2024 한영2-1 중간 2주차 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
한영 2학년 2주차 진단고사
1. Which of the following can be inferred from the passage?
This simple image is one of the most widely used measures of subjective social status. Let’s call it the Status Ladder. We should be able to perfectly predict where a person would place himself on the ladder if we knew his income, level of education, and the prestige of his job.
Except we can’t—and we can’t even come close to doing so. It is true that, on average, people with higher incomes, more education, and more prestigious jobs do rate themselves higher on the ladder. But the effect is relatively small. In a sample of, say, a thousand people, some will rate themselves at the top, others will rate themselves at the bottom, and many will be in between. But only about 20 percent of their self-evaluation is based on income, education, and job status.
This surprisingly small relationship between traditional markers of status and how it is perceived subjectively means that there are a lot of people who are by objective standards affluent and yet rate themselves on the lower rungs. Similarly, many people who are objectively poor rate themselves high up the ladder.
① The majority of individuals base their self-evaluation on factors other than income, education, and job status.
② People with lower incomes invariably perceive themselves to be at the bottom of the Status Ladder.
③ Education is the most significant predictor of where someone will place themselves on the Status Ladder.
④ The subjective social status of a person is solely determined by their job prestige.
⑤ Most of he population can accurately assess their position on the Status Ladder based on traditional status indicators.
CorrectIncorrect -
Question 2 of 10
2. Question
2. 다음 글의 ⓐ ~ ⓔ 중에서 문맥상 틀린 것을 2개 고르시오.
A standard economic analysis would argue that people’s own conceptions of themselves are effectively ⓐairy nothings, mere noises that flit around like the sound of static between radio stations. If subjective perceptions do not align with objectively measurable quantities like money, then so much the ⓑworse for those perceptions. Certainly, money is part of the story, but it’s not the whole story, and not even the main character. We have to take ⓒobjective perceptions of status seriously, because they reveal so much about people’s fates. If you place yourself on a lower rung, then you are ⓓmore likely in the coming years to suffer from depression, anxiety, and chronic pain. The lower the rung you select, the ⓔmore probable it is that you will make good decisions and perform well at work. The lower the rung you select, the more prone you are to weight issues, diabetes, and heart problems.
① ⓐ ② ⓑ ③ ⓒ ④ ⓓ ⑤ ⓔ
CorrectIncorrect -
Question 3 of 10
3. Question
3. 밑줄친 부분의 의미로 적절하지 않은 것은?
Let me be clear that I am not simply asserting that, if you are poor, then all of these things are more likely to happen to you. I am stating, rather, that these things are more likely to happen to you if you feel poor, regardless of your actual income. Of course, one reason people might feel poor is that they are actually poor. But as we have seen, that’s just 20 percent of the story. For the rest of it, we have to look at ordinary middle-class people and ask why it is that, regardless of actual money, so many of them (A)[feel that they are barely getting by], that they (B)[are living paycheck to paycheck], and that if they could just earn a little more, then everything would be a little bit better. To understand the Status Ladder, we have to look beyond bank accounts and start looking at people.
All of us are aware of how much money we make, but very few of us know whether we make enough. That’s because the only way we determine how much is actually “enough” is by (C)[comparing ourselves to other people]. We make comparisons to other people so habitually that we rarely even notice that we are doing so. When a neighbor pulls up in a new car, we don’t typically say to ourselves, “They have an Audi, so I need one, too.” We are more sophisticated and mature than that. We might tell ourselves that our neighbor’s good fortune is none of our business, or that she deserves the new car because of her hard work. If we do have an immediate impulse to keep pace with her, we might banish the thought as soon as it appears. And yet, the next time we get in our own car, (D)[we notice just a little more than yesterday how worn the seat is getting]. (E)[Social comparison is inevitable].
① (A) : Many middle-class individuals perceive themselves as struggling to make ends meet, despite their income levels.
② (B) : People often find themselves penniless before they get the next salary.
③ (C) : Judging personal success by examining others’ lives and possessions is a common yet subconscious behavior.
④ (D) : Our awareness of our possessions’ inferiority grows as soon as take notice of others’ superior possessions.
⑤ (E) : It’s impossible to avoid comparing oneself to others in society.
CorrectIncorrect -
Question 4 of 10
4. Question
4. 다음 글의 빈칸에 들어갈 말로 적절하지 않은 것을 2개 고르시오.
While we feel rich or poor based on the comparisons we make, (A)[the fact that social comparisons always take place in the background causes certain blind spots]. Think for a minute about what matters most to you. What are the values that make you who you are? What are the motives that drive you? I have asked hundreds of people these questions over the years, and the usual responses include such ideals as love, faith, loyalty, honesty, and integrity. Although there is some variety in the answers, (B)[the whole list could be written on a business card]. They are similar for men and for women, for Northerners and for Southerners, for Democrats and for Republicans. And yet, no one ever mentions something that we know to be true, both from scientific studies and from simply being human: (C)[“I crave status.”]
Others might not acknowledge that, but we can certainly see it in their behavior. We can observe it in the clothes they buy, in the houses they choose to live in, and in the gifts they give. Above all we can perceive it (D)[in the constantly shifting standards for what counts as “enough.”] If you have ever received a raise, only to adapt to the new level of income in a few months and again begin to feel as though you were still living paycheck to paycheck as before, then you can experience it in yourself. As your accomplishments rise, so do your comparison standards. Unlike the rigid columns of numbers that make up a bank ledger, (E)[status is always a moving target], because it is defined by ongoing comparisons to others.
① (A): The fact that people constantly compare themselves to others in the background leads to certain blind spots in their perception.
② (B): The ideals that people claim to value most can be summarized in a very concise manner, such as on a small business card.
③ (C): Everyone desires to achieve higher status.
④ (D): in our consistent satisfaction with our current possessions and achievements.
⑤ (E): status is a fixed and unchanging concept
CorrectIncorrect -
Question 5 of 10
5. Question
5. 다음 글을 바탕으로 추론할 수 있는 것은?
We make social comparisons to all sorts of people on every type of occasion, yet we mysteriously manage to find ourselves on the top half of the Status Ladder again and again. We find it most comfortable to reside there. Consider for a minute how accomplished you are at your job. How intelligent are you? How moral? How loyal a friend? Are you a good driver? Deep down, you know that you are better than the average person in all these respects. In fact, the majority of people know deep down that they are better than average at most things. Which, as far as anyone can tell, is not strictly possible.
Why do we care so much about status? These tendencies are evolved rather than learned. If people really are born caring about equality, then we should be able to find evidence of it even in young children. For example, one study asked pairs of children to help an experimenter clean up some blocks. As a reward, the experimenter gave them some stickers. Sometimes the rewards were equal, and sometimes one child received more stickers than the other. Even though they could not yet verbalize that the unequal share was unfair, the children became visibly upset when they received less than their partner. As every parent of preschoolers knows, they do not need to be taught that receiving the same amount is fair but receiving less is unfair. It may take time to learn to count, but they seem to have an innate notion of fairness.
① People generally have a realistic perspective of their abilities and often place themselves accurately within social hierarchies.
② The universal inclination to view oneself as above average in various aspects might indicate a hardwired psychological mechanism aimed at boosting self-esteem.
③ Studies involving children and the distribution of rewards offer conclusive evidence that humans are naturally predisposed to value material wealth over fairness.
④ Adults develop a sense of fairness and equality over time, primarily through societal and educational influences that correct innate selfish tendencies.
⑤ The feeling of being upset over unequal rewards is a behavior exclusively learned from observing adult reactions to injustice and inequality.
CorrectIncorrect -
Question 6 of 10
6. Question
6. 밑줄친 부분의 의미로 적절하지 않은 것을 고르시오.
While it is hard to determine the extent of economic inequality in ancient times, we can guess that it was extremely high. Most large ancient agricultural societies had a king or other ruler with the power to command vast fortunes. On the low end of the social scale, the majority of ordinary people were peasants, and (A)[slavery was commonly practiced]. In modern history, income inequality reached its highest point in the late 1920s, immediately before the stock market crash of 1929 and the Great Depression that followed—its highest point, that is, until today. (B)[We have now reached the same level of inequality that existed prior to the Great Depression.]
If humans are not unique when it comes to caring about status, one distinction that we can claim is that we have built social ladders of such height that (C)[they dwarf those of our primate relatives and ancient hunter-gatherers]. This quantitative difference sets the stage for conflicts between the (D)[scale of inequality in which we evolved] and the (E)[scale that we confront today].
① (A): Slavery was a common aspect of ancient societies.
② (B): Today’s level of income inequality is unprecedented, never having been observed before in history.
③ (C): The social hierarchies humans have constructed far exceed those of any other species, including our ancient ancestors.
④ (D): The disparity in wealth and status that our ancestors lived with.
⑤ (E): The degree of inequality we face now.
CorrectIncorrect -
Question 7 of 10
7. Question
7. 다음 글의 내용과 일치하는 것을 2개 고르시오.
Consider the short span of human existence and what it might mean. Bacteria have lived on the planet for three billion years, mammals for three hundred million. Humans, in contrast, have been around for, at most, only a few hundred thousand. Language, complex culture, and the capacity for deliberate thought may have emerged only in the past fifty thousand years. By the standards of evolution, that’s not a lot of time for debugging, and a long time for the accumulation of prior evolutionary inertia.
Meanwhile, even though your average human makes its living in ways that are pretty different from those of the average monkey, the human genome and primate genomes scarcely differ. Measured nucleotide by nucleotide, the human genome is 98.5 percent identical to that of the chimpanzee. This suggests that the vast majority of our genetic material evolved in the context of creatures who didn’t have language, didn’t have culture, and didn’t reason deliberately.
① Bacteria have existed on Earth for three million years.
② Humans have been present for a shorter time than mammals.
③ Language and complex culture have been around for about 50,000 years.
④ The human genome is nearly 99% identical to that of the chimpanzee.
⑤ Our genetic material mostly evolved from creatures that had language and culture.CorrectIncorrect -
Question 8 of 10
8. Question
8. 다음 빈칸에 들어갈 말로 가장 적절한 것을 고르시오.
When I can do something stupid even as I know at the time that it’s stupid, it seems clear that my brain is a patchwork of multiple systems working in conflict. Evolution built the ancestral reflexive system first and evolved systems for rational deliberation second fine in itself. But any good engineer would have put some thought into integrating the two, perhaps largely or entirely turning over choices to the more judicious human forebrain. Instead, our ancestral system seems to be the default option, our first recourse just about all the time, whether we need it or not. We eschew our deliberative system not just during a time crunch, but also when we are tired, distracted, or just plain lazy; using the deliberative system seems to require an act of will. Why? Perhaps it’s simply because the older system came first, and — in systems built through the progressive overlay of technology — what comes first tends to remain intact. And no matter how shortsighted it is, our ________ inevitably winds up contaminated. Small wonder that future discounting is such a hard habit to shake.
① modern thinking
② ancestral system
③ critical thinking
④ emotional response
⑤ deliberative systemCorrectIncorrect -
Question 9 of 10
9. Question
9. 다음 글의 요지로 가장 적절한 것은?
We would be nowhere without memory; as Steven Pinker once wrote, “To a very great extent, our memories are ourselves.” Yet memory is arguably the mind’s original sin. So much is built on it, and yet it is, especially in comparison to computer memory, wildly unreliable. In no small part this is because we evolved not as computers but as actors, in the original sense of the word: as organisms that act, entities that perceive the world and behave in response to it. And that led to a memory system attuned to speed more than reliability. In many circumstances, especially those requiring snap decisions, recency, frequency, and context are powerful tools for mediating memory. For our ancestors, who lived almost entirely in the here and now, quick access to contextually relevant memories of recent events or frequently occurring ones helped navigate the challenges of seeking food or avoiding danger. But today, courts, employers, and many other facets of everyday life make demands that our pre-hominid predecessors rarely faced, requiring us to remember specific details, such as where we last put our keys (rather than where we tend, in general, to put them), where we’ve gotten particular information, and who told us what, and when.
① Memory is an essential aspect of our identity, but it is not as reliable as computer memory.
② The evolution of memory was primarily focused on speed and immediate relevance rather than accuracy.
③ Modern life places demands on memory that are significantly different from those faced by our ancestors.
④ The unreliability of human memory can be problematic in contemporary settings that require precise recall.
⑤ Human memory evolved to prioritize quick access to contextually relevant information over detailed accuracy.CorrectIncorrect -
Question 10 of 10
10. Question
10. 다음 글을 바탕으로 추론할 수 있는 것은?
If mankind were the product of some intelligent, compassionate designer, our thoughts would be rational, our logic impeccable. Our memory would be robust, our recollections reliable. Our sentences would be crisp, our words precise, our language systematic and regular, not besodden with irregular verbs and other peculiar inconsistencies.
At the same time, we humans are the only species smart enough to systematically plan for the future – yet dumb enough to ditch our most carefully made plans in favor of short-term gratification.
“.. evolution isn’t about perfection. It’s about what the late Nobel laureate Herb Simon called “satisficing,” obtaining an outcome that is good enough. That outcome might be beautiful and elegant, or it might be a kluge. Over time, evolution can lead to both: aspects of biology that are exquisite and aspects of biology that are at best rough-and-ready.”
① Human language is designed to be perfectly logical and systematic.
② Humans are incapable of planning for the future.
③ Evolution favors solutions that are immediately perfect and flawless.
④ The concept of “satisficing” suggests evolution prioritizes functionality over perfection.
⑤ Humans are the only species that never act against their long-term interests for immediate pleasure.CorrectIncorrect