① What was Edward Thorndike’s profession and what assumption of utilitarianism did he seek to prove?
② In Thorndike’s survey, what were some of the experiences people were asked to price?
③ Which experience was valued the highest and which the lowest in Thorndike’s survey?
④ Can we really conclude that the respondents considered the prospect of life on a farm in Kansas to be three times as disagreeable as eating an earthworm, or do these experiences differ in ways that don’t admit meaningful comparison?
⑤ What specific government relief program were the respondents of Thorndike’s survey part of?

8. 윗글의 내용을 다음과 같이 요약할 때, 빈칸 (A)~(C)에 들어갈 말로 가장 적절한것은?

Edward Thorndike, a social psychologist, conducted a survey in the 1930s to test utilitarianism’s (A)______ that diverse human desires and aversions can be translated into a common currency of pleasure and pain. He asked people how much they would need to be paid for various experiences, like pulling out a tooth or eating a live earthworm. The survey’s results, with prices ranging from $4,500 for a tooth to $300,000 for living in Kansas, seemed to (B)______ Thorndike’s belief that all wants and satisfactions are measurable. However, the seemingly absurd price list raised questions about whether such experiences can be meaningfully compared, as some respondents stated (C)______ amount of money would be enough for certain experiences.

        (A) — (B) — (C)
① objection — disprove — small
② objection — support — no
③ assumption — support — no
④ assumption — disprove — small
⑤ assumption — disprove — no

[9~16]

(I) Mill’s writings can be read as a strenuous attempt to reconcile individual rights with the utilitarian philosophy he inherited from his father and adopted from Bentham. His book On Liberty (1859) is the classic defense of individual freedom in the English-speaking world. Its central principle is that people should be free to do whatever they want, provided they do no harm to others. Government may not interfere with individual liberty in order to protect a person from himself, or to impose the majority’s beliefs about how best to live. The only actions for which a person is accountable to society, Mill argues, are (ㄱ)those that affect others. As long as I am not harming anyone else, my “independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign.”

Mill thinks we should maximize utility, not case by case, but in the long run. And over time, he argues, respecting individual liberty will lead to the greatest human happiness. Allowing the majority to silence dissenters or censor free-thinkers might maximize utility today, but it will make society worse off — less happy — in the long run.

Why should we assume that upholding individual liberty and the right to dissent will promote the welfare of society in the long run? Mill offers several reasons: The dissenting view may turn out to be true, or partially true, and so offer a corrective to prevailing opinion. And even if (ㄴ)it is not, subjecting prevailing opinion to a vigorous contest of ideas will prevent (ㄷ)it from hardening into dogma and prejudice. Finally, a society that forces its members to embrace custom and convention is likely to fall into a stultifying conformity, depriving itself of the energy and vitality that prompt social improvement.

(II) For Bentham, pleasure is pleasure and pain is pain. The only basis for judging one experience better or worse than another is the intensity and duration of the pleasure or pain it produces. The so-called higher pleasures or nobler virtues are simply those that produce stronger, longer pleasure. Bentham recognizes no qualitative distinction among pleasures. “The quantity of pleasure being equal,” he writes, “push-pin is as good as poetry.” (Push-pin was a children’s game.)

(…)

Mill tries to save utilitarianism from this objection. Unlike Bentham, Mill believes it is possible to distinguish between higher and lower pleasures — to assess the quality, not just the quantity or intensity, of our desires. And he thinks he can make (ㄹ)this distinction without relying on any moral ideas other than utility itself.

Despite insisting that pleasure and pain are all that matter, Mill acknowledges that “some kinds of pleasure are more desirable and more valuable than others.” How can we know which pleasures are qualitatively higher? Mill proposes a simple test: “Of two pleasures, if there be one to which all or almost all who have experience of both give a decided preference, irrespective of any feeling of moral obligation to prefer it, that is the more desirable pleasure.”

Shakespeare versus The Simpsons

(III) And yet Mill does not want to give up the idea that some ways of life are nobler than others, even if the people who live them are less easily satisfied. “A being of higher faculties requires more to make him happy, is capable probably of more acute suffering . . . than one of an inferior type; but in spite of these liabilities, he can never really wish to sink into what he feels to be a lower grade of existence.” Why are we unwilling to trade a life that engages our higher faculties for a life of base contentment? Mill thinks the reason has something to do with “the love of liberty and personal independence,” and concludes that “its most appropriate appellation is a sense of dignity, which all human beings possess in one form or other.”

Mill concedes that “occasionally, under the influence of temptation,” even the best of us postpone higher pleasures to lower ones. Everyone gives in to the impulse to be a couch potato once in a while. But this does not mean we don’t know the difference between Rembrandt and reruns. Mill makes (ㅁ)this point in a memorable passage: “(A)__________”

9. 윗글의 밑줄 친 (ㄱ)~(ㅁ)가 의미하는 내용으로 적절하지 않은 것을 고르시오.
① (ㄱ) : actions
② (ㄴ) : the dissenting view
③ (ㄷ) : prevailing opinion
④ (ㄹ) : distinction between higher and lower pleasures
⑤ (ㅁ) : we don’t know the difference between Rembrandt and reruns

10. 윗글 전체에서 답을 찾을 수 없는 질문을 고르시오.
① What is Mill’s stance on individual freedom and its relationship with utilitarianism?
② How does Mill believe individual liberty affects the long-term happiness of society?
③ How does Bentham’s view on pleasure differ from Mill’s?
④ How does Mill propose to distinguish between higher and lower pleasures?
⑤ What specific examples does Mill use to illustrate the concept of higher faculties and their importance in human life?

11. 다음은 빈칸 (A)에 들어갈 문장이다. 아래 빈칸 ⓐ~ⓓ에 들어갈 말로 적절한 것은?
It is better to be a human being ⓐ________ than a pig ⓑ________; better to be Socrates ⓒ________ than a fool ⓓ________. And if the fool, or the pig, are of a different opinion, it is because they only know their own side of the question.

① satisfied — dissatisfied — satisfied — dissatisfied
② satisfied — dissatisfied — dissatisfied — satisfied
③ dissatisfied — dissatisfied — dissatisfied — satisfied
④ dissatisfied — satisfied — satisfied — dissatisfied
⑤ dissatisfied — satisfied — dissatisfied — satisfied

12. 윗글 I의 내용을 바탕으로 추론할 수 있는 것은?
① Mill’s advocacy for individual liberty is primarily rooted in his belief that societal progress is *contingent upon the suppression of dissenting opinions.
② The government’s role, according to Mill, should include interventions in personal matters when individual actions do not align with the majority’s standards for living. 
③ Mill’s conception of individual sovereignty extends to the point where actions that do not harm others are not subject to societal or governmental accountability. 
④ The potential truth or partial truth in dissenting opinions is irrelevant to the overall utility of society, as Mill believes that only prevailing opinions contribute to human happiness. 
⑤ Mill suggests that upholding individual liberty results in immediate happiness for the majority. 
*contingent: ~에 달린

13. 윗글 II의 내용을 바탕으로 추론할 수 있는 것은?
① Bentham would likely argue that the value of a child’s game and that of a work of art are the same no matter how much pleasure each provides. 
② Mill’s approach to utilitarianism suggests that the moral worth of an action is determined by the quantity of the pleasure it produces. 
③ The concept of higher pleasures is rooted in the duration of satisfaction they provide, rather than the nature of the activity itself.
④ Mill’s criterion for determining the value of a pleasure is based on a democratic process of preference by those experienced in various pleasures. 
⑤ Bentham’s philosophy suggests that while the distinction between a simple game and sophisticated poetry is generally irrelevant, there may be exceptional cases where the nature of the activity could influence the assessment of their contribution to human happiness.”

14. 윗글 III의 내용을 바탕으로 추론할 수 있는 것은?
① Individuals with higher faculties are immune to the *allure of simpler pleasures and never experience the desire for a less complex existence. 
② The concept of dignity, as understood by Mill, is an intrinsic quality that varies in expression but is universally present across all human beings.
③ Mill believes that the preference for higher faculties over base contentment is primarily due to societal pressures rather than an innate sense of dignity. 
④ People are inherently incapable of distinguishing between higher and lower pleasures, which is why they often succumb to the latter.
⑤ The love of liberty and personal independence is a secondary factor in people’s unwillingness to exchange a life of higher faculties for one of base contentment. 
*allure: 매력, 유혹

15. 윗글 I의 내용을 다음과 같이 요약할 때 빈칸에 들어갈 말로 가장 적절한 것은?
John Stuart Mill’s work, notably “On Liberty,” emphasizes (A)______ individual rights with utilitarian philosophy, advocating for absolute individual freedom unless it harms others. He argues that respecting individual liberty and (B)______ in the long term leads to the greatest happiness for society, as it fosters truth, prevents dogmatic thinking, and (C)______ the stagnation of societal progress.
*stagnation: 정체, 침체
(A) (B) (C)
① reconciling — consent — avoids
② reconciling — dissent — avoids
③ reconciling — dissent — promotes
④ contrasting — consent — avoids
⑤ contrasting — dissent — promotes

16. 윗글 II~III의 내용을 다음과 같이 요약할 때 빈칸 (A)~(C)에 들어갈 말로 가장 적절한 것은?
Bentham views pleasure and pain purely (A)_______, with no distinction between higher and lower pleasures, while Mill argues for a (B)_______ difference, suggesting that pleasures preferred by those experienced in both are inherently (C)_______ desirable, and suggests that a life engaging higher faculties, despite its challenges, is preferable to one of simple contentment.
(A) (B) (C)
① quantitatively — qualitative — more
② quantitatively — qualitative — less
③ quantitatively — quantitative — less
④ qualitatively — qualitative — more
⑤ qualitatively — quantitative — less

[17~19]

Economic inequality is steeper in the United States than in other democracies. Some people think that such inequality is unjust, and favor taxing the rich to help the poor. (A)Others disagree. (B)They say there is nothing unfair about economic inequality, provided (C)it arises without force or fraud, through the choices people make in a market economy.

Who is right? If you think justice means ⓐ______ happiness, you might favor wealth redistribution, on the following grounds: Suppose we take $1 million from Bill Gates and disperse it among a hundred needy recipients, giving each of them $10,000. Overall happiness would likely increase. Gates would scarcely miss the money, while each of the recipients would derive great happiness from the $10,000 windfall. (D)Their collective utility would go up more than his would go down.

This utilitarian logic could be extended to support quite a radical redistribution of wealth; it would tell us to transfer money from the rich to the poor until the last dollar we take from Gates hurts him as much as (E)it helps the recipient.

This Robin Hood scenario is open to at least two objections — one from within utilitarian thinking, the other from outside it. The first objection worries that high tax rates, especially on income, reduce the incentive to work and invest, leading to a decline in productivity. If the economic pie shrinks, leaving less to redistribute, the overall level of utility ⓑ______. So before taxing Bill Gates and Oprah Winfrey too heavily, the utilitarian would have to ask whether doing so would lead them to work less and so to earn less, eventually reducing the amount of money available for redistribution to the needy.

The second objection regards these calculations as ______. It argues that taxing the rich to help the poor is unjust because it violates a fundamental right. According to this objection, taking money from Gates and Winfrey without their consent, ⓓ______, is coercive. It violates their liberty to do with their money whatever they please. Those who object to redistribution on these grounds are often called “libertarians.”

Libertarians favor unfettered markets and oppose government regulation, not in the name of economic efficiency but ⓔ______. Their central claim is that each of us has a fundamental right to liberty — the right to do whatever we want with the things we own, provided we respect other people’s rights to do the same.

17. 윗글의 밑줄 친 (ㄱ)~(ㅁ)가 의미하는 내용으로 적절하지 않은 것을 고르시오.

① (A) : Utilitarians 
② (B) : Libertarians
③ (C) : economic inequality
④ (D) : the recipients
⑤ (E) : the last dollar we take from Gates

18. 윗글의 빈칸 ⓐ~ⓔ에 들어갈 표현으로 적절하지 않은 것을 2개 고르시오.

① ⓐ: maximizing happiness
② ⓑ: might go up 
③ ⓒ: beside the point
④ ⓓ: except for a good cause 
⑤ ⓔ: in the name of human freedom

19. 윗글에 대한 이해로 적절하지 않은 것을 2개 고르시오.
① Economic inequality in the United States is more severe than in other democracies, and this is generally accepted as unfair by the majority of the populace. 
② Utilitarian proponents of wealth redistribution believe that taking a substantial amount of money from a wealthy individual would have a negligible impact on his or her well-being, while significantly enhancing the happiness of many.
③ The utilitarian approach to economic inequality suggests that wealth should be redistributed only up to the point where it does not affect the productivity and economic contributions of the wealthy.
④ Libertarians argue that government intervention in the form of wealth redistribution is a violation of human freedom and an infringement on the rights of individuals to use their property as they see fit.
⑤ Utilitarians would not object to the Robin Hood scenario, the radical redistribution of wealth. 

[20~25]

(I) The libertarian philosophy does not map neatly onto the political spectrum. Conservatives who favor laissez-faire economic policies often part company with libertarians on cultural issues such as school prayer, abortion, and restrictions on pornography. And many proponents of the welfare state hold libertarian views on issues such as gay rights, reproductive rights, freedom of speech, and the separation of church and state.

During the 1980s, libertarian ideas found prominent expression in the pro-market, antigovernment rhetoric of Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher. As an intellectual doctrine, libertarianism emerged earlier, in opposition to the welfare state. In The Constitution of Liberty (1960), the Austrian-born economist-philosopher Friedrich A. Hayek (1899-1992) argued that any attempt to bring about greater economic equality was bound to be coercive and destructive of a free society. In Capitalism and Freedom (1962), the American economist Milton Friedman (1912-2006) argued that many widely accepted state activities are illegitimate infringements on individual freedom. Social Security, or any mandatory, government- run retirement program, is one of his prime examples: “If a man knowingly prefers to live for today, to use (ㄱ)his resources for current enjoyment, deliberately choosing a penurious old age, by what right do we prevent him from doing so?” Friedman asks. We might urge such a person to save for his retirement, “but are we entitled to use coercion to prevent him from doing what he chooses to do?”

(II) In Anarchy, State and Utopia (1974), Robert Nozick offers a philosophical defense of libertarian principles and a challenge to familiar ideas of distributive justice. He begins with the claim that individuals have rights “so strong and far-reaching” that “(ㄴ)they raise the question of what, if anything, the state may do.” He concludes that “only a minimal state, limited to enforcing contracts and protecting people against force, theft, and fraud, is justified. Any more extensive state violates persons’ rights not to be forced to do certain things, and is unjustified.

Prominent among the things that no one should be forced to do is help other people. Taxing the rich to help the poor coerces the rich. (ㄷ)It violates their right to do what they want with the things they own.

According to Nozick, there is nothing wrong with economic inequality as such. Simply knowing that the Forbes 400 have billions while others are penniless doesn’t enable you to conclude anything about the justice or injustice of the arrangement. Nozick rejects the idea that a just distribution consists of a certain pattern — such as equal income, or equal utility, or equal provision of basic needs. What matters is how the distribution came about.

Nozick rejects patterned theories of justice in favor of those that honor the choices people make in free markets. He argues that distributive justice depends on two requirements — justice in initial holdings and justice in transfer.

The first asks if the resources you used to make your money were legitimately yours in the first place. (If you made a fortune selling stolen goods, you would not be entitled to the proceeds.) The second asks if you made your money either through free exchanges in the marketplace or from gifts voluntarily bestowed upon you by others. If the answer to (ㄹ)both questions is yes, you are entitled to what you have, and the state may not take it without your consent. Provided no one starts out with ill-gotten gains, any distribution that results from a free market is just, however equal or unequal it turns out to be.

Nozick concedes that it is not easy to determine whether the initial holdings that gave rise to today’s economic positions were themselves just or ill-gotten. How can we know to what extent today’s distribution of income and wealth reflects illegitimate seizures of land or other assets through force, theft, or fraud generations ago? If it can be shown that those who have landed on top are the beneficiaries of past injustices — such as the enslavement of African Americans or the expropriation of Native Americans — then, according to Nozick, a case can be made for remedying the injustice through taxation, reparations, or other means. But it is important to notice that (ㅁ)these measures are for the sake of redressing past wrongs, not for the sake of bringing about greater equality for its own sake.

20. 윗글의 밑줄 친 (ㄱ)~(ㅁ)가 의미하는 내용으로 적절하지 않은 것을 고르시오.

① (ㄱ): Milton Friedman 
② (ㄴ): individuals
③ (ㄷ): Taxing the rich to help the poor coerces the rich.
④ (ㄹ): Were the resources you used to make your money legitimately yours in the first place, and did you make your money either through free exchanges in the marketplace or from gifts voluntarily bestowed upon you by others?
⑤ (ㅁ): taxation, reparations, or other means.

21. 보수주의자와 자유지상주의자의 의견 차이에 대해 잘못된 것은?

22. 복지국가주의자와 자유지상주의자의 의견 차이에 대해 잘못된 것은?

23. 윗글 (I)에 대한 이해로 적절한 것을 고르시오.
① The libertarian ideas were first created in the 1980s under the regimes of Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher.
② Friedrich A. Hayek and Milton Friedman shared a belief in the necessity of a welfare state to ensure economic equality and protect individual freedoms. 
③ Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher, Friedrich A. Hayek, and Milton Friedman all share utilitarian philosophy.
④ According to Friedman, the state should not even try to advise its people to save money for their retirement. 
⑤ The principles of libertarianism support the idea that individuals should be free from government coercion even if their choices lead to personal financial instability in the future.

24. 윗글 (II)에 대한 이해로 적절한 것을 고르시오.
① Nozick’s philosophy implies that the state has the authority to redistribute wealth as it sees fit to ensure a more equitable society.
② The concept of justice in Nozick’s view is inherently linked to the legitimacy of the means by which wealth is acquired and the voluntary nature of economic transactions.
③ According to Nozick, the state should actively intervene in the market to correct economic inequalities and ensure that wealth is distributed according to a predetermined pattern.
④ Nozick believes that taxation for the purpose of redistributing wealth is always a violation of individual rights, with no exceptions.
⑤ Nozick’s argument suggests that the existence of a minimal state is inherently unjust and that anarchy is the only acceptable political system.

25. 윗글의 내용을 다음과 같이 요약할 때, 빈칸 (A)~(C)에 들어갈 말로 가장 적절한것은?
Libertarian philosophy, exemplified by thinkers like Hayek, Friedman, and Nozick, emphasizes individual rights and (A)______ state intervention, arguing that economic inequality is not inherently (B)______ and that distributive justice should respect free market outcomes and individual property rights, while (C)______ the need to address past injustices that may have contributed to current economic disparities.

(A) (B) (C)
① minimal — unjust — denying
② minimal — unjust — conceding
③ minimal — just — conceding
④ maximum — unjust — conceding
⑤ maximum — just — denying

[26~28]

The notion of self-ownership is appealing, especially for those who seek a strong foundation for individual rights. The idea that I belong to myself, not to the state or political community, is one way of explaining why it is wrong to sacrifice my rights for the welfare of others. Recall our reluctance to push the heavy man off the bridge to block a runaway trolley. Don’t we hesitate to push him because we recognize that his life belongs to him? (ㄱ)_________ to his death to save the workers on the track, few would object. It is, after all, his life. But his life is not for us to take and use, even for a good cause. The same can be said of the unfortunate cabin boy. (ㄴ)_________ to sacrifice his life to save his starving shipmates, most people would say he had a right to do so. But his mates had no right to (ㄷ)_________ a life that did not belong to them.

Many who reject laissez-faire economics invoke the idea of self-ownership in other domains. This may explain the persisting appeal of libertarian ideas, even for people who are sympathetic to the welfare state. Consider the way self-ownership figures in arguments about reproductive freedom, sexual morality, and privacy rights. Government should not ban contraceptives or abortion, it is often said, because women should be free to decide what to do with their own bodies. The law should not punish adultery, prostitution, or homosexuality, many argue, because consenting adults should be free to choose their sexual partners for themselves. Some favor markets in kidneys for transplantation on the grounds that I own my own body, and should therefore be free to sell my body parts. Some extend this principle to defend a right to assisted suicide. Since I own my own life, I should be free to end it if I wish, and to enlist a willing physician (or anyone else) to assist. The state has no right to prevent me from using my body or disposing of my life as I please.

The idea that we own ourselves figures in (ㄹ)_________ freedom of choice. If I own my body, my life, and my person, I should be free to do whatever I want with them (provided I don’t harm others). Despite the appeal of this idea, its full implications are (ㅁ)_________.

26. 윗글 I의 빈칸 (ㄱ)~(ㅁ)에 들어갈 표현으로 적절하지 않은 것을 두 개 고르면?

① (ㄱ): If had the heavy man jumped
② (ㄴ): If Parker had chosen
③ (ㄷ): help themselves to
④ (ㄹ): many arguments against 
⑤ (ㅁ): not easy to embrace

27. 윗글에 대한 이해로 올바른 것을 2개 고르시오.
① The concept of self-ownership is universally accepted and applied consistently across all ethical and political discussions, including economic systems.
② Those who believe in self-ownership would say that taking the life of the cabin boy is inherently and unconditionally wrong.
③ The hesitation to sacrifice one individual for the benefit of many is rooted in the recognition of self-ownership, which implies that each person’s life is their own to govern.
④ The rejection of laissez-faire economics by some individuals does not necessarily *preclude their acceptance of self-ownership in other matters.
⑤ Self-ownership is so appealing an idea that everyone embraces its full implications.
*preclude: 못하게 하다, 불가능하게 하다

28. 다음 중 self-ownership을 믿는 사람이 동의하지 않을 내용을 2개 고르시오.
① We should not push the heavy man off the bridge to block a runaway trolley whether he agrees to it or not.
② Government should not allow contraceptives or abortion. 
③ The law should not punish adultery, prostitution, or homosexuality.
④ Government should allow markets in kidneys for transplantation.
⑤ People should have a right to assisted suicide.

[29~31]

Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) offers an alternative account of duties and rights, one of the most powerful and influential accounts any philosopher has produced. It does not depend on the idea that we own ourselves, or on the claim that our lives and liberties are a gift from God. Instead, (ㄱ)it depends on the idea that we are rational beings, worthy of dignity and respect.

(…)

In 1781, at age fifty-seven, he published his first major book, The Critique of Pure Reason, which challenged the empiricist theory of knowledge associated with David Hume and John Locke. Four years later, he published the Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals, the first of his several works on moral philosophy. Five years after Jeremy Bentham’s Principles of Morals and Legislation (1780), Kant’s Groundwork launched a devastating critique of utilitarianism. (ㄴ)It argues that morality is not about maximizing happiness or any other end. Instead, it is about respecting persons as ends in themselves.

Kant’s Groundwork appeared shortly after the American Revolution (1776) and just before the French Revolution (1789). In line with the spirit and moral thrust of those revolutions, it offers a powerful basis for what the eighteenth-century revolutionaries called the rights of man, and what we in the early twenty- first century call universal human rights.

(…)

Kant’s emphasis on human dignity informs present-day notions of universal human rights. More important, his account of freedom figures in many of our contemporary debates about justice. In the introduction to this book, (ㄷ)I distinguished three approaches to justice. One approach, that of the utilitarians, says that the way to define justice and to determine the right thing to do is to ask what will maximize welfare, or the collective happiness of society as a whole. A second approach connects justice to freedom. Libertarians offer an example of this approach. They say the just distribution of income and wealth is whatever distribution arises from the free exchange of goods and services in an unfettered market. To regulate the market is unjust, they maintain, because it violates the individual’s freedom of choice. A third approach says that justice means giving people what they morally deserve—allocating goods to reward and promote virtue. As we will see when we turn to Aristotle (in Chapter 8), the virtue-based approach connects justice to reflection about the good life.

Kant rejects approach one (maximizing welfare) and approach three (promoting virtue). Neither, he thinks, respects human freedom. So Kant is a powerful advocate for (ㄹ)approach two. But the idea of freedom he puts forth is demanding—more demanding than the freedom of choice we exercise when buying and selling goods on the market. What we commonly think of as market freedom or consumer choice is not true freedom, Kant argues, because (ㅁ)it simply involves satisfying desires we haven’t chosen in the first place.

(…)

29. 윗글의 밑줄 친 (ㄱ)~(ㅁ)가 의미하는 내용으로 적절하지 않은 것을 2개 고르시오.

① (ㄱ): an alternative account of duties and rights
② (ㄴ): Kant’s Groundwork
③ (ㄷ): Kant  
④ (ㄹ): the one that connects justice and morality to freedom
⑤ (ㅁ): What we commonly think of as market freedom or consumer choice

30. 윗글에 대한 이해로 가장 적절한 것은?
① Kant’s philosophical works, particularly The Critique of Pure Reason, were primarily focused on reinforcing the empiricist theories of knowledge that were prevalent during his time.
② Kant’s Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals was a response to the American and French Revolutions, aiming to directly influence their outcomes by providing a philosophical foundation for the concept of human rights. 
③ Kant’s philosophy, as outlined in his Groundwork, aligns with the utilitarian approach by emphasizing the importance of maximizing happiness as the ultimate moral principle.
④ Kant’s notion of freedom is synonymous with the libertarian view that justice is achieved through the unrestricted operation of the market and the protection of consumer choice. 
⑤ Kant’s conception of freedom is more *stringent than the libertarian notion of market freedom or consumer choice, as it requires a deeper level of autonomy beyond the mere satisfaction of inherent desires.
*stringent: 엄격한

31. 윗글의 내용을 다음과 같이 요약할 때, 빈칸 (A)~(C)에 들어갈 말로 가장 적절한것은?

Immanuel Kant’s moral philosophy, which profoundly influenced the development of universal human rights concepts, emphasizes respecting individuals as (A)______ in themselves and (B)______ utilitarian and virtue-based approaches to justice, advocating instead for a (C)______ conception of freedom that transcends mere market freedom or consumer choice.

(A) (B) (C)
① means — rejects — demanding
② means — accepts — easy
③ ends — rejects — demanding
④ ends — rejects — easy
⑤ ends — accepts — demanding

[32-33]

<The Trouble with Maximizing Happiness>

(…)

Kant argues that every person is worthy of respect, not because we own ourselves but because we are rational beings, capable of reason; we are also autonomous beings, capable of acting and choosing freely.

Kant doesn’t mean that we always succeed in acting rationally, or in choosing autonomously. Sometimes we (ㄱ)do and sometimes we don’t. He means only that we have the capacity for reason, and for freedom, and that (ㄴ)this capacity is common to human beings as such.

(…)

<Persons and Things>

(…)

Kant’s notion of autonomy stands in stark contrast to this. When we act autonomously, according to a law we give ourselves, we do something for its own sake, as an end in itself. We cease to be instruments of purposes given outside us. This capacity to act autonomously is what gives human life its special dignity. It marks out the difference between persons and things.

For Kant, respecting human dignity means treating persons as ends in themselves. This is why it is wrong to use people for the sake of the general welfare, as utilitarianism does. Pushing the heavy man onto the track to block the trolley uses him as a means, and so fails to respect him as an end in himself. An enlightened utilitarian (such as Mill) may refuse to push the man, out of concern for secondary effects that would diminish utility in the long run. (People would soon be afraid to stand on bridges, etc.) But Kant would maintain that (ㄷ)this is the wrong reason to desist from pushing. (ㄹ)It still treats the would-be victim as an instrument, an object, a mere means to the happiness of others. It lets him live, not for his own sake, but so that other people can cross bridges without a second thought.

(…)

<What’s Moral? Look for the Motive>

According to Kant, the moral worth of an action consists not in the consequences that flow from (ㅁ)it, but in the intention from which the act is done. What matters is the motive, and the motive must be of a certain kind. What matters is doing the right thing because it’s right, not for some ulterior motive.

(…) For any action to be morally good, “it is not enough that it should conform to the moral law—it must also be done for the sake of the moral law.’ And the motive that confers moral worth on an action is the motive of duty, by which Kant means doing the right thing for the right reason.

32. 윗글의 밑줄 친 (ㄱ)~(ㅁ)가 의미하는 내용으로 적절하지 않은 것을 고르시오.

① (ㄱ): succeed in acting rationally, or in choosing autonomously
② (ㄴ): the capacity for reason and for freedom
③ (ㄷ): out of concern for secondary effects that would diminish utility in the long run.
④ (ㄹ): refusing to push the man, out of concern for secondary effects that would diminish utility in the long run
⑤ (ㅁ): the moral worth of an action 

33. 윗글의 이해로 적절한 것을 2개 고르시오.
① Kant believes that human beings are inherently rational and autonomous and thus alway act that way.
② Kant’s philosophy suggests that human beings should always act in a way that maximizes the general welfare, even if it means treating individuals as means to an end.
③ Kant’s concept of autonomy implies that humans have the ability to act according to their own set of rules, which is fundamental to their dignity.
④ Kant’s ethical framework can support the action of sacrificing one individual to save five depending on the motive.
⑤ The moral value of an action, according to Kant, is determined by whether it is performed out of the motive of duty.

[34~37]

<What is the Supreme Principle of Morality?>

Contrast 1 (morality): duty v. inclination
Contrast 2 (freedom): autonomy v. heteronomy
Contrast 3 (reason): categorical v. hypothetical imperatives

We’ve already explored the first of these contrasts, between duty and inclination. Only the motive of duty can confer moral worth on an action. Let me see if I can explain the other two.

The second contrast describes two different ways that my will can be determined—autonomously and heteronomously. According to Kant, I’m free only when my will is determined autonomously, governed by a law I give myself. Again, we often think of freedom as being able to do what we want, to pursue our desires unimpeded. But Kant poses a powerful challenge to (ㄱ)this way of thinking about freedom: If you didn’t choose those desires freely in the first place, how can you think of yourself as free when you’re pursuing (ㄴ)them? Kant captures this challenge in this contrast between autonomy and heteronomy.

(…)

Kant’s answer: from reason. We’re not only sentient beings, governed by the pleasure and pain delivered by our senses; we are also rational beings, capable of reason. If reason determines my will, then the will becomes the power to choose independent of the dictates of nature or inclination. (Notice that Kant isn’t asserting that reason always does govern my will; he’s only saying that, insofar as I’m capable of acting freely, according to a law I give myself, then it must be the case that reason can govern my will.)

(…)

<Categorical Versus Hypothetical Imperatives>

Categorical imperative I: Universalize your maxim

The first version Kant calls the formula of the universal law: “Act only on that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that (ㄷ)it should become a universal law.” By “maxim,” Kant means a rule or principle that gives the reason for your action. He is saying, in effect, that we should act only on principles that we could universalize without contradiction. To see what Kant means by (ㄹ)this admittedly abstract test, let’s consider a concrete moral question: Is it ever right to make a promise you know you won’t be able to keep?

Suppose I am in desperate need of money and so ask you for a loan. I know perfectly well that I won’t be able to pay it back anytime soon. Would it be morally permissible to get the loan by making a false promise to repay the money promptly, a promise I know I can’t keep? Would a false promise be consistent with the categorical imperative? Kant says no, obviously not. The way I can see that the false promise is at odds with the categorical imperative is by trying to universalize the maxim upon which I’m about to act.

(…)

Categorical imperative II: Treat persons as ends

The moral force of the categorical imperative becomes clearer in Kant’s second formulation of it, the formula of humanity as an end. Kant introduces the second version of the categorical imperative as follows: We can’t base the moral law on any particular interests, purposes, or ends, because then it would be only relative to the person whose ends (ㅁ)they were. “But suppose there were something whose existence has in itself an absolute value,” as an end in itself. “Then in it, and in it alone, would there be the ground of a possible categorical imperative.”

What could possibly have an absolute value, as a(n) ⓐend    in itself? Kant’s answer: humanity. “I say that man, and in general every rational being, exists as a(n) ⓑend    in himself, not merely as a means for arbitrary use by this or that will.” This is the fundamental difference, Kant reminds us, between persons and things. Persons are rational beings. They don’t just have a relative value, but if anything has, they have an absolute value, an intrinsic value. That is, rational beings have dignity.

This line of reasoning leads Kant to the second formulation of the categorical imperative: “Act in such a way that you always treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never simply as a(n) ⓒmeans  , but always at the same time as a(n) ⓓend   .” This is the formula of humanity as a(n) ⓔend   .

(…)

34. 윗글의 빈칸 ⓐ~ⓔ에 들어갈 표현 중 다른 하나는?

① ⓐ ② ⓑ ③ ⓒ ④ ⓓ ⑤ ⓔ

35. 윗글의 밑줄 친 (ㄱ)~(ㅁ)가 의미하는 내용으로 적절하지 않은 것을 고르시오.

① (ㄱ): I’m free only when my will is determined autonomously
② (ㄴ): those desires
③ (ㄷ): that maxim
④ (ㄹ): we should act only on principles that we could universalize without contradiction
⑤ (ㅁ): any particular interests, purposes, or ends

36. 윗글에 대한 이해로 가장 적절한 것을 고르시오.
① Kant’s philosophical framework suggests that the pursuit of personal desires may not necessarily lead to true freedom, as these desires might not be autonomously chosen.
② Kant believes that the ability to reason is not an essential aspect of human nature and does not significantly influence our capacity to make moral decisions.
③ The concept of a categorical imperative is based on the idea that moral actions should be performed out of self-interest and the pursuit of personal gain.
④ Kant’s formula of humanity as an end implies that rational beings should be used as means to achieve one’s personal goals, as they do not possess intrinsic value.
⑤ The formula of humanity as an end is a concept that can be applied to interactions with others, but not with oneself. 

37. 윗글의 내용을 다음과 같이 요약할 때, 빈칸 (A)~(C)에 들어갈 말로 가장 적절한것은?
Kant contrasts duty with inclination, autonomy with heteronomy, and categorical with hypothetical imperatives, arguing that the moral worth of an action is determined by the motive of (A)______, true freedom is acting (B)______, governed by self-given laws, and such a law comes from reason through (C)______ imperatives. The imperatives emphasize that actions should be universalizable and that humanity, possessing intrinsic dignity, should always be treated as an end, not merely as a means.

(A) (B) (C)
① duty — autonomously — categorical
② duty — heteronomously — hypothetical
③ inclination — autonomously — categorical
④ inclination — autonomously — hypothetical
⑤ inclination — heteronomously — hypothetical

38. 다음 밑줄 친 부분 중 문맥상 적절하지 ‘않은‘ 것은?

Social mobility is ①rising or downward movement in social position over time in a society. That movement can be specific to individuals who change social positions or to categories of people, such as racial or ethnic groups. Social mobility between generations is referred to as intergenerational mobility. The self-made myth suggests that social position in the United States is largely up to the individual, implying that mobility is quite ②frequent and easy to achieve for those who apply themselves. However, what people believe and what is fact are often not the same. A recent experimental study found that Americans substantially and consistently ③underestimate the amount of income mobility and educational access in society. The higher one’s social class, the more likely they are to overestimate social mobility. In other words, wealthy Americans tend to subscribe to the belief that pulling oneself out of ④poverty is easier than it actually is and that one’s wealth is a result of hard work and ⑤effort, rather than luck or birth.

39. 다음 밑줄 친 부분 중 문맥상 적절하지 ‘않은‘ 것은?

It could be argued that the ‘processual’ nature of personhood means that one becomes a person as one ‘goes along’ in society. Indeed, the African philosopher Ifeanyi Menkiti takes this position. He maintains that children are not ①completely human. Following Kwame Gyekye, a Ghanaian philosopher, however, I would argue that the fact that personhood must be ②obtained is not a denial of personhood to children. It is an affirmation of the view that personhood is an ongoing process attained through interactions with others and one’s community. It requires one to affirm ideals and standards thought to be constitutive of the life of a community. These are standards such as generosity, benevolence and ③esteem. A number of sayings in some African societies refer to people who have ④succeeded to meet standards expected of a fully human person. These are sayings such as ga e se motho (Tswana) or a ku si muntu (Nguni), literally meaning ‘he or she is not a person’. Because one can fall short of these standards at any stage in the life cycle, personhood could be regarded as a ⑤becoming. It is an unpredictable, open-ended process during which personhood may be achieved, lost, and regained, depending on a person’s circumstances.

40. 다음 밑줄 친 부분 중 문맥상 적절하지 ‘않은‘ 것은?

Insects attract collectors’ attention because they are ①incredibly diverse and often bear spectacular colors. To biologists, however, bright coloration has been a ②rarely renewed puzzle because it makes an insect a highly visible prey to prospective predators. Charles Darwin understood that bright colors or exaggerated forms could evolve via sexual selection, the process by which individuals compete for access to mates and fertilization opportunities. However, he felt sexual selection could not ③explain the striking color pattern of nonreproductive larvae in, for example, Pseudosphinx hawk moth caterpillars. In a reply to Darwin about this puzzle, Alfred R. Wallace proposed that bright colors could ④promote the distastefulness of the caterpillars to experienced predators. Indeed, prey that are not edible to predators are predicted to ⑤benefit by exhibiting very recognizable colors; experienced predators can then correctly identify and subsequently avoid attacking such prey. E. B. Poulton later developed this idea, expanded it to other warning signals (ie, sounds or smells), and coined the term aposematism to describe this phenomenon (from the Greek “away” and “sign”).

41. 다음 글의 내용과 일치하는 것을 3개 고르시오.

Ritual is a set of catalytic messages, effecting transformation of state from one season of the year or one stage of the life cycle to another. State refers either to a social and biological stage in life ― adolescence or adulthood, for example ― or to social status, such as graduate student or doctor of philosophy. Many vertebrate species ― especially birds but fish and mammals, too ― have ritual. In these animals ritual is triggered by certain messages or symbols in response to chemical messages from the genes. For example, among the three-spined stickleback fish, the male’s zigzag courtship dance, whereby he entices a prospective mate to his nest, is triggered by the sight of her red belly, which is the signal that she is biologically ready to lay eggs. We assume, further, that the form of the zigzag dance itself is genetically programmed in the male’s nervous system. In any case, the ritual effects his transformation into a parent that tends the eggs in his nest.

① Rituals can change a person’s social status, like becoming a doctor.
② Only birds have rituals among vertebrate species.
③ The three-spined stickleback fish performs a zigzag dance as part of its mating ritual.
④ The male stickleback’s dance is initiated by the female’s green belly.
⑤ The zigzag dance is believed to be hardwired in the male stickleback’s brain.

42. 주어진 글 다음에 이어질 글의 순서로 가장 적절한 것을 고르시오.

Why are certain languages mistakenly thought to be primitive? There are several reasons. Some people consider other languages ugly or “primitive sounding” if those languages make use of sounds or sound combinations they find unclear because the sounds are greatly different from those of the languages they themselves speak.

(A) To a native speaker of English, the Czech word scvrnkls “you flicked off (something) with your finger” looks quite strange, and its pronunciation may sound odd and even impossible because there is no vowel among the eight consonants; for native speakers of Czech, of course, scvrnkls is just another word.
(B) Such a view is based on the ethnocentric attitude that the characteristics of one’s own language are obviously superior. But words that seem unpronounceable to speakers of one language ― and are therefore considered obscure or even grotesque ― are easily acquired by even the youngest native speakers of the language in which they occur.
(C) Which speech sounds are used and how they are combined to form words and utterances vary from one language to the next, and speakers of no language can claim that their language has done the selecting and combining better than another.

① (A) – (C) – (B) ② (B) – (A) – (C) ③ (B) – (C) – (A)
④ (C) – (A) – (B) ⑤ (C) – (B) – (A)

43. 주어진 글 다음에 이어질 글의 순서로 가장 적절한 것을 고르시오.

When we are in groups, we tend to feel that we, personally, aren’t as responsible as we would be if we were acting on our own.

(A) If one person is advocating a risky strategy early on, others may begin to think of even more challenging examples, and that leads the discussion towards reaching a riskier decision. But if someone advocates more cautious approaches at an early stage, this too can influence the direction of the discussion, resulting in a more cautious decision than the group members might have made individually.
(B) Sometimes, though, they make choices that are too cautious. It’s known as group polarization: a tendency towards extremes. A lot depends on how the discussions in the group develop.
(C) So the decisions that the group makes can easily become extreme. Occasionally, groups reach riskier decisions ― they decide to take actions which are more challenging or unsafe than they should be.

① (A) – (C) – (B) ② (B) – (A) – (C) ③ (B) – (C) – (A)
④ (C) – (A) – (B) ⑤ (C) – (B) – (A)

44. 주어진 글 다음에 이어질 글의 순서로 가장 적절한 것을 고르시오.

What do we want to hear when asking the question why John slammed the door?

(A) We normally are not interested in a report of the chain of causes and effects leading up to the slamming. Neither do we expect to hear a report about micro-processes in John’s body causing his movements.
(B) Probably not that John put more than average energy into his act, giving the door more speed (which resulted in a heavy collision of the door with the doorpost, a loud noise and the lamp rocking back and forth).
(C) The why-question asks for reasons ― ‘He felt offended’, for instance. Even when we think in a materialistic frame of mind that the state of being offended can be traced in John’s brain, we usually will not be interested in an answer in neurological terms. So, normally, in our day-to-day why-questions about people’s actions we expect to hear about their reasons.

① (A) – (C) – (B) ② (B) – (A) – (C) ③ (B) – (C) – (A)
④ (C) – (A) – (B) ⑤ (C) – (B) – (A)

45. 주어진 글 다음에 이어질 글의 순서로 가장 적절한 것을 고르시오.

There is a saying made famous by the Nobel memorial prize-winning economist Milton Friedman that ‘There’s no such thing as a free lunch’ ― that we can’t magic wealth out of nothing (say, by printing money) or shift costs into the ether.

(A) So even if a meal is priced at zero, someone, somewhere is paying for it. Modern economics may disparage the concept of free lunches, yet, today, one often gets a sense from key economists and policy-makers that a free lunch isn’t that far away.
(B) Friedman’s view was that if we legislate to reduce a burden on some citizens, or to increase the advantages they may enjoy, there will be repercussions somewhere down the line that will involve a cost for others and might even ultimately mean the measure is counterproductive.
(C) Economics aims to show how we can generate growth by identifying more efficient ways of organising society, thereby making us richer and, hopefully, happier, with the least amount of sacrifice on our part. Such a utopia is achievable, economists believe, because they understand the mechanisms that drive everything from business investment and production decisions to consumer purchase choices, to individual attitudes to saving.

① (A) – (C) – (B) ② (B) – (A) – (C) ③ (B) – (C) – (A)
④ (C) – (A) – (B) ⑤ (C) – (B) – (A)

46. 다음 글의 요지로 가장 적절한 것은?

Commodities do not go to market all on their own. Someone has to take them there. Goods must be moved, prices agreed, and only after a long and complicated process will the commodity in question be there for the end-user to enjoy. This applies to films and videos as much as it does to any other commodity, and it applies even in that sector of the film and video business that likes to think of itself as remote from and even antagonistic to the regular processes of commodity exchange. But perhaps because of this aversion, the process by which commodities get to market ― generally referred to in the film trade as distribution ― is the least studied of all the aspects of cinema and other forms of moving image. A lot is written about film and video production, about the films and videos produced and about how they are perceived/received by the spectator, but very little about the intermediate stages between production and consumption. Sometimes it seems as if, in the world of cinema and the moving image, commodities do indeed mysteriously get to market all on their own.

① The distribution of films and videos is a complex process that is often overlooked despite its importance.
② The production of films and videos is a more popular subject of study than their distribution.
③ Commodities, including films and videos, magically appear in the market without any effort.
④ The process of commodities reaching the end-user is simple and straightforward.
⑤ Films and videos are unique commodities that are not subject to the normal processes of commodity exchange.