In fact, scientists attributing consciousness to any animal is so recent that the internet is older. In 1976 a zoologist named Donald Griffin published The Question of Animal Awareness, a book arguing that animal cognition ought to be taken seriously. He and a colleague had been responsible in 1944 for discovering that bats navigate by echolocation. Now, after a lifetime spent watching those creatures, he became convinced they had inner worlds. They had flexible behavior, he said, or the ability to change their behavior as external circumstances changed, a hallmark of true intelligence. He’d watched bats develop clever techniques for finding food; they could clearly make decisions on the fly, and exhibited many of the same problem-solving abilities as humans did. Animal thought and reason ought to be seriously studied, he argued. After all, despite the flourishing of neuroscience, no one had yet found any part of the brain unique to humans that might be responsible for this hallowed “consciousness.” Wasn’t it time to give up the ghost?

* hallow: 신성하게 하다

① the claim that animal consciousness should be studied

② the belief that consciousness is a quality exclusive to humans

③ the illusion that animals possess truly conscious inner worlds

④ the idea that human cognition is superior to that of animals

⑤ the concept that humans and animals are essentially alike

이 문제의 오답률 best 1위 선지는 ④ the idea that human cognition is superior to that of animals라는 선지였습니다. 요즘 수능 코드에 따라서 이 문제가 답이 안되는 이유를 명확하게 설명을 해볼게요. 예를 들어 제가

“당신의 재산이 나의 재산보다 더 많다.”

라는 문장을 서술했다고 가정해 보겠습니다. 느낌이 오시나요? 네, 당신의 재산과 나의 재산을 비교하려면 애초에 전제 조건이 나도 재산이 있어야지만 비교를 할 수 있다는 전제 조건이 필요합니다. 4번 선지가 답이 되려면 이미 동물도 인지가 있다는 가정이 베이스로 깔려야지만 성립할 수 있는 문장이므로 전제 조건의 위배로 아예 답이 될 수 없습니다.

2027학년도 6월 36번 순서 문제

Plants have evolved defenses almost as diverse as the number of genera. Some load their tissues with harsh compounds that either are unpleasant to insects or intoxicate them, encouraging the insects to go bother another plant or at least slowing down their eating.

(A) The back-and-forth is not a matter of natural balance, but more like a drawn-out evolutionary conversation. New plant defenses unintentionally select for insects with ways to get around them, which in turn help bring about more resilient and resistant plant species. New variations, shading into entire new forms and adaptations, maintain the stalemate.

(B) Plants can release chemical compounds that let their same-species neighbors know that an attack is likely coming, pushing those nearby plants to start building up defensive compounds in their tissues. Some of these cues even attract insect predators, a call for an assist that benefits both the plant and its bug-eating collaborators.

(C) Structural defenses like thick coats of wax on leaves may prevent some insect species from damaging the plant tissues altogether. Nor are individual plants entirely on their own while under attack.

* genera: genus의 복수, (생물 분류상의) 속(屬)

** resilient: 회복 탄력성이 있는

*** stalemate: 교착 상태

① (A) - (C) - (B)

② (B) - (A) - (C)

③ (B) - (C) - (A)

④ (C) - (A) - (B)

⑤ (C) - (B) - (A)

이 문제도 왜 (B)가 맨 앞에 못 오는지를 논리에 맞게 명확하게 설명드리겠습니다. 여러분이 글을 읽고 흐름을 잡았다면 주어진 문장의 마지막 문장 구조는

“식물 -> 이기적인 행동을 통해 defense를 하다”

입니다. 그런데 (B)의 앞부분의 문장 구조는

“식물 -> 이타적인 행동을 통해 defense를 하다”