2025학년도 수능대비 수능특강 Test 1 (요지,주장,주제,제목,함축의미,어법,어휘)

2025학년도 수능특강 Test 1 (요지, 주장, 주제, 제목, 함축의미, 어법, 어휘)  문제들을 Keywords, phrases, clauses, sentences을 찾은 후 글의 내용 파악해서 문제풀이를 하겠습니다.

"When clicked, the image enlarges

긴 문장은 구와 절 덩어리로 묶고 독해하기 편한 문장으로 보면 독해가 편해진다.

 

< 구: 두 단어 이상 > [ 절: 접주동 ]

구안에 절이 들어갈 수 도 절 안에 구가 들어갈 수도 있다. 덩어리를 잘 묶어 보면 문장이 어렵지 않게 보이기 시작한다.

< 명사구 > [ 명사절 ]: 것은, 것이, 것을, 것이다

< 형용사구 > [ 형용사절 ]: ~하는, ~할

< 부사구 > [ 부사절 ]: ~때, 때문, 라면, 일지라도 etc

 

고딕체만 보면 답이 보인다

 

2024년 서울대 진학률이 높은 고등학교 전국 37개 학교

[문제] 3 다음 글의 요지로 가장 적절한 것은?

There has been an effort by some economists to commodify ecosystem services, [which refer to benefits and resources [that humans obtain from natural ecosystems]]. Some ecosystem services are rival, such as the waste absorption capacity for greenhouse gases, so rationing is necessary. Making rationing possible requires excludable property rights, for example, through auctionable emission permits. If emissions are limited to absorption capacity and equitably distributed, commodification can be both sustainable and just. However, many ecosystem services are inherently non-excludable and non-rival and therefore cannot and should not be commodified. They should also not be ignored. Public services serve all members of the human community; economists recognize that these services are ill-suited to commodification and market allocation. Ecosystem services should not be defined as nature’s benefits to people, but rather as fund-services [that benefit all members of the biotic community, not simply humans]. Ecosystem services in general are an even worse fit for commodification than public services.

* rationing: 배급 ** biotic: 생물의

① 공공 서비스와 생태계 서비스는 시장 원리에 의해 좌우된다.

② 생태계 서비스는 인간의 이익을 우선하여 활용하는 것이 중요하다.

③ 생태계 서비스는 생물 군집 구성원 모두의 것이므로 상품화할 수 없다.

④ 공공의 이익을 위해 생태계를 효율적으로 개발하려는 노력이 필요하다.

⑤ 생태계 서비스를 공평하게 활용하기 위해 배급 제도의 시행이 시급하다.

 

[문제] 4 다음 글에서 필자가 주장하는 바로 가장 적절한 것은?

[If we think about our feelings as being part of us but not all [that we are]], then our feelings can feel more manageable. This idea is captured in this metaphor: you are the blue sky; your feelings are the weather. If you are the blue sky and your feelings are the weather, then just as the worst hurricane or tornado can’t damage the blue sky, and it eventually ends, your feelings can’t damage you, and eventually they will pass. Sometimes we just have to wait out the storm. Does that mean it’s fun to live through a tornado or a rainstorm? Of course not! Is it easier to live your life when it’s sunny and 80 degrees Fahrenheit compared to when it’s rainy and stormy? Of course! But if I let the weather determine what I can get done, I’ll forever be at the mercy of something I can’t control. Our job is to make space for our feelings, to be the blue sky, so we don’t have to engage in unhealthy habits to cope with our feelings and we can continue to do the things that matter to us.

① 긍정적인 감정을 유지하기 위해 다양한 관점을 수용해야 한다.

② 감정을 우리 존재의 일부로만 받아들여 그것에 휘둘리지 마라.

③ 미래의 편안하고 안락한 삶을 위해 현재의 어려움을 이겨내야 한다.

④ 고난이 끝나기만을 기다리기보다 그것에 적극적으로 대처해야 한다.

⑤ 삶에 중요한 것과 그렇지 않은 것을 구분 짓지 않고 최선을 다해야 한다.

 

[문제] 5 밑줄 친 They are stories가 다음 글에서 의미하는 바로 가장 적절한 것은?

In the lecture on memory, I ask my students to remember a list of words. It includes words like “dream” and “bed.” Then I ask them to write down the words they remember. Invariably, they (mis)remember hearing the word “sleep” even though I never said the word “sleep.” The idea of “sleep” is activated in the brain because other words in the same semantic network, words that have been associated with sleep through constant repetition, have also been activated. The word “sleep” is retrieved as if it were really heard. When people hear “bed,” they cannot help but hear “sleep.” When people hear “genes” or “intelligence” they cannot help but hear “race.” A reader new to this topic might therefore be surprised to learn that there is zero evidence [that genetics explains racial differences in outcomes like education]. Currently, stories about genetically rooted racial differences in the complex human traits relevant for social inequality in modern industrialized economies — traits like persistence and conscientiousness and creativity and abstract reasoning — are just that. They are stories.

* semantic:의미의 ** retrieve: 회상하다 *** conscientiousness: 성실성

① People are fond of stories related to racial equality.

② Words in the same semantic network are activated more easily.

③ People enjoy making up stories about dreams and social justice.

④ People’s racial prejudices about human traits have no genetic basis.

⑤ Words associated with race trigger emotional responses among people.

 

[문제] 6 다음 글의 주제로 가장 적절한 것은?

<Simplifying a problem> is [what opens it up to mathematical analysis], so inevitably some biological details get lost in translation from the real world to the equations. As a result, those who use mathematics are frequently criticized as being too disinterested in those details. In his 1897 book Advice for a Young Investigator, Santiago Ramón y Cajal (the father of modern neuroscience) wrote about these reality-avoiding theorists in a chapter entitled ‘Diseases of the Will’. He identified their symptoms as ‘a facility for exposition, a creative and restless imagination, an aversion to the laboratory, and an indomitable dislike for concrete science and seemingly unimportant data’. Cajal also complained about the theorist’s preference for beauty over facts. Biologists study living things that are abundant with specific traits and subtle exceptions to any rule. Mathematicians — driven by simplicity, elegance and the need to make things manageable — silence that abundance when they put it into equations.

* exposition: 설명 ** aversion: 혐오감 *** indomitable: 불굴의

① biological patterns explainable by mathematical models

② historical conflicts between biologists and mathematicians

③ misconceptions of mathematics as a discipline of abstraction

④ increasing importance of exceptional findings in biology research

⑤ criticisms of mathematicians for simplifying the richness of biology

 

[문제] 7 다음 글의 제목으로 가장 적절한 것은?

It’s important <to distinguish [what humans are doing, in following norms], from [what other animals are doing in their related patterns of behavior]>. An animal that decides not to pick a fight is, in most cases, simply worried about the risk of getting injured — not about some abstract “norm against violence.” Likewise, an animal that shares food with animals outside of its group is typically just trying to get future reciprocity — not following some “norm of food-sharing.” The incentives surrounding true norms are more complex. When we do something “wrong,” we have to worry about reprisal not just from the wronged party but also from third parties. Frequently, this means the entire rest of our local group, or at least a majority of it. Big strong Albert could easily steal from weak Bob without fearing trouble from Bob himself, but in human groups, Albert would then face punishment from the rest of the community. Collective enforcement, then, is the essence of norms. This is what enables the egalitarian political order so characteristic of the forager lifestyle.

* reciprocity: 호혜, 상호 이익 ** reprisal: 질책 *** egalitarian: 평등주의의

① What Makes Animals Share Food with Others

② Social Pressure: A Reason Humans Follow Norms

③ Group Size Impacts the Development of Social Norms

④ How Social Norms and Individual Thought Are Related

⑤ Difficulties of Establishing True Norms for a Healthy Community

 

[문제] 12 다음 글의 밑줄 친 부분 중, 어법상 틀린 것은?

From an evolutionary standpoint, <ensuring the continuation of our species (specifically, our genetic descendants)> ① is the meaning and purpose of life. But as intelligent animals, who can make decisions based on morality rather than biology, we could ask whether preserving our genome is worth any cost. Individual humans can and occasionally do make the choice ② to sacrifice their own lives in order to save the lives of other humans, or even non-human animals. But let’s examine that choice, between biology and morality, on a global scale: What if preserving the human species means eliminating or ③ abandoning all other life on Earth? What if it means humankind exists only in a state of misery and deprivation, in an ④ eternally inhospitable and alien environment? This is not to argue that space settlement will definitely result in these worst-case scenarios, but rather to ask whether there is any imaginable case ⑤ what allowing or causing humans to become extinct is the more ethical choice.

* genome: 게놈(세포나 생명체의 유전자 총체) ** alien: 이질적인

 

whether there is any imaginable case ⑤ [what allowing or causing humans to become extinct is the more ethical choice].

절의 문장은 완전하고 앞 명사를 수식하는 whtere로 바꿔야 한다.

 

[문제] 13 다음 글의 밑줄 친 부분 중, 문맥상 낱말의 쓰임이 적절하지 않은 것은?

In most business settings it is desirable <to put competitors out of business>. Naturally, fewer competitors mean more ① available customers. However, this is not always the case in sport. In fact, sport organizations that compete in leagues actually rely on the health of their competitors for their own success. For example, fans are often more attracted to a game where there is a ② close contest, and the winner is unknown in advance. Dominating a league or competition can be self-defeating, because the interest of fans can ③ fade. When it is difficult to predict who will win a match, sport leagues attract higher attendances and viewers. Ironically, in order to remain successful, leagues and competitions need as many of their clubs to be ④ competitive as possible. [When the outcome of a match is highly predictable], it will not attract large crowd numbers and eventually it will reduce ticket, media and sponsorship revenue. It is important for sport that there is a healthy, competitive balance between teams. This leads to ⑤ certainty about who will win a contest, and encourages fans to watch.

* revenue: 수익