한영1 5주차 진단고사
Quiz Summary
0 of 10 Questions completed
Questions:
Information
You have already completed the quiz before. Hence you can not start it again.
Quiz is loading…
You must sign in or sign up to start the quiz.
You must first complete the following:
Results
Results
0 of 10 Questions answered correctly
Your time:
Time has elapsed
You have reached 0 of 0 point(s), (0)
Earned Point(s): 0 of 0, (0)
0 Essay(s) Pending (Possible Point(s): 0)
Average score |
|
Your score |
|
Categories
- Not categorized 0%
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Current
- Review
- Answered
- Correct
- Incorrect
-
Question 1 of 10
1. Question
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 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. It lives out its days in wretched misery.
<They all know 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, that would be a good thing, 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 they are not—even if 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.
1. 윗글의 내용과 일치하는 것을 2개 고르시오.
① The story by Ursula K. Le Guin is about a city known for its misery and suffering.
② The child in the basement is crucial for the city’s prosperity and happiness.
③ Omelas has a stock exchange and advertisements.
④ All the citizens of Omelas are aware of the child’s existence and condition.
⑤ The story suggests that improving the child’s situation would enhance Omelas’ prosperity.
CorrectIncorrect -
Question 2 of 10
2. Question
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. This nonjudgmental spirit 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.
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 that it is. 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 them.
2. 윗글의 내용과 일치하지 않는 것을 고르시오.
① 벤담의 공리주의는 행복을 측정하고 집계하여 계산함으로써 도덕의 과학을 제공한다고 주장한다.
② 벤담의 공리주의는 모든 사람의 선호도를 동등하게 고려하지 않는다.
③ 벤담의 공리주의의 매력 중 하나는 그것이 가치 판단을 하지 않는다는 데 있다.
④ 벤담의 공리주의는 모든 도덕적 가치를 하나의 가치 통화로 전환할 수 있다고 주장한다.
⑤ 정부와 기업이 널리 사용하는 비용-편익 분석은 모든 비용과 이익을 금전적인 용어로 번역한다.
CorrectIncorrect -
Question 3 of 10
3. Question
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.”
3. 윗글의 내용과 일치하지 않는 것을 고르시오.
① 에드워드 손다이크는 1930년대에 가난한 청년들을 대상으로 설문조사를 실시했다.
② 손다이크의 설문조사에서 사람들은 앞니를 뽑는 것에 대해 가장 낮은 가격을 매겼다.
③ 손다이크는 모든 욕구나 만족감이 어느 정도의 양으로 존재하므로 측정 가능하다고 주장했다.
④ 손다이크의 설문조사에서 캔자스 농장에서 평생을 살아야 하는 것이 가장 불쾌한 것으로 여겨졌다.
⑤ 모든 응답자들이 설문조사에 나온 모든 경험에 대해 일정 금액을 받겠다고 답했다.
CorrectIncorrect -
Question 4 of 10
4. Question
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 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 it is not, subjecting prevailing opinion to a vigorous contest of ideas will prevent 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.
4. 윗글의 내용과 일치하는 것을 2개 고르시오.
① 밀은 개인의 자유를 최대한 존중하는 것이 장기적으로 인류의 행복을 극대화한다고 주장했다.
② 밀은 저서 『자유론』을 통해 벤담의 공리주의를 반박하고자 시도했다.
③ 밀에 따르면 정부는 개인이 자신에게 해를 끼치는 것을 방지하기 위해 개인의 자유에 간섭할 수 있다.
④ 밀은 개인이 자기 자신에게 해를 입히는 행위에 대해 사회에 책임을 져야 한다고 주장했다.
⑤ 밀은 다수의 신념을 강요하거나 비판적 사고를 검열하는 것이 단기적으로는 유용성을 극대화할 수 있다고 생각했다.
CorrectIncorrect -
Question 5 of 10
5. Question
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 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.”
5. 윗글의 내용과 일치하는 것을 고르시오.
① Bentham considers the duration of pleasure as irrelevant to its value.
② According to Bentham, all pleasures are of the same quality.
③ Mill agrees with Bentham on the impossibility of distinguishing between pleasures.
④ Mill’s criterion for higher pleasures depends on the *intrinsic value of the pleasure.
⑤ Mill uses moral principles other than utility to differentiate pleasures.
*intrinsic: 내재된
CorrectIncorrect -
Question 6 of 10
6. Question
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 this point in a memorable passage: “It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied. And if the fool, or the pig, are of a different opinion, it is because they only know their own side of the question.”
6. 윗글의 내용과 일치하지 않는 것을 2개 고르시오.
① Mill believes that higher faculties don’t necessarily lead to more happiness.
② Mill suggests that people *inherently prefer a dignified life over one of simple contentment.
③ According to Mill, people never choose lower pleasures over higher ones.
④ Mill famously compares hungry Socrates and a full pig and says the former is better.
⑤ Mill thinks a human being dissatisfied is better than a pig satisfied because the former has more dignity.
*inherently: 선천적으로
CorrectIncorrect -
Question 7 of 10
7. Question
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? Had the heavy man jumped 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. Had Parker chosen 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 help themselves to 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 many arguments for 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 not easy to embrace.
7. 윗글의 내용과 일치하지 않는 것을 2개 고르시오.
① 개인의 권리를 위한 강력한 근거를 찾고자 하는 사람들에게 자기 소유권 개념은 매력적이다.
② 자기 소유권은 내가 국가나 정치 공동체가 아닌 나 자신에게 속한다는 개념이다.
③ 자유지상주의자들은 Parker가 자신의 목숨을 자발적으로 희생하여 배고픈 동료들을 구하는 것에 반대한다.
④ 자유지상주의는 John Stuart Mill이 창시한 이론으로, 개인의 자유를 가장 중시한다.
⑤ 자기 소유권의 개념은 타인에게 해를 끼치지 않는 한 내 몸과 인생을 원하는 대로 사용할 수 있다고 주장한다.CorrectIncorrect -
Question 8 of 10
8. Question
In the mid-20th century, companies drilling for natural gas started developing new ways of ①extracting it from shale and other underground rock. Being trapped in pores in the rock, such resources were previously ②accessible. The Barnett Shale formation in Texas was a gas ③abundant area where these new methods could be put to use ④effectively. But getting the gas out of the shale proved to be very difficult because the pores in the shale were too small to allow the gas to move into the well. Eventually, the drillers figured out that they could cause the shale to fracture by pumping highly pressurized water down the well. Then the gas would be ⑤discharged and could move easily through the cracks and up the well. This technique is called “fracking,” which is short for “hydraulic fracking.” Fracking brought about great changes in the natural-gas industry and made it possible to access resources that had previously been out of reach.
8. 밑줄 친 부분 중 문맥상 적절하지 않은 단어는?
CorrectIncorrect -
Question 9 of 10
9. Question
Science tells us that all objects are made visible by means of light. In particular, white light ①is consisted of all the colors in the solar spectrum and shows things in what may be called their natural state. This can be seen in a rainbow, ②widely known to cause the sun’s rays being split up into their component parts. This light travels in straight lines and, upon striking objects before us, is reflected in all directions. Some of these rays, passing through a point ③situating behind the lens of the eye, strike the retina. When these rays of light are reflected by an object, they each undergo a certain modification. ④If the object should be a red one, all rays except red are absorbed by it, while the red ones are allowed to escape. These red rays strike the retina and produce certain effects ⑤where convey to our consciousness the singular sensation of red.
9. 어법상 맞는 부분을 고르시오.
CorrectIncorrect -
Question 10 of 10
10. Question
De-extinction, the process of bringing an extinct species back to life, remained for a long time at the boundary between fantasy and reality. When cloning technology was first being developed, animal clones were produced by inserting DNA into an egg whose own genetic contents had been removed. Scientists supplied a small electric shock in order to get the egg to begin dividing, and then they placed it in a surrogate mother. This almost always ended in a failed pregnancy, and even when an animal was successfully born, it often had serious health issues. Over the last ten years, though, scientists have figured out how to get adult animal cells to go back to an embryo-like state. From there, they can develop into any type of cell, including an egg cell. The egg can then develop into a fully grown embryo. Advanced new techniques like this could help bring long-gone species back to life.
10. What is the main idea of the passage?
① Cloning technology has evolved from its initial stages to potentially enable de-extinction.
② Scientists have always been able to clone animals without any complications.
③ De-extinction is a purely fictional concept that has no basis in reality.
④ The process of cloning involves removing the genetic contents of an egg and replacing it with DNA.
⑤ Most cloned animals that are born tend to live healthy, complication-free lives.CorrectIncorrect