2025년3월고2모의고사변형문제(30번) [모의고사변형문제월드 미키박영어]

2025년3월고2모의고사변형문제(30번)와 정답자료가 필요하시다고요?

 

걱정 마세요! 모의고사변형문제월드 미키박영어가 해결해 드립니다!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3등급도 전교 1등으로! (서울  영일고, 송도 박문여고)

3등급도 전교 2등으로! (서울  목동고)

5등급도 1등급으로! (서울  진명여고)

3등급도 1등급으로! (서울 마포고, 서울 신도림고)

 

모두가 모의고사변형문제월드 미키박영어와 함께 한 결과입니다.

 

 

 

 

 

목동 현대파리지앙 409호 미키박영어 (010 6693 6636)

 

 

오늘은 2025년3월고2모의고사변형문제(30번)와 정답자료를 제공해 드립니다.

 

 

모의고사변형문제월드 미키박영어

 

 

좋은 내신 성적은 진심에서 나오는 거 아시죠?

 

30번 지문에 대한 완벽한 이해는 기본이죠?

 

 

미키박영어 2025년3월고2모의고사30번해설

 

 

 

30번 내용 확실히 익히셨으리라 믿고,

 

변형문제 도전 시작합니다!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Here we go!

 

 

 

 

 

2025년3월고2모의고사변형문제(30번) 

1. 다음 밑줄 친 부분 중 어법상 틀린 것은?

 

There are reasons why science is not fully trusted and why healthy skepticism and critical thinking are essential. In spite of professional standards, claims of objectivity, and the peer review process, the conduct of science can be biased. All experts are not the same, nor ①do they submit their work to the same scrutiny. Knowing the source of funding can be important in evaluating scientific claims. For example, the Harvard researchers who made claims in the late 1960s about the problems with dietary fat, leading the nation away from perceiving sugar as one of the main causes in health problems, ②being funded in part by the sugar industry. The authors did not reveal their funding source to the New England Journal of Medicine, ③where their influential article appeared. Their article shaped a generation of changes in eating patterns that appears to ④have fostered higher use of sugar, now widely implicated as a source of the rise in obesity and diabetes. Stories such as this one fuel suspicion ― but also lead to further safeguards in the scientific process. Funding disclosures, although not required five decades ago, have since ⑤been made compulsory. 

 

 

정답은?

 

 

 

 

 

②being -> were 

주어가 researchers 입니다. 이에 대한 동사가 없습니다.

따라서 번의 자리는 동사 자리인 were 가 옳습니다.

being 은 동사가 아닌 준동사입니다

 

 

 

 

2025년3월고2모의고사변형문제(30번) 

2 다음 글의 주제로 가장 알맞은 것은?

 

There are reasons why science is not fully trusted and why healthy skepticism and critical thinking are essential. In spite of professional standards, claims of objectivity, and the peer review process, the conduct of science can be biased. All experts are not the same, nor do they submit their work to the same scrutiny. Knowing the source of funding can be important in evaluating scientific claims. For example, the Harvard researchers who made claims in the late 1960s about the problems with dietary fat, leading the nation away from perceiving sugar as one of the main causes in health problems, were funded in part by the sugar industry. The authors did not reveal their funding source to the New England Journal of Medicine, where their influential article appeared. Their article shaped a generation of changes in eating patterns that appears to have fostered higher use of sugar, now widely implicated as a source of the rise in obesity and diabetes. Stories such as this one fuel suspicion ― but also lead to further safeguards in the scientific process. Funding disclosures, although not required five decades ago, have since been made compulsory.  

① The importance of peer review in maintaining scientific standards
② Why dietary fat was misunderstood in past nutrition studies
③ The role of media in shaping scientific misinformation
④ How funding bias continues to undermine scientific credibility
⑤ Why transparency and skepticism are necessary in evaluating scientific claims

 

정답은?

 

 

 

정답
⑤ Why transparency and skepticism are necessary in evaluating scientific claims

✅ 정답 해설
이 글은 과학이 항상 신뢰받지 못하는 이유를 설명하면서, **건강한 회의주의(skepticism)**와 **투명성(transparency)**의 필요성을 강조합니다.

과학은 객관성과 동료 평가(peer review) 시스템을 갖추고 있지만, 모든 과학이 공정한 것은 아니며, 편향(bias)이 개입될 수 있음.

1960년대의 한 사례에서는 설탕 산업이 후원한 연구 결과가 식습관에 큰 영향을 미쳤으며,

자금 출처를 공개하지 않았다는 점에서 과학의 신뢰성이 훼손됨.

이런 사례는 의심을 낳기도 하지만, 동시에 **과학 과정에 새로운 안전장치(예: 자금 공개 의무화)**를 도입하는 계기가 됨.

이러한 내용은 모두 **"과학적 주장에 대해 회의적 시각과 투명성 확보가 필요한 이유"**로 귀결되므로,
가장 적절한 주제는 **⑤ Why transparency and skepticism are necessary in evaluating scientific claims (과학적 주장을 평가할 때 투명성과 회의주의가 필요한 이유)**입니다.

📝 선택지 해석
① The importance of peer review in maintaining scientific standards
→ 과학 기준 유지를 위한 동료 평가의 중요성
(※ 언급되지만 부차적 요소)

② Why dietary fat was misunderstood in past nutrition studies
→ 과거 영양학에서 지방이 오해받은 이유
(※ 예시일 뿐 글의 중심 주제 아님)

③ The role of media in shaping scientific misinformation
→ 과학적 오정보에 언론이 미친 영향
(※ 언론 언급 없음)

④ How funding bias continues to undermine scientific credibility
→ 자금 지원 편향이 과학 신뢰도를 해치는 방식
(※ 일부 주제이지만 **전체 맥락인 ‘회의주의와 투명성 필요성’**보다는 좁음)

⑤ Why transparency and skepticism are necessary in evaluating scientific claims
→ 과학적 주장을 평가할 때 투명성과 회의주의가 필요한 이유 ✅ (정답)

 

 

 

2025년3월고2모의고사변형문제(30번) 

3. 다음 문장에 이어질 글의 순서를 정하시오.

 

There are reasons why science is not fully trusted and why healthy skepticism and critical thinking are essential. In spite of professional standards, claims of objectivity, and the peer review process, the conduct of science can be biased. 

(A) The authors did not reveal their funding source to the New England Journal of Medicine, where their influential article appeared. Their article shaped a generation of changes in eating patterns that appears to have fostered higher use of sugar, now widely implicated as a source of the rise in obesity and diabetes. 
(B) All experts are not the same, nor do they submit their work to the same scrutiny. Knowing the source of funding can be important in evaluating scientific claims. For example, the Harvard researchers who made claims in the late 1960s about the problems with dietary fat, leading the nation away from perceiving sugar as one of the main causes in health problems, were funded in part by the sugar industry. 
(C) Stories such as this one fuel suspicion ― but also lead to further safeguards in the scientific process. Funding disclosures, although not required five decades ago, have since been made compulsory. 

① (A) - (C) - (B)
② (B) - (A) - (C)
③ (B) - (C) - (A)
④ (C) - (A) - (B)
⑤ (C) - (B) - (A)

 

정답은?

 

 

 

 

 

 

✅ 정답:
④ (C) - (A) - (B)

✅ 정답에 대한 이유:
**(C)**는 이야기들이 의심을 불러일으키지만, 그와 동시에 과학적 과정에 대한 추가적인 안전장치를 초래했다고 설명하며, 자금 출처 공개의 의무화를 언급합니다.

**(A)**는 하버드 연구자들이 자금 출처를 밝히지 않은 채 발표한 연구가 식이 변화에 영향을 미쳤고, 당뇨와 비만 증가의 원인으로 설탕을 확대 해석하게 했다는 사례를 다룹니다.

**(B)**는 전문가들이 동일하지 않으며, 자금 출처가 과학적 주장 평가에 중요한 역할을 할 수 있다는 점을 강조하며, 하버드 연구자들이 설탕 산업의 지원을 받았다는 사실을 예시로 듭니다.

따라서 전개 순서는 **(C) → (A) → (B)**가 가장 자연스럽고 논리적입니다.

 

 

 

2025년3월고2모의고사변형문제(30번) 

 

4. 다음 빈칸에 들어갈 가장 알맞은 것은? (원문 일부 변형 문제입니다.)

 

There are reasons why science is not fully trusted and why healthy skepticism and critical thinking are essential. In spite of professional standards, claims of objectivity, and the peer review process, the conduct of science can be biased. All experts are not the same, nor do they submit their work to the same scrutiny. Knowing the source of funding can be important in evaluating scientific claims. For example, the Harvard researchers who made claims in the late 1960s about the problems with dietary fat, leading the nation away from perceiving sugar as one of the main causes in health problems, were funded in part by the sugar industry. The authors did not reveal their funding source to the New England Journal of Medicine, where their influential article appeared. Their article shaped a generation of changes in eating patterns that appears to have fostered higher use of sugar, now widely implicated as a source of the rise in obesity and diabetes. Stories such as this one fuel suspicion ― but also lead to further safeguards in the scientific process. Funding disclosures, although not required five decades ago, have since been made compulsory. __________, the disclosure of funding sources is now seen as a critical part of scientific integrity. 
① The role of funding sources has little influence on the scientific process
② Funding disclosures are irrelevant to the credibility of scientific claims
③ The disclosure of funding sources is now seen as a critical part of scientific integrity
④ Scientific research is always free from biases, regardless of funding sources
⑤ Funding sources are not mentioned in scientific articles

 

정답은?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

정답
③ The disclosure of funding sources is now seen as a critical part of scientific integrity

풀이
③ 자금 출처의 공개는 이제 과학적 진실성의 중요한 부분으로 여겨진다 → 지문에서 자금 출처의 공개가 과학적 진실성을 보장하는 중요한 부분임을 강조하고 있으며, 현재는 필수적인 절차로 간주되고 있음을 명확히 설명하고 있기 때문에 정답입니다.
① 자금 출처의 역할은 과학적 과정에 거의 영향을 미치지 않는다 → 지문에서 자금 출처가 과학적 과정에 미치는 영향이 중요하다고 설명하므로 틀립니다.
② 자금 출처 공개는 과학적 주장에 신뢰성에 중요하지 않다 → 지문에서 자금 출처 공개가 신뢰성을 높이는 중요한 요소라고 언급하고 있으므로 틀립니다.
④ 과학 연구는 자금 출처와 관계없이 항상 편향이 없다 → 지문에서 과학 연구가 편향될 수 있다는 점을 설명하고 있으므로 틀립니다.
⑤ 자금 출처는 과학적 기사에서 언급되지 않는다 → 지문에서 자금 출처 공개가 중요하다고 설명하고 있으므로 틀립니다.

해석
과학이 완전히 신뢰받지 않는 이유와 건전한 회의적 사고와 비판적 사고가 왜 중요한지에 대한 이유는 여러 가지가 있습니다. 전문적인 기준, 객관성 주장, 동료 평가 과정에도 불구하고, 과학의 진행은 편향될 수 있습니다. 모든 전문가들이 같은 수준이 아니며, 그들의 연구가 같은 수준의 검토를 받는 것도 아닙니다. 자금 출처를 아는 것은 과학적 주장을 평가할 때 중요할 수 있습니다. 예를 들어, 1960년대 후반, 식이 지방 문제에 대해 주장했던 하버드 연구자들은 설탕 산업의 자금을 지원받았고, 이로 인해 사람들은 설탕이 건강 문제의 주요 원인이라는 인식을 가지지 않게 되었습니다. 그들의 논문은 뉴잉글랜드 의학 저널에 발표되었지만, 자금 출처는 공개되지 않았습니다. 그들의 연구는 사람들이 식습관을 바꾸게 만들었고, 결과적으로 설탕 소비가 증가하게 되었고, 이는 비만과 당뇨병의 원인으로 여겨지게 되었습니다. 이런 이야기들은 의심을 불러일으키지만, 과학적 과정에서의 추가적인 안전 장치로 이어지게 되었습니다. 과거 50년 동안 자금 출처 공개가 요구되지 않았지만, 이제는 필수 사항이 되었습니다. 따라서, 자금 출처의 공개는 이제 과학적 진실성의 중요한 부분으로 여겨진다고 할 수 있습니다.

어휘 정리
skepticism 회의주의
peer review 동료 평가
funding 자금 지원
integrity 진실성
credibility 신뢰성
influence 영향
disclosure 공개
scientific claims 과학적 주장
bias 편향
process 과정

 

 

 

2025년3월고2모의고사변형문제(30번) 

5. 다음 글의 내용을 한 문장으로 요약하고자 한다. 빈칸 (A), (B)에 들어갈 말로 가장 적절한 것은?

 

There are reasons why science is not fully trusted and why healthy skepticism and critical thinking are essential. In spite of professional standards, claims of objectivity, and the peer review process, the conduct of science can be biased. All experts are not the same, nor do they submit their work to the same scrutiny. Knowing the source of funding can be important in evaluating scientific claims. For example, the Harvard researchers who made claims in the late 1960s about the problems with dietary fat, leading the nation away from perceiving sugar as one of the main causes in health problems, were funded in part by the sugar industry. The authors did not reveal their funding source to the New England Journal of Medicine, where their influential article appeared. Their article shaped a generation of changes in eating patterns that appears to have fostered higher use of sugar, now widely implicated as a source of the rise in obesity and diabetes. Stories such as this one fuel suspicion ― but also lead to further safeguards in the scientific process. Funding disclosures, although not required five decades ago, have since been made compulsory. 

↓

Cases of bias in science emphasize the need for transparent (A)_____________ and ongoing public (B)_____________.
           (A)                      (B)
① prediction            enthusiasm
② funding                scrutiny
③ education            reform
④ peer review         investment
⑤ competition          recognition

 

 

정답은?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

✅ 정답: ② funding ··· scrutiny

✨ 해설:
(A) funding (자금 지원)
→ 지문 핵심 사례는 하버드 연구진이 sugar industry 로부터 자금을 지원받았음에도 이를 공개하지 않았다는 점입니다. 따라서 funding의 투명성이 핵심 주제입니다.

(B) scrutiny (면밀한 조사)
→ “healthy skepticism”, “critical thinking”, “scrutiny”라는 단어들이 모두 강조되고 있으며, 과학적 주장에 대한 면밀한 감시와 평가가 필요하다는 메시지를 전달합니다.

📌 오답 해설

① prediction / enthusiasm: 예측과 열정은 해당 내용과 무관

③ education / reform: 교육과 개혁은 지문 내 직접 언급되지 않음

④ peer review / investment: peer review는 언급되었지만 핵심은 자금 투명성과 외부 감시입니다

⑤ competition / recognition: 과학계의 경쟁과 인지도는 본문 주제가 아님

 

 

 

 

 

지금까지 모의고사변형문제월드 목동 미키박영어의

2025년3월고2모의고사변형문제(30번)와 정답자료였습니다.

 

2025년3월고2모의고사변형문제(31번)와 정답자료도 확인해보실까요?

 

 

 

이 외에도

구글, 다음, 네이버, 유튜브에서 모의고사변형문제월드 미키박영어라고 검색하시면

정말 많은 모의고사 변형문제 자료들을 무료로 활용하실 수 있습니다.

 

 

그리고, 영문법에 대한 유용한 자료는

재미짐영어 미키박쌤을 확인해보세요.

 

감사합니다.