심화영어독해 기말 — 실전 모의고사

Model Answer. Affluenza is a blend of the words “affluent” and “influenza.” The term became popular in the late 1990s through the work of writer John de Graaf, and it refers to a contagious social condition in which the constant desire to acquire wealth and possessions leads to debt, overwork, and an addiction to spending.

💡 정의(affluent+influenza)+유래(de Graaf, 1990s 후반)+증상(debt·overwork·addiction) 3요소를 본문 1문단 근거로.

Model Answer. Its causes are rooted in capitalism and the American Dream — the assumption that money can solve problems and buy happiness. People develop a sense of entitlement and an inability to delay gratification, so they spend beyond their means to “keep up with the Joneses.” It is serious because it spreads across all socioeconomic classes and produces workaholism, depression, and debt, as seen in the 2008 subprime mortgage crisis.

💡 원인(capitalism·American Dream, entitlement, delay gratification 실패)+심각성(전 계층 확산, 2008 위기 예시).

Model Answer. I agree that modern society encourages affluenza and that it is harmful. Capitalism and the American Dream promote the illusion that money guarantees happiness, pushing people of every class into debt to “keep up with the Joneses.” As the passage shows through the 2008 subprime mortgage crisis, this leads to workaholism, depression, and a false sense of entitlement, since people measure their self-worth by what they own. Although some argue that the desire for success drives economic progress, unchecked consumerism harms both individuals and their communities. Therefore, awareness and more balanced expectations are needed to treat affluenza.

💡 찬성 입장 + 본문 근거(2008 위기, self-worth=acquisitions) + 반대 반박 1문장 + 결론(awareness/balanced expectations).

Model Answer. I partly agree. Making creative works free, as copyleft does, lets everyone copy, share, and improve them, which spreads creativity widely. However, “free” should not mean creators lose recognition: even copyleft requires that the original creator always be credited. So creativity should be freely shared, but the creator’s identity must still be protected.

💡 조건부 찬성 — copyleft의 핵심(자유로운 공유 + 원저작자 표기 의무) 균형.

Model Answer. I agree that copyleft is better for society than copyright. Copyleft, invented by Richard Stallman in the mid-1980s, lets people copy, share, and change works so that they keep improving — its first use with software made programs better for everyone. It still protects creators by requiring that their names be credited and that new versions remain open under the same license. Although copyright gives creators a financial incentive by letting them monetize their work, copyleft spreads knowledge more widely and encourages collective improvement, which is a greater social good. (Even Hayao Miyazaki’s criticism of AI art reminds us that protecting the human creator still matters, and copyleft does so through mandatory credit.)

💡 찬성 + 본문 근거(Stallman, 소프트웨어 개선, credit 의무) + 반대(copyright 수익 인센티브) 반박 + Miyazaki 인용 연결.

Model Answer. Using brainwriting, every student silently writes down three ideas in three minutes and then passes the sheet to the left, building on others’ ideas before a new round begins. This guarantees equal participation and prevents dominant voices from blocking quieter students, so no idea is lost. Through this method our school could quickly generate ideas such as peer-tutoring programs, quiet study zones, and student-led clubs — and because brainwriting produces more than twice the ideas of brainstorming, everyone contributes regardless of personality type.

💡 brainwriting 절차(3분·3아이디어·왼쪽 전달) 적용 + 장점(equal participation, no blocking, 2배 아이디어) + 학교 개선 구체안.

Model Answer. I agree, with limits. The passage shows that when New York police took a zero-tolerance approach to petty crimes like fare-skipping and graffiti, the murder rate fell by 19% and car crime by 15% in the first year, supporting the idea that addressing small signs prevents bigger crimes. However, strict punishment must be applied fairly so that it does not unfairly target minor offenders.

💡 찬성(NYC 19%·15% 근거) + 한계(공정성) 단서.

Model Answer. I partly disagree. The broken windows idea suggests that ignoring small violations sends a message that “no one cares,” so addressing minor issues can keep order. Yet in schools, an overly strict zero-tolerance policy may punish students too harshly for small mistakes; a balanced approach that fixes “broken windows” while still guiding students is better.

💡 균형 입장 — broken windows 논리 인정 + 학교 맥락의 과잉처벌 우려.

Model Answer. I agree. The passage states that broken windows or litter send a signal of carelessness, and that when our own home is messy we tend to feel uncomfortable and out of control. Because small signals shape how people feel and act, keeping an environment orderly can encourage better behavior.

💡 찬성 — 본문(litter 신호, messy home→out of control) 직접 근거.

Model Answer. I disagree. According to the passage, the theory helped reduce crime in New York significantly and also gives useful insights for business image and personal life, showing that attention to small details brings positive results. While critics warn it can lead to over-policing of minor offenses, the passage presents it mainly as a helpful tool when applied wisely.

💡 반대 — 본문(범죄 감소·기업·개인 적용의 긍정 효과) + 비판(over-policing) 균형 반박.