내 태그

입시

학습

생활

클럽

직업·취업

Epioptimus

Centurion

오르비 랭킹

XDK 누적 복권

XDK 경매

RARE

작까의의도 [1096082] · MS 2021 (수정됨) · 쪽지

2022-06-09 18:42:47
조회수 5,642
1

6모 영어 37번, 38번 (현장감 있을 때 갈무리)

게시글 주소: https://image.orbi.kr/00057048185

자 현장감 있을 때 빠른 갈무리 하자구요!

6모 37번

In economics, there is a principle known as the sunk cost fallacy. The idea is that when you are invested and have ownership in something, you overvalue that thing.

(A) Sometimes, the smartest thing a person can do is quit. Although this is true, it has also become a tired and played-out argument. Sunk cost doesn’t always have to be a bad thing.

(B) This leads people to continue on paths or pursuits that should clearly be abandoned. For example, people often remain in terrible relationships simply because they’ve invested a great deal of themselves into them. Or someone may continue pouring money into a business that is

clearly a bad idea in the market.

(C) Actually, you can leverage this human tendency to your benefit. Like someone invests a great deal of money in a personal trainer to ensure they follow through on their commitment, you, too, can invest a great deal up front to ensure you stay on the path you want to be on. [3점]

* leverage: 이용하다

① (A) － (C) － (B) ② (B) － (A) － (C)

③ (B) － (C) － (A) ④ (C) － (A) － (B)

⑤ (C) － (B) － (A)

자, 국어랑 똑같이 경제다!

키워드 경제학에서의 a 원리

the sunk cost fallacy. 뭐 매몰 비용 오류인가? 여튼 이거 키워드

당신이 투자 받거나 무언가에 소유권을 가지고 있으면 과대평가하는 것

오키 자주 봤던 것!

(A) 때때로, 가장 똑똑한 것 한 사람이 할 수 있는 것 = 빠져나가는 것

약간 해결책 느낌나죠?

매몰비용오류가 좀 더 예시가 나와야 할 것 같은데...

일단 패쓰

(B) This leads people to continue on paths or pursuits that should clearly be abandoned.

딱 매몰비용오류 굿

매몰비용오류의 예시 딱 나와주고

그럼 문제발생 했으니 문제분석해결 패턴?

(A) 때때로, 가장 똑똑한 것 한 사람이 할 수 있는 것 = 빠져나가는 것

여기 딱 해결책이 있네요.

Although this is true, it has also become a tired and played-out argument. Sunk cost doesn’t always have to be a bad thing.

검산하려고 밑에 봤더니

매몰비용이 항상 나쁜 것은 아니라네요?

(C)에 좋은 내용 나오나?

Actually, you can leverage this human tendency to your benefit.

굿 이점으로 이용가능

순서 B - A - C 답 2번

38번

Also, it has become difficult for companies to develop new pesticides, even those that can have major beneficial effects and few negative effects.

Simply maintaining yields at current levels often requires new cultivars and management methods, since pests and diseases continue to evolve, and aspects of the chemical, physical, and social environment can change over several decades. ( ① ) In the 1960s, many people considered pesticides to be mainly beneficial to mankind. ( ② ) Developing new, broadly effective, and persistent pesticides often was considered to be the best way to control pests on crop plants. ( ③ ) Since that time, it has become apparent that broadly effective pesticides can have harmful effects on beneficial insects, which can negate their effects in controlling pests, and that persistent pesticides can damage non-target organisms in the ecosystem, such as birds and people. ( ④ ) Very high costs are involved in following all of the procedures needed to gain government approval for new pesticides. ( ⑤ ) Consequently, more consideration is being given to other ways to manage pests, such as incorporating greater resistance to pests into cultivars by breeding and using other biological control methods.

* pesticide: 살충제 ** cultivar: 품종 *** breed: 개량하다

일단 발문에 Also, 나와 주면서~~ 무언가를 추가적인 느낌 가져가고

회사들이 새로운 살충제를 개발하기에 어렵다고 하네요! 많은 주요 이점들을 가지고 있고

거의 부정적인 효과는 없는데 말이죠.

일단 시작은

새로운 품종 그리고 관리 방식 --> 현재 수준의 산출량 유지

인과관계패턴

이유는 질병과 해충이 진화

그리고 화학적, 물리적, 환경적 변화가 수십년간 있어왔어요.

여기서 우리는 기대해야하죠? 작가의 선택

구체적 예시!!!!

( ① ) In the 1960s, many people considered pesticides to be mainly beneficial to mankind.

딱, 1960s 나와 주면서 구체적 예시로 시작하네요.

( ② ) Developing new, broadly effective, and persistent pesticides often was considered to be the best way to control pests on crop plants.

way to 부정사 기억하시죠? 무조건 해결책!

살충제가 최고의 해결책이라네요!

논지의 흐름이 바뀌지 않았어요.

( ③ ) Since that time, it has become apparent that broadly effective pesticides can have harmful effects on beneficial insects, which can negate their effects in controlling pests, and that persistent pesticides can damage non-target organisms in the ecosystem, such as birds and people.

논지 변환점이네요 여기가!