Sometimes perfectionists find that they are troubled because (A) [what / whatever] they do it never seems good enough. If I ask, “For whom is it not good enough?” they do not always know the answer. After giving it some thought they usually conclude that it is not good enough for them and not good enough for other important people in their lives. This is a key point, because it suggests that the standard you may be struggling to (B) [meet / be met] may not actually be your own. Instead, the standard you have set for yourself may be the standard of some important person in your life, such as a parent or a boss or a spouse. (C) [Live / Living] your life in pursuit of someone else’s expectations is a difficult way to live. If the standards you set were not yours, it may be time to define your personal expectations for yourself and make self-fulfillment your goal.

One reason conversational life can lack depth and excitement is that we easily fall into using ①formulaic questions to open a dialogue―How are you? What was the weather like? What do you do? How was your weekend? Although such questions can be important social lubricants, in themselves they generally fail to ②spark an engaging and enriching empathic exchange. We answer “Fine” or “OK,” then move on down the corridor. The way a conversation ③begins can be a major determinant of where it goes. So it is worth experimenting with adventurous openings. Instead of greeting a workmate with “How are things?” try taking your conversation in a different direction with something mildly ④unusual like, “What have you been thinking about this morning?” or “What was the most surprising thing that happened to you over the weekend?” You need to come up with the kinds of questions that suit your own personality. The point is to ⑤follow conventions so your conversations become energizing, memorable, and vehicles for empathic discovery.

                    is one of the keys to leadership effectiveness. We want realness in the executive suite, in the superintendent’s office, and in our religious leaders. We yearn for leaders who are themselves rather than a copy of someone else. We want leaders who will be fully human with us, men and women who are vulnerable enough to acknowledge their strengths and weaknesses, their gifts and limits, and who are appropriately transparent about their hopes and fears, their motivations and their agendas. We trust leaders who are real, who walk their talk, who act on their core values, and who tell us the truth. We authorize others to lead who author their own life. Those we deem not trustworthy we don’t authorize to lead. [3점]

As the new century begins, the competition between cars and crops for cropland　is intensifying. Until now, the paving over of cropland has occurred largely in industrial countries, home to four fifths of the world’s 520 million automobiles. But now, more and more farmland is being sacrificed in developing countries with hungry populations, calling into question the future role of the car. Millions of hectares of cropland in the industrial world have been paved over for roads and parking lots. Each U.S. car, for example, requires on average 0.07 hectares of paved land for roads and parking space. For every five cars added to the total number of cars in the U.S., an area the size of a football field is covered with asphalt. More often than not, cropland is paved simply because the flat, well-drained soils that are well suited for farming are also ideal for building roads. Once paved, land is not easily reclaimed. As environmentalist Rupert Cutler once noted, “                                             .” [3점]

* reclaim: 복원하다

It isn't, however, such a hit with police officers and district attorneys, who have criticized the series for presenting a highly misleading image of how crimes are solved.

Since its debut in 2000, an American drama centered around crime scene investigation has become very popular. ( ① ) In 2002, it was the most watched show on American television, and by 2009 the worldwide audience was estimated to be more than 73 million. ( ② ) Their fears have been echoed by Monica Robbers, a criminologist, who found evidence that jurors have increasingly unrealistic expectations of forensic evidence. ( ③ ) Bernard Knight, formerly one of Britain’s chief pathologists, agrees. ( ④ ) Jurors today, he observes, expect clearer proof than forensic science is capable of delivering. ( ⑤ ) And he attributes this trend directly to the influence of television crime dramas.

* forensic: 과학 수사의

** pathologist: 병리학자