영어 질문 좀 드립니다 ㅠㅠ

게시글 주소: https://orbi.kr/00022042776

Unlike republicans, Democrats reject the notion that free markets are neutral among ends and defend a greater measure of government intervention in the economy. But when it comes to social and cultural issues, they, too, invoke the language of neutrality. Government should not "legislate morality" in the areas of sexual behavior or reproductive decisions, they maintain, because to do so imposes on some of the moral and religious convictions of others. Rather than restrict abortion or homosexual intimacies, government should be disinterested in these morally charged questions and let individuals choose for themselves.

1. 밑줄 친 "legislate morality"가 의미하는 것으로 올바른 것은?

① enact laws that run counter to morality

② make a discrimination between right and wrong

③ confound liberty with license

④ force morality to be the only standard of judgment

⑤ be obsolete bound to useless conventionality

Philip Morris, the tobacco company, does big business in the Czech Republic, where cigarette smoking still remains popular. Worried about the rising health care costs of smoking, the Czech government recently considered raising taxes on cigarettes. In hopes of fending off the tax increase, Philip Morris commissioned a cost-benefit analysis of the effects of smoking on the Czech national budget. And what the study found out was that the government would actually gain more money than it would lose from smoking. The reason is as following; although smokers (a)impose higher medical costs on the budget while they are alive, they save the government (b)considerable sums in health care, pensions, and housing for the elderly as they are likely to die early.

Some would say the Philip Morris smoking study illustrates the moral folly of cost-benefit analysis and the utilitarian way of thinking that underlies it. Viewing lung cancer deaths as a benefit for the bottom line does display a contempt for human life. Any morally (c)defensible policy toward smoking would have to consider not only the financial effects, but also the consequences for public health and human well being. A utilitarian, however, would not dispute the relevance of these broader consequences. For him, the study does not embarrass utilitarian principles but simply (d)misapplies them. A fuller cost-benefit analysis would add to the moral calculus an amount representing the cost of dying early for the smoker and his family — the pain and suffering, the grieving families, the loss of life — and would weigh these against the amount of money the smoker's premature death would (e)inflict the government.

1. 위 글의 주제로 가장 알맞은 것은?

① A double-edged sword: can cost-benefit analysis be always right?

② The fundamental drawbacks of utilitarianism as a theory

③ Bad influences from smoking: Is Philip Morris the only one that should be blamed?

④ Plausible negligence utilitarian thinking may bring about: how can you avoid it?

⑤ The nature of utilitarians: the very value they can provide the society with

2. (a) ~ (e) 중 문맥상 가장 올바르지 않은 단어를 고르시오.

① (a) ② (b) ③ (c) ④ (d) ⑤ (e)

위 문제가 도저히 잘 풀리지가 않아서요 ㅠㅠ

고수분들 많은 도움 부탁드립니다!