this is insane

The answer is (3); "draw" should be "draws" to agree with the singualar "attempt." This is a complex piece of writing but not a well written one. The sentence with the error is particularly egregious. Even highly technical papers submitted for peer review shouldn't have such long-winded clarifications that disrupt the flow of a sentence between subject and verb (which was likely only done here to throw you off of finding the error). If this was submitted as an article, a good editor would flag that and have the sentence re-written to be more grammatical clear — without needing to remove any of the information. Instead of sounding professional this test sounds like its deliberately trying to sound smart without actually being so.

This is how you get a country where everyone studies English from pre-k yet only 10% of people achieve any level of proficiency by the end of HS.

Wow. That was painful to read. At the same time, if one were immersed in the subject, it probably makes sense. I mean, I understand it, but it sounds like somebody went out of their way to create complex sentences. Reading it aloud, with pauses between phrases, helped. Definitely a test in the ability to break a sentence down phrases and parts. #3 should be singular.

Even judged against academic writing only, I would call this "poor." Maybe C+

grammatically, it's 3, because the subject is 'attempt'.... so the verb should be 'draws' (or 'drew'). But the text is full of really odd vocabulary choices.

The answer should be option number 4, since the present tense needs to be applied for a factual statement. However, this entire passage contains many unorthodox syntactical structures and even commits grammatical errors. Moreover, most sentences are run-on and thus difficult to decipher. Phrases like "knowledge enterprise", "normalcy conditions" and "immersed in the area" are really bizarre. I don't blame you for having difficulty with interpreting this passage.

Korean Englishman (the YT channel) had british students and their headmaster do a similar test. they were scratching their heads the entire time.

Too academic. Given this test's purpose, There is no wonder, but This is too illegible to ordinary people.

Because I study similar subjects scientifically, I was able to construct an interpretation from the text. Using simple words and explanations, it goes like this: The more we know, the more we realize how much we do not know. When trying to understand the world around us, we are caught deeply by bias and illusions. We cannot access reality directly, all we have is a formulated image of such reality in our imagination. We cannot understand properly our illusions because we are immersed in it, as if we lived in the matrix (cf. plato's cave allegory). These observations come from a psychoanalytic perspective. If the problem is about grammar, then the error would be the verb *draw*, which does not flex properly with the syntagma *attempt*. Note: English is not my native tongue.

I think it’s #4, should be ‘shows’ The whole passage is unneccessarily complicated

Don't feel bad; a lot of the Korean English exams I've seen make their blocks of texts ambiguous and unlcear simply to be ambiguous and unclear. This one's a bit more comprehensible, but some legitimately read like every other word right clicked and a random thesaurus synonym is selected.

It’s hideously unnecessarily complex writing that could only survive in an academic or governmental environment. I suppose that’s why it was chosen as a test of analytical ability. They could have chosen other specimens with the same rococo convolutions, but without clumsy locutions like “immersed in the area of ignorance and illusion.” (3) is the outright mistake, a lack of number agreement between “psychoanalysis’s attempt”and “draws”. It’s got to be ‘attempts’, plural, or else ‘draws’, singular. ‘Draws’ was probably intended. Disagreement about whether (3) is even the correct choice only underscores what a taxing lump of verbiage this passage is.

does anybody know what font that is?

This reads like one of those AI written articles.

I kind of love this as a self-referential essay. "We use big words to create the illusion that we aren't stupid."

You've gotten a good number of replies already so assuming you're the person taking this I just wanna say 화이팅 my friend, these tests are something else.

Regarding previous comments about number 3 being either “draws” or “drew” instead of “draw”—with which I agree—it is beneficial in English to break up sentences into smaller and smaller pieces until you have the smallest, still-coherent sentence you can, and then extrapolate what information is contained in an appositive or what have you. From the beginning of that sentence: >For instance, it turned out that the psychoanalysis's attempt to delimit the sources of error by categoriying the kinds of mistakes to which humans are subject in the light of the therapeutic situation in the talking cure (3) **draw** on misguided assumptions about the normalcy conditions for subjects. The subject of the sentence will be “the psychoanalysis's attempt.” Almost all the information thereafter can be removed, and the sentence will still make sense, which will help you determine the correct conjugation of the verb “to draw:” >... the psychoanalysis's attempt ~~to delimit the sources of error by categoriying the kinds of mistakes to which humans are subject in the light of the therapeutic situation in the talking cure~~ (3) **draw** on misguided assumptions... You are left with: “the psychoanalysis's attempt (3) **draw** on misguided assumptions…” which does not make sense, whereas “the psychoanalysis's attempt (3) **drew/draws** on misguided assumptions…” does make sense. Hope this helps.

The answer is that 3 should be “draws” because the subject is “psychoanalysis’s attempt.” It is a deliberately opaque text; most native speakers would struggle to understand it. The purpose is to see whether or not you can break down complex sentences.

Could it be a literal translation from Korean?

this feels like it is made by replacing all the normal words, phrases with badly chosen synonyms

I'm really interested to see what everyone else says. I'm a native English speaker and this reads like something I expect to find in peer reviewed and published research. It's dry and specific. I think many people would have a hard time with this