초등 중등 고등 영어 자료실

 

2-1 .다음 빈 칸에 들어갈 말로 가장 적절한 것은?

 

Emotions are an important link between human nature and culture.

감정은 인간의 본성과 문화를 연결하는 중요한 고리이다.

The analysis of the place of emotions in human behavior has an extensive history.

인간의 행동에서 감정의 위치에 대한 분석은 긴 역사를 가지고 있다.

It starts appropriately with Darwin and his 1872 book The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals.

그것이 다윈과 그의 1872년의 책 ‘The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals’로 시작한다는 것은 적절하다.

Darwin believed that many, though not all, emotional expressions in humans are ______________.

다윈은 전부는 아니더라도 인간의 많은 감정의 표현들은 선천적이라고 믿었다.

In making his case, Darwin drew on four kinds of evidence.

자기주장의 정당성을 입증할때 ,다윈은 네가지 종류의 증거를 이용했다.

He pointed out that some emotional expressions appear in similar form in many nonhuman animals.

그는 일부 감정의 표현들은 인간 이외의 많은 동물들에게 비슷한 형태로 나타난다고 지적했다.

Some emotions also appear in very youn children before much opportunity for cultural learning has occurred.

일부 감정들은 또한 문화학습의 많은 기회가 생기기 전에 매우 어린 아이들에게 나타나기도 한다.

Moreover, some are expressed in identical ways by humans born blind and thus unalbe to mimic the appearance of a gesture or expression.

더욱이 어떤 것들은 시각장애인으로 태어나서 몸동작이나 (감정) 표현의 모습을 흉내 낼 수 없는 인간에 의해 동일한 방식으로 표현된다.

Finally, many emotional expressions appear in similar from across all human groups.

마지막으로 많은 감정의 표현 들은 모든 인간의 집단에 두루 비슷한 형태로 나타난다.

Smiling is an example of an emotion that offers all four of these kinds of evidence.

미소짓는것은 이런 모든 네가지 종류의 증거를 제공하는 감정의 한 사례 이다.

 

(1) innate

(2) functional

(3) predictive

(4) contagious

(5) unreadable

 

 

어법고르기문제

Emotions are an important link between human nature and culture.

The analysis of the place of emotions in human behavior (have/has) an extensive history.

It starts appropriately with Darwin and his 1872 book The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals.

Darwin believed that many, though not all, emotional expressions in humans are ______________.

In making his case, Darwin drew on four kinds of evidence.

He pointed out that some emotional expressions (appeared/appear) in similar form in many nonhuman animals.

Some emotions also appear in very youn children before (many/much) opportunity for cultural learning (occurred/has occurred).

Moreover, some are (expressing/expressed) in identical ways (to/by) humans born blind and thus unalbe to mimic the appearance of a gesture or expression.

Finally, many emotional expressions (are appeared/appear) in similar from across all human groups.

Smiling is an example of an emotion that (is offered/offers) all four of these kinds of evidence.

 

 

 

 

2-2. 다음 빈칸에 들어갈 말로 가장 적절한 것은?

Different bacterial species need different nutrients ; some prefer sugar, and others live off fat.

서로 다른 박테리아 종에게는 서로 다른 영양소가 필요하다. 어떤 것들은 당분을 선호하고, 다른 것들은 지방으로 살아간다.

But they not only fight with one another for food, and to retain a foothold in the ecosystem.

그러나 그것들은 먹이를 얻기 위해서, 그리고 생태계 내에서 발판을 유지하기 위해서, 서로 간에 싸우기만 하는 것은 아니다.

Your gut bugs often want different things than you do, and they’re not shy about going after their goals.

소화관 미생물은 흔히 여러분이 원하는 것과는 다른 것들을 원하며, 자신들의 목표를 추구하는 것을 두려워하지 않는다.

Your gut bugs have the ability to impact your behavior and mood by altering the neural signals in your vagus nerve.

소화관 미생물은 여러분의 미주 신경의 신경 신호를 바꿈으로써 여러분의 행동과 기분에 영향을 미치는 능력을 가지고 있다.

They change taste receptors and produce toxins to make you feel bad when you don’t eat the things they want, or release chemical rewards to make you feel good when you do.

그것들은 자신들이 원하는 것을 여러분이 먹지 않을 때 미각 수용기를 변화시키고 독소를 생산하여 여러분을 기분 나쁘게 만들거나, 여러분이 ‘그것들이 원하는 것을 먹을’ 때 화학적 보상 물질을 방출하여 여러분을 기분 좋게 만든다.

So the bacteria inside your gut are actually manipulating you.

따라서 여러분 소화관 내의 박테리아는 사실상 여러분을 조종하고 있다.

It’s important to understand this, because it’s what makes it so hard to change your diet : the bugs inside you are playing you like a big marionette, trying to force you to give them what they crave.

이것을 이해하는 것이 중요한데, 왜냐하면 그것이 바로 여러분의 식단을 바꾸는 것을 매우 어렵게 만들기 때문이다.
: 몸속의 미생물은 여러분을 큰 꼭두각시처럼 다뤄 그것들이 몹시 원하는 것을 여러분이 주도록 강요하고자 한다.

It’s a                        approach.

그것은 당근과 채찍 접근법이다.

 

(1) hit - or - miss      (2) trial - and - error   (3) fight - or - flight   (4) carrot and stick   (5) needle and thread 

 

 

어법고르기문제 ( )괄호안에 숫자는 틀린 단어 숫자 

Different bacterial species need different nutrients ; some prefer sugar, and the others live off fat. (1)

But they not only fight with one other for food, and retain a foothold in the ecosystem. (틀린단어1/빠진단어1)

Your gut bugs often want different things than you are, and they’re not shy about going after their goals.(1)

Your gut bugs have the ability to impact your behavior and mood (of/by) altering the neural signals in your vagus nerve.

They change taste receptors and produce toxins to make you feel bad when you don’t eat the things they want, or release chemical rewards (making/to make) you feel good when you do.

So the bacteria inside your gut (is/are) actually (manipulated by/manipulating) you.

It’s important to understand this, because it’s what makes them so hard to change your diet : the bugs inside you are played you like a big marionette, try to force you to give them what they crave.(3) 

It’s a                        approach.

 

 

 

 

 

 

2-3. 다음 빈칸에 들어갈 말로 가장 적절한 것은?

Ideas can be misleading when they are taken out of the big picture context, or when something is evaluated without reference to its alternatives.

개념이오도할수있는경우는그개념이전체 상황의 맥락 밖으로 내보내질 때, 혹은 어떤 것이 다른 방도를 참고하지 않고서 평가될 때이다.

Imagine someone said that he is from a place where a loaf of bread costs a nickel.

어떤 사람이 빵 한 덩이가 5센트인 곳 출신이라고 말했다고 가정해 보라.

To make that information meaningful, most people would automatically ask about the typical earnings of an individual from that place.

그 정보를 유의미하게 만들기 위해서, 대부분의 사람들은 자동적으로 그곳 사람의 일반적인 소득에 관하여 물을 것이다.

However, too often when we receive information, we fail to ask, “compared to what?”

그러나 우리는 정보를 받을 때, “무엇에 비해?”라고 묻지 않는 경우가 너무 많다.

For example, if the news tells us that a new surgical method has led to 3,000 deaths, we jump to the conclusion that the surgical method is dangerous.

예를 들어 뉴스가 우리에게 새로운 수술 방법이 3,000명의 사망을 일으켰다고 말할 때 우리는 그 수술 방법이 위험 하다는 속단을 내린다.

But dangerous relative to what ?

그러나 무엇에 비해 위험한가?

Does not having surgery to correct the illness lead to more deaths?

그질병을 고치는 수술을 받지 않는것이 더 많은 사망을 일으키는가?

What treatment was used previously, and how did patients fare with it?

전에 어떤 치료법이 사용되었는가, 그리고 환자들이 그것으로 어떻게 되었는가?

will help you accurately evaluate the pros and cons of a decision.

적절한 상황에서 쟁점을 고려하는 것이 어느 결정에 대한 장단점을 정확하게 평가하는 데 도움을 줄 것이다.

(1) Reviewing the past to get better alternatives

(2) Considering issues in an appropriate context

(3) Understanding what kinds of problems can arise

(4) Analyzing the statistics presented by third parties

 (5) Distinguishing between causation and coincidence

 

 

어법문제 

Ideas can be (misled/misleading) when they are (taking/taken) out of the big picture context, or when something is evaluated without reference to its alternatives.

Imagine someone said that he is from a place which a loaf of bread costs a nickel.(1)

To make that information meaningfully, most people would automatically ask about the typically earnings of an individual from that place.(2)

However, too often when we receive information, we fail to ask, “(comparing/compared) to what?”

For example, if the news tells us that a new surgical method (leads/has led) to 3,000 deaths, we jump to the conclusion that the surgical method is dangerous.

But dangerous relative to (where/what) ?

Does not (have/having) surgery to correct the illness lead to more deaths?

What treatment was used previously, and how (was/did) patients fare with it?

will help you accurately evaluating the pros and cons of a decision.(1) 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2-4.  다음 빈칸에 들어갈 말로 가장 적절한 것은?

Because all evidence of the past can only be found in the present, creating a story about the past inevitably implies interpreting this evidence in terms of processes with a certain history of its own.

과거의모든증거가현재에만발견될수있기 때문에, 과거에 관한 이야기를 만들어내는 것은 필연적으로 그 자체의 특정한 역사를 가진 과정의 관점에서 이런 증거를 해석하는 것을 수반한다.

We do so, because we experience both the surrounding environment and our own persons to be such processes.

우리가 그렇게 하는 이유는, 주변 환경과 우리 자신의 모습이 둘 다 그런 과정임을 경험으로 알기 때문이다.

As a result, all historical accounts are reconstructions of some sort, and thus likely to change over time.

결과적으로 모든 역사적 설명은 일종의 재구성이며, 따라서 시간이 지나면서 변할 가능성이 있다.

This also means that the study of history cannot offer absolute certainties, but only approximations, of a reality that once was.

이것은 또한 역사의 연구가 한때 있었던 사실에 대한 절대적인 확신이 아니라 오직 근사치만을 제공할 수 있다는 것을 의미하기도 한다.

In other words,                                     .

다시 말해서 진정한 역사적 설명은 존재하지 않는다.

This may sound as if there is endless leeway in the ways the past is viewed.

이것은 마치 과거를 보는 방식에 끊임없는 자유재량의 여지가 있는 것처럼 들릴 수 있다.

In my opinion, that is not the case.

내 생각으로는 그것은 사실이 아니다.

Just as in any other field of science, the major test for historical reconstructions is whether, and to what extent, they accommodate the existing data in a concise and precise manner.

다른 모든 과학의 분야에서처럼, 역사적 재구성을 위한 주요 기준은, 그것이 현존하는 자료를 간결하고 정확하게 담아내는지의 여부와 그 정도이다.

* fare 되어가다, 지내다 * approximation 근사치 ** leeway 자유재량의 여지 

(1) true historical accounts do not exist

(2) rewriting history can predict the future

(3) history is considered more potent than myth

(4) there is no neat history of political correctness

(5) those who forget history are doomed to repeat it

 

어법문제

Because all evidence of the past can only (be found/find) in the present, (creating/created) a story about the past inevitably implies interpreting this evidence in terms of processes with a certain history of its own.

We (did/do) so, because we experience both the (surrounded/surrounding) environment and our own persons to be such processes.

As a result, all historical accounts (is/are) reconstructions of some sort, and thus likely to change over time.

This also means that the study of history cannot offer absolute certainties, but only approximations, of a reality that once (did/was).

In other words,                    .

This may sound as if there is endless leeway in the ways the past (is viewed/viewed).

In my opinion, that is not the case.

Just as in any (another/other) field of science, the major test for historical reconstructions (being/is) whether, and (to what/to which) extent, they accommodate the existing data in a concise and precise manner.

 

 

 

 

 

2-5.  다음 빈칸에 들어갈 말로 가장 적절한 것은?

Sleep is essentially a time-management adaptation.

수면은 본질적으로 시간 관리의 적응이다.

Our body’s internal clock evolved to keep us out of circulation when there’s not much of a living to be made — at 3 A.M., for instance — and awake when there is.

우리신체의체내시계는진화해서가령새벽 3시처럼 꾸릴 생계가 많이 없는 때에는 우리가 활동을 하지 않고, 꾸릴 생계가 많을 때에는 깨어있게 되었다.

Consider the brown bat, perhaps the longest-sleeping mammal of them all.

모든 포유류중 에 아마도 가장 잠을 오래자는 갈색 박쥐를 생각해 보라.

It sleeps twenty hours a day and spends the other four, at dusk, hunting mosquitoes and moths.

그 박쥐는 하루에 스무시간동안 잠을 자고 나머지 네 시간을 해질 무렵에 모기와 나방을 사냥하며 보낸다.

Why only four hours at dusk?

왜 해 질 무렵 단지 네 시간 뿐일까? 

Because that’s when food is plentiful.

그때가 먹이가 풍부한 때이기 때문이다.

But also because, as Jerome Siegel, a neuroscientist at UCLA, says, “increased waking time would seem to be highly maladaptive for this animal, since it would expend energy and be exposed to predatory birds with better vision and better flight abilities.”

뿐만 아니라 UCLA의 신경 과학자인 Jerome Siegel이 말하듯 “깨어있는 시간의 증가는 이 동물에게 매우 부적응적인 것처럼 보일 텐데, 왜냐 하면그렇게되면그동물이에너지를소비할 것이고, 더 좋은 시력과 더 좋은 비행 능력을 갖춘 육식성 조류에 노출될 것이기 때문이다.”

Siegel argues that our obsession with sleep quality and duration is, in a sense, backward.

우리가 수면의 질과 지속 시간에 집착을 하는 것이 어떤 의미에 있어서는 퇴행적이라고 Siegel은 주장한다.

“We spend a third of our life sleeping, which seems so maladaptive — ‘the biggest mistake nature has made,’ scientists often call it,” he told me.

“우리는 잠을 자며 인생의 3분의 1을 보내는데, 이는 매우 부적응적으로 보이고, 과학자 들은 흔히 이를 ‘자연이 한 최대의 실수’라고 부른다.”라고 그는 나에게 말했다.

“Another way of looking at it is that                          .”    

“관점을 바꿔서 생각하면 불필요하게 깨어있는 것이 더 큰 실수이다.”

 

(1) lack of sleep triggers a stress response

(2) unnecessary wakefulness is a bigger mistake

(3) animals perceive time differently than humans

(4) sleeping better is a way to make fewer mistakes

(5) no complex mechanism is needed to control sleep

 

 

 

어법문제

Sleep is essentially a time-management (adoption/adaptation).

Our body’s internal clock (evolving/evolved) to keep us out of circulation when there’s not much of a living to be made — at 3 A.M., for instance — and awake when there is.

(Considering/Consider) the brown bat, perhaps the longest-sleeping mammal of them all.

It sleeps twenty hours a day and spends the other four, at dusk, (hunt/hunting) mosquitoes and moths.

Why only four hours at dusk?

Because that’s (why/when) food is plentiful.

But also because, as Jerome Siegel, a neuroscientist at UCLA, says, “increased (woken/waking) time would seem to be (high/highly) maladaptive for this animal, since it would expend energy and (expose/be exposed) to predatory birds with better vision and better flight abilities.”

Siegel argues that our obsession with sleep quality and duration (be/is), in a sense, backward.

“We spend a third of our life sleeping, (where/which) seems so maladaptive — ‘the biggest mistake nature (had/has) made,’ scientists often call it,” he told me.

“Another way of looking at it is that .”

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2-6.  다음 글의 빈칸 (A), (B)에 들어갈 말로 가장 적절한 것은?

Through recent decades academic archaeologists have been urged to conduct their research and excavations according to hypothesis-testing procedures.

최근 몇 십년 동안 내내 학계의 고고학자들은가설 검증 절차에 따라 연구와 발굴을 수행하라고 촉구받아 왔다.

It has been argued that we should construct our general theories, deduce testable propositions and prove or disprove them against the sampled data.

우리가 일반적인 이론을 구축하고 검증할 수 있는 명제를 추론하며, 그것을 표본 자료와 비교하여 증명하거나 반증을 들어야 한다고 주장되어 왔다.

In fact, the application of this ‘scientific method’ often ran into difficulties.

사실 이런 ‘과학적 방법’의 적용은 자주 어려움에 봉착했다.

The data have a tendency to lead to unexpected questions, problems and issues.

자료는 예상치 못한 질문, 문제 그리고 쟁점을 일으키는 경향이 있다.

(A) , archaeologists claiming to follow hypothesis-testing procedures found themselves having to create a fiction.

따라서 가설 검증 절차를 따를 것을 주장하는 고고학자들은 자신도 모르게 가공의 이야기를 써야 했다.

In practice, their work and theoretical conclusions partly developed from the data which they had discovered.

실제는 그들의 연구물과 이론적 결론은 부분적으로 자신들이 발견했던 자료에서 비롯되었다.

(B) , they already knew the data when they decided upon an interpretation.

다시 말해서 그들이 어떤 해석으로 결정할 때 이미 그 자료를 알고 있었다.

But in presenting their work they rewrote the script, placing the theory first and claiming to have tested it against data which they discovered, as in an experiment under laboratory conditions.

그러나 연구물을 발표할 때 그들은 실험실 조건하의 실험에서처럼 이론을 먼저 두고 그것을 자신들이 발견한 자료와 비교하여 검증했다고 주장하면서 대본을 다시 작성했다.

* excavation 발굴, 굴착 ** deduce 추론하다, 연역하다 

(1) Thus ...... Instead

(2) Thus ...... In other words

(3) Besides ...... For instance

(4) However ...... In other words

 (5) However ...... For instance

 

 

어법문제

Through recent decades academic archaeologists have been (urging/urged) to conduct their research and excavations according to hypothesis-testing procedures.

It has (argued/been argued) that we should construct our general theories, (deducing/deduce) testable propositions and prove or (disproving/disprove) them against the sampled data.

In fact, the application of this ‘scientific method’ often ran into difficulties.

The data have a tendency to (leading/lead) to unexpected questions, problems and issues.

(A) , archaeologists (claimed/claiming) to follow hypothesis-testing procedures found themselves (had/having) to create a fiction.

In practice, their work and theoretical conclusions partly (had developed/developed) from the data which they had discovered.

(B) , they already knew the data when they (were decided/decided) upon an interpretation.

But in (present/presenting) their work they rewrote the script, placing the theory first and (claimed/claiming) to have tested it against data (what/which) they discovered, as in an experiment under laboratory conditions.