2015년 개정 영어 I 교학사(강문구) 3과변형 문제

 

2015년 개정 영어 I 교학사(강문구) 3과

변형 문제

How Asians and Westerners Think Differently

2015년 개정 영어 I 교학사(강문구) 3과 변형 문제

일반 워크북 형태의 문제에서 벗어나 The Makings가 만든

2015년 개정 영어 I 교학사(강문구) 3과 변형 문제는

출판사에서 오랫동안 영어 번역과 교정을 하셨던 원어민 선생님과

현직에서 강사를 하고 있는 연구진들이 학생들을 위한

최상의 2015년 개정 영어 I 교학사(강문구) 3과 변형 문제를 선보입니다.

사고력과 이해력을 요구하는 문제들로 내신 대비 뿐만이 아니라

수능도 한꺼번에 공부하실 수 있는 자료입니다.

중간고사&기말고사 전에 더메이킹스(The Makings)에서 제작한

2015년 개정 영어 I 교학사(강문구) 3과 변형 문제로 마무리 하세요.

 

정답 확인 하러가기!

http://themakings.co.kr/44/?idx=284

2015년 개정 영어 I 교학사(강문구) 3과 변형 문제 How Asians and Westerners Think Differently

 

 

themakings.co.kr

2015년 개정 영어 I 교학사(강문구) 3과 변형 문제

The Makings의 2015년 개정 영어 I 교학사(강문구) 3과 변형 문제는

총 10개의 유형으로 구성되어 있습니다.

 

1. 빈칸 채우기(객관식)

2. 글의 내용 일치/불일치(객관식/한글 선택지)

3. 글의 내용 일치/불일치(객관식/영어 선택지)

4. 글 끼어 넣기(객관식)

5. 어법(서술형)

6. 어휘(서술형)

7. 주제문(객관식/영어 선택지)

8. 어휘 빈칸 채우기(서술형)

9. 영작(서술형)

10. 요약문 완성하기(서술형)

 

 

더메이킹스(The Makings)가 제작한 2015년 개정 영어 I 교학사(강문구) 3과

변형 문제의 지문입니다.

 

1번 지문

Sumin, a Korean ex-change student in America, asks a question to her teacher, "Mr. Mann, do we bring our own lunch to the school trip tomorrow?" The teacher looks puzzled, thinking that Sumin wanted to eat lunch with him and asks back, "Uh.. Sumin, who are WE?" Sumin does not understand why Mr. Mann is confused and answers, "Me and my friends!" He thought of "we" as "you and me." Here, the misunderstanding arises from the different definitions of "we" that the Korean student and the American teacher have.

So why do these two cultures have different ways of thinking? What impact does culture have on cognition? Psychologist Richard Nisbett has conducted dozens of studies to find out the answer to this question. Presented inThe Geography of Thought: How Asians and Westerners Think Differently, the results of his studies are fascinating. In the book, psychologists conducted tests of inference, logic, or decision making to compare two different groups, "Asians" and "Westerners." Here are a few examples of their remarkable findings.

 

2번 지문

(A) Chinese, Korean, and American students were asked to read newspaper reports about mass shootings. When asked why the killings happened, Chinese and Korean students were far more likely to blame situational factors (such as "he was isolated from the rest of his class" or "availability of guns in the United States") while Americans were more likely to focus on the shooter's personality traits or psychological problems (such as "he suffered from severe depression" or "political belief that guns were a legitimate means to resolve a problem").

(B) When asked to describe themselves either in particular contexts or without specifying a situation (e.g. I work very diligently on school projects, I am a loving child, or like to cook with my friend vs. I am loving, diligent, or like to cook), Japanese people had difficulty describing themselves without referencing context; Americans not only preferred to describe themselves in terms of universal attributes, but many had trouble understanding the concept of describing themselves "in context" at all.

(C) When shown pictures of grass, a chicken, and a cow and then asked to select which of the three did not belong, American children were far more likely to choose the grass (because the other two are animals), while Chinese children were far more likely to choose the chicken (because the cow eats the grass).

(D) American and Japanese students were asked to view a video of a fish tank that contained several fish in the foreground with bubbles, water plants, rocks, and a smaller fish in the background. They were later tested on what they remembered from the scene. Japanese students were twice as likely to remember unmoving, background objects as Americans. When asked to describe what they saw, Japanese students first referred to the environment ("it looked like a pond"), while Americans were three times as likely to refer to something in the foreground ("there were three big fish swimming to the left") as Japanese.

 

3번 지문

When numerous studies of this sort are placed side by side, one can draw a clear conclusion. Asians perceive the world as a complex, constantly changing, and interrelated whole. On the other hand, Westerners perceive the world as what can be analyzed, categorized, and divided into individual parts. Asians have difficulty understanding an object apart from its context; Westerners often never see the context at all. Asians see themselves as part of one larger whole. They accept social order and are quicker to notice the feelings of others. Westerners try hard to make themselves look good and look unique. Westerners demand social equality; Asians aim for social harmony.

However,The Geography of Thoughtis not without its limitations. Careful readers will notice that the "East" and "West" in the book are narrower than normally defined, with the East meaning "China, Korea, or Japan" and the West meaning "America, Canada, Great Britain, or Australia." The studies that do include continental Europeans suggest that human cognition cannot be simply separated into West and East.

 

4번 지문

When the attitudes and perceptions of developed countries are surveyed, three distinct groupings emerge. The Americans, British, Canadians, and Australians had a strong 'individualist' tendency. As expected, Korean, Japanese, and Chinese preferences were far on the opposite side. Most surprising were the French, Germans, Belgians, and Italians, whose preferences were between the two although they are considered "Westerners."

This is a fatal flaw in Professor Nisbett's argument that the cognitive difference between East and West has deep seated historical and sociological roots. The problem is worsened by the studies of bicultural individuals. When given contextual cues that they were encountering an "Eastern" or "Western" situation, these individuals unconsciously flipped their world views. This suggests that many of these differences are not deeply rooted in history or socioeconomics.

Despite these weaknesses this book is an important one. The actual data presented is hard to argue with, and its implications are far ranging. There are other fields (such as marketing, organizational science, public diplomacy, and second language learning) that can make good use of these studies. The studies presented inThe Geography of Thoughtare really just the beginning. This is one of the most exciting areas of research offered by modern psychology and every other field related to it.