2025학년도 3월 고3 전국연합학력평가 영어 30번 문제

 30. 다음 글의 밑줄 친 부분 중, 문맥상 낱말의 쓰임이 적절하지 않은 것은?

Surely one reason that copies have lost their sense of human connection, abundance, and intimate relation is that modern technology has made copying so easy. The methods of copying available to us have never been more powerfully (abundant). This seems true even as a sense of loss has attended our ever more powerful means to (reproduce) what we care about. Walter Benjamin has famously formulated this loss as an "aura": that which is (lost) in mechanical reproduction. The aura of a work of art, he suggests, cannot be copied by mechanical technology. By around 1900, he writes, "technical reproduction had reached a standard that not only permitted it to reproduce all transmitted works of art and thus to cause the most profound change in their impact upon the public." The (ability) to copy mechanically "substituted a plurality of copies for a unique existence," Benjamin argued. In addition to transforming art and the public's relation to it, Benjamin asserted that mechanical reproduction has the power to rend traditions by interfering with the authority of objects "embedded in the fabric of tradition." This (devotion) to tradition was twofold and concerned the presence of objects, Benjamin believed.

*rend: 분열시키다, 찢다

** embed: 깊이 새겨두다

정답: devotion -> threat

Surely one reason that copies have lost their sense of human connection, abundance, and intimate relation is that modern technology has made copying so easy. 복제가 인간적 연결, 풍요로움, 그리고 친밀한 관계에 대한 감각을 잃은 한 가지 이유는 분명 현대 기술이 복사를 너무 쉽게 만들었기 때문입니다.

The methods of copying available to us have never been more powerfully (abundant).

우리가 이용할 수 있는 복사 방법은 그 어느 때보다 강력하고 풍부합니다.

This seems true even as a sense of loss has attended our ever more powerful means to (reproduce) what we care about.

우리가 소중히 여기는 것을 복제하는 더욱 강력해진 수단에 상실감이 따르는 상황에서도 이는 사실처럼 보입니다.

Walter Benjamin has famously formulated this loss as an "aura": that which is (lost) in mechanical reproduction.

발터 벤야민은 이러한 상실을 "아우라", 즉 기계 복제에서 상실되는 것으로 유명하게 공식화했습니다.

The aura of a work of art, he suggests, cannot be copied by mechanical technology.

그는 예술 작품의 아우라는 기계 기술로 복제될 수 없다고 주장합니다.

By around 1900, he writes, "technical reproduction had reached a standard that not only permitted it to reproduce all transmitted works of art and thus to cause the most profound change in their impact upon the public."

그는 1900년경에 "기술 복제는 전달된 모든 예술 작품을 복제할 수 있을 뿐만 아니라 대중에게 미치는 영향에 가장 심오한 변화를 일으킬 수 있는 수준에 도달했다"고 썼습니다.

The (ability) to copy mechanically "substituted a plurality of copies for a unique existence," Benjamin argued.

벤야민은 기계적으로 복제하는 능력이 독특한 존재를 여러 개의 복제본으로 대체한다고 주장했습니다.

In addition to transforming art and the public's relation to it, Benjamin asserted that mechanical reproduction has the power to rend traditions by interfering with the authority of objects "embedded in the fabric of tradition."

예술과 대중의 관계를 변화시키는 것 외에도, 벤야민은 기계적 복제가 "전통이라는 구조 속에 내재된" 사물의 권위를 침해함으로써 전통을 파괴할 수 있는 힘을 가지고 있다고 주장했습니다.

This (devotion) to tradition was twofold and concerned the presence of objects, Benjamin believed.

전통에 대한 이러한 헌신은 이중적이며 사물의 존재와 관련이 있다고 벤야민은 믿었습니다.

전통에 대한 위협(devotion → threat)은 이중적이고 대상의 존재에 영향을 미친다고 바꿔주어야 문맥상 적절함