2026. Reading Is An Intelligent Sport.
Our mission is to make everything about sentences.
 Please stay here and make your dreams.
지문 분석결과
fico가 지문 학습에 필요한 것들을 구성하여 학습 효율성을 제공해 드립니다.
노트나 질문을 통해 자신만의 지문 노트를 만들어 관리해 보세요.
외고2 26년 1학기 원서 1,2과_2 외고2 26년 1학기 원서 1,2과_2
외고2 26년 1학기 원서 1,2과_2
외고2 26년 1학기 원서 1,2과_2
A discount for seniors 7
print
문장 선택
문장을 클릭하면 해당 문장의 구문 분석 내용을 보여줍니다.
A discount for seniors 7
When the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency tried to answer this question, it, too, prompted moral outrage, but of a different kind. In 2003, the EPA presented a cost-benefit analysis of new air pollution standards. The agency assigned a more generous value to human life than did Ford, but with an age-adjusted twist: $3.7 million per life saved due to cleaner air, except for those older than seventy, whose lives were valued at $2.3 million. Lying behind the different valuations was a utilitarian notion: saving an older person's life produces less utility than saving a younger person's life. (The young person has longer to live, and therefore more happiness still to enjoy.) Advocates for the elderly did not see it that way. They protested the "senior citizen dis-count," and argued that government should not assign greater value to the lives of the young than of the old. Stung by the protest, the EPA quickly renounced the discount and withdrew the report. Critics of utilitarianism point to such episodes as evidence that cost-benefit analysis is misguided, and that placing a monetary value on human life is morally obtuse. Defenders of cost-benefit analysis dis-agree. They argue that many social choices implicitly trade off some number of lives for other goods and conveniences. Human life has its price, they insist, whether we admit it or not. For example, the use of the automobile exacts a predictable toll in human lives more than forty thousands deaths annually in the United States. But that does not lead us as a society to give up cars. In fact, it does not even lead us to lower the speed limit. During an oil crisis in 1974, the U.S. Congress mandated a national speed limit of fifty-five miles per hour. Although the goal was to save energy, an effect of the lower speed limit was fewer traffic fatalities.
지문 노트목록 지문단위의 해석이나 의미 등 내용에 대한 설명입니다.
지문에 대한 질문목록 이 지문과 관련된 질문이 있다면 이곳에서 등록해 보세요. (예를들면, 이 지문과 관련된 문제 풀이가 궁금할 때)
지문에 사용된 특정 문장에 대한 궁금증은 해당 문장의 헬프fico쌤에 등록하는 것이 좋습니다.
등록된 질문이 없습니다.
fico 문장 분석
이 지문에 대해 AI는 다음과 같은 문장들로 구분하였습니다.
문장 구분과 분석의 정확성을 높이려면 'fico 정확성을 높이려면'을 참고하세요
list_alt해석 목록
여러 AI의 해석들을 제공해 드립니다.
inventory_2단어 목록 ● 단어 목록에 OpenVocas로 등록된 구가 있습니다.
문장에서 등장하는 단어를 fico가 대신 검색하여 제공해 드립니다. 단어를 눌러서 발음을 들어보세요.
해당 문장에서 fico AI가 설정한 난이도 이상의 단어를 찾지 못했습니다.
sticky_note_2노트 메모
학습에 필요한 나만의 메모를 남겨보세요.
tips_and_updates인덱스 핑거
현재 문장과 유사한 구조를 가지거나 보충 학습할 수 있는 예문들을 추천합니다.
원문과 유사한 fico score 및 구문 구조를 갖는 문장이 없을 경우 검색되지 않을 수 있습니다.
해당 문장에서 fico AI가 설정한 난이도 이상의 단어를 찾지 못했습니다.
듣기
상세한 구문 분석을 보고 싶은 문장을 선택하세요.
1 When the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency tried to answer this question, it, too, prompted moral outrage, but of a different kind. 2 In 2003, the EPA presented a cost-benefit analysis of new air pollution standards. 3 The agency assigned a more generous value to human life than did Ford, but with an age-adjusted twist: $3.7 million per life saved due to cleaner air, except for those older than seventy, whose lives were valued at $2.3 million. 4 Lying behind the different valuations was a utilitarian notion: saving an older person's life produces less utility than saving a younger person's life. 5 (The young person has longer to live, and therefore more happiness still to enjoy.) 6 Advocates for the elderly did not see it that way. 7 They protested the "senior citizen dis-count," and argued that government should not assign greater value to the lives of the young than of the old. 8 Stung by the protest, the EPA quickly renounced the discount and withdrew the report. 9 Critics of utilitarianism point to such episodes as evidence that cost-benefit analysis is misguided, and that placing a monetary value on human life is morally obtuse. 10 Defenders of cost-benefit analysis dis-agree. 11 They argue that many social choices implicitly trade off some number of lives for other goods and conveniences. 12 Human life has its price, they insist, whether we admit it or not. 13 For example, the use of the automobile exacts a predictable toll in human lives more than forty thousands deaths annually in the United States. 14 But that does not lead us as a society to give up cars. 15 In fact, it does not even lead us to lower the speed limit. 16 During an oil crisis in 1974, the U.S. Congress mandated a national speed limit of fifty-five miles per hour. 17 Although the goal was to save energy, an effect of the lower speed limit was fewer traffic fatalities.