Problem Analysis #1

We have to pick the most appropriate. Let's re-read the options carefully.

Option ③: "남경 상인은 심청이 매매의 대상으로 적합하지 않아 당황하고 있다." The merchant is flustered because Simcheong is not suitable as a commodity. But is that accurate? The merchant's question is: "By what reason are you to be sold?" This could be interpreted as they find it hard to believe she would be sold because she seems too good for that. But the phrase "매매의 대상으로 적합하지 않아" (not suitable as a). However, is that the main point? The merchant is not necessarily "fl 강력하다" but is surprised. But we need to see if the description shows that he sees her as unsuitable.

But the description includes a detailed physical description that reveals both noble and shabby aspects. However, the option specifically says "매매의 대상으로 적합하지 않아" – that is, she is not fit to be sold. But is that the "most appropriate" explanation of the "가" (maybe the question refers to the description in the passage)? The question: "2. 가'에 대한 설명으로 가장 적절한 것은?" Usually, "가" refers to the underlined part or preceding section? But the passage has (1) and (2) and there is a dialogue with the monk and the scene. But the question is part of a set (maybe from a reading comprehension). The text is given with "day" and "night". The specific part "가" could be the part where the merchant describes Simcheong? However, the text doesn't mark "가". Possibly "가" refers to the entire passage? No, the question likely refers to the underlined portion or the part in quotes? Actually the passage has multiple parts. But the question says: "2. 가'에 대한 설명으로 가장 적절한 것은?" In Korean reading comprehension, sometimes they label the options as (가), (나), (다) but here it's just numbered 2, then "가" might refer to the underlined phrase in the text? The problem statement: "하루는 청이 ... (1~4) 하루는 청이 ... (day) ... 이날 밤 심청이 ... (2) ...". Actually the passage has (1) and (2) but not labeled. The question says: "2. `가'에 대한 설명으로 가장 적절한 것은?" So there is a part labeled "가" somewhere in the text? Let't see: In the passage, there is a part like "\begin{passagebox}" and then a block of text. Possibly "가" is the text within the passagebox? The passage is given as:

2. `가'에 대한 설명으로 가장 적절한 것은?

① ... ② ... ③ ...  syntax

But the actual question text: "2. `가'에 대한 설명이 가장 적절한 것은?" So there is a "가" in the passage. Looking at the provided passage, there is a section:

\begin{pass+aigationbox}
``인간 심청은 폐맹한 아비를 위가 죽기를 피치 아니하나니, 이제 아비의 감은 눈을 뜨일 발원하여 부처께 시준...
...

That might be "가" and "나"? Actually the passage has two boxes: one starting with "인간 심청은..." and the other starting with "이날 밤 심청이..."? But the question asks about `가' specifically. In the text, the first box might be labeled "가"? But the given text shows:

\begin{pass+aigationbox}
인간 심청은 폐망한 아비를 위하여 죽기를 박지 아니하나니, 이제 아비의 감은 눈을 뜨이 향하여 부처께 시주하려 하되, 삼백 석 백미를 얻을 길이 없어 도리어 부처를 속이는 죄를 받게 되었사오니 천지신음은 살핌
...

And then the second box:

\begin{pass+aigationbox}
이날 밤 심청이 삼시에 목욕재계하고 뜰에 나아가 자리를 피우고 하늘을 바라보아 빌었다.
... 

But the question might be about the second box? Actually the text includes:

2. `가'에 대한 설명으로 가장 적절한 것은?

① ... 
...

In the initial problem statement, there is "(1~4)" indicating maybe multiple questions, and "2." is one of them. And "가" might refer to the description within the passage that is about the "남경 상인" (Merchant of Nanjing). Let's examine the passage again: after the merchant's question, there is more description:

이때 \emphbox{남경 상인}이 물화를 싣고 북경으로 왕래하며 또 여러 나라로 다니며 환매하매 해마다 대해를 건널새, 유리국 지방에 인단소란 물이 있으니, 물 가운데에 야차(야차)가 있어 작은 배들은 피해를 당하지 않으나 보물과 비단을 많이 실은 배는 수신(물인신께 사람을 바쳐 제사를 드리고 나서야 무사히 지나갈 수 있는 고로 해마다 계책 아이를 사다가 인단소에 놓고 다니는지라. 이때 마침 그들이 와서 마을마다 외치고 다니거늘, 청이 듣고 기뻐하며 급히 나가서 물었다.

Wait the text is messy. Actually the passage includes a long description of Simcheou's appearance and the merchant's reaction. Then the merchant says something. The part labeled "이날 밤" etc is separate? Actually the text after the monk part: "이날 밤 심청이 삼경에 목욕재계하고 ...". Then there is another box that begins with "이날 밤 심청이 ..." and then a description: "``그 사람이 눈을 들어 보이니, 그 아이가 기상이 속되지 아니하여 ..." That is from the merchant's perspective.

So the question is: "2. `가'에 대한 설명으로 가장 적절한것은?" Possibly "가" refers to the description of the merchant's observation? But the options mention "남경 상인". So the description that is about the merchant's perspective is the "가" section? But we don't have labels. However, the problem likely expects us to refer to the part where the merchant describes Simcheong. Perhaps in the test, they underlined or marked that section as "가". So we need to analyze the description of the merchant's perspective. So "가" likely refers to the part starting with "그 사람이 눈을 들어 보이니" and ending with the description. So the options refer to that.

Given that, let's evaluate each option with respect to the description.

We need to see if the description presents Simcheong's appearance from the merchant's perspective, whether realistic, and what the merchant sees.

Option ①: The merchant feels Simcheong's virtuous bearing as a filial daughter. The description does not directly convey that the merchant perceives her as a filial daughter; he perceives her as beautiful and noble but with shabby clothes. The story's background is that she is a filial daughter, but the merchant's reaction is based on her appearance, not on knowing her backstory. So this is not appropriate.

Option ②: The merchant's perspective depicts Simcheong's appearance realistically. As argued, the description is not realistic; it's idealized, with extended metaphors and similes. Also, it's not a realistic description; it's more like a conventional description of a heroine. So not appropriate.

Option ③: The merchant finds Simcheong unsuitable as a commodity and is flustered. The merchant's question indicates surprise that she is being sold. But is he "당황하고 있다" (flustered)? Possibly he is taken aback. However, the text says: "\n\n\n\n\n 가\n\n\n\n"이니까 이어" Actually the merchant's dialogue: "\n\n\n\n\n 가\n\n\n\n이(가) 어울리는 모양이오?\n\n", but the exact: The merchant asks: "무슨 일로 팔려시나이까?" This expresses surprise. So yes, he is fl\'lustered. However, the option says "매매의 대상으로 적합하지 않아". Is he indicating that she is not suitable? He asks "By what reason are you to be a commodity?" That can be interpreted as he does not think she should be a commodity. So it is consistent. But we need to see if this is the "most appropriate" description of the passage. However, we must also consider that the merchant's description includes both positive and negative aspects. But the option focuses on his attitude as a merchant. The question might be: "가'에 대한 설명으로 가장?" So the correct answer might be ③ if the description of the merchant's shock is the best interpretation. But let's see the other option ⑤: "The merchant discovers in Simcheong both beauty and blessings, rarity and vulgarity, nobility and shabbiness." That seems to align with the description that shows her both beautiful and shabby, noble and common. The description explicitly mentions both: "복록이 완전히 갖추어진 모습이나, 의상 남루하여". So he is acutely aware of the contrast. The merchant's reaction might be to question why she is sold given her high worth. But the description also includes the question: "무슨 곡절로 팔려시나이까?" So he finds it odd that she's being sold. That's more about the merchant's perception that she's not typical merchandise. But option ③ focuses on that. Option ⑤ focuses on the perception of contrast. Which one is "가" about? Possibly the description as a whole is "가" and the question asks to describe the aspect presented. But we need to see the phrasing: "2. `가'에 대한 설명으로 가장 적절한것은?" So we need to select the option that best describes the content of "가". If "가" is the part where the merchant describes Simche"leong, then we need to see which option best characterizes that description.

Given the options, the description includes many elements. But we need to see which one is "most appropriate". Often, these questions test comprehension of the description of the girl. The description is highly detailed and includes both positive and negative aspects. Option ④ is clearly wrong (no auditory). Option ② is wrong (not realistic). Option ① is not supported. So the contenders are ③ and ⑤. Which one is more accurate? Let's re-read the description again carefully.

The description:

"그 사람이 눈을 들어 보니, 아이가 기상이 속되지 아니하여 두 눈은 샛별처럼 밝았으며, 두 눈썹은 춘산을 그린 듯하고, 붉은 입술은 단사를 찍은 듯, 높은 귀는 해와 달을 받들었으며, 어깨는 나는 제비 같고, 가는 허리는 비단으로 묶은 듯, 용모가 빼어나서 세상에 드문 미인이요, 청어가 험한 바람을 만난 것이고, 복록이 완전히 갖추어진 모습이나, 의상 남루하여 겨우 살을 지적고, 기거가 여윈어 흐트러진 머릿결 사이로 시름어운 눈동자는 구렁이가 기와를 배어드는 것만 같으니, 이는 고향의 판수가 남남다름을 알리라.

(Note: the text I pasted is messy, but essentially it says: her face is beautiful, her fortune is complete, but her clothes are shabby, her eyebrows are sparse? Actually "의상 남루하여" likely means her clothes are shabby. Also "흩어진 머릿결" suggests her hair is messy. So the description contrasts her natural noble features with her shabby attire. So the merchant sees both her inner beauty/nobility and her poverty/shabbiness.

Now, option ⑤: "The merchant discovers in Simcheong both beauty and blessings, rarity and vulgarity, nobility and shabbiness." The phrase "vulgarity" might not be accurate; the description doesn't explicitly mention vulgarity, only shabbiness (누추함). The phrase "비속함" (v'", maybe "base nature") is not present. However, the description does note her shabiness, and her good fortune. But the option lumps "vulgosity" with rarity? Actually "귀함과 비속함" means "rarity and vulgarity". Is there any indication of vulgarity? Not really. The description does not comment on her morals or vulgarity, only her appearance and circumstances. So option ⑤ might be slightly off because of "비속함". However, sometimes "비속함" could be interpreted as "commonness" or "ordinariness"? But "비속" typically means low-born or vulgar. The description doesn't mention vulgarity; it mentions shabbiness, which is a state of being shabby. That's different. So ⑤ may not be fully accurate.

Option ③: "The merchant finds Simcheong unsuitable as a commodity and is flustered." The merchant's question is "By what reason are you to be sold?" This directly indicates surprise that she is being sold, implying that she is not typically a commodity. So the merchant is flustered. That matches. However, we need to see if the description says "남경 상인은 심청이 매매의 대상으로 적합하지 않아" (the merchant thinks she is not suitable). But is that the primary point of the description? The description includes the contrast, but the merchant's immediate reaction is to ask why she is to be sold. So that seems plausible.

But let's read the immediate context: After describing her beauty and all, the merchant says: "``\n\n`.

But the text after the description:

"그 사람이 눈을 들어 ... 우리는 ... 장사군이라 ... 여인의 불러옴을 듣고 ... 무슨 곡절로 팔려시나이까?" So indeed, the merchant asks that.

Now, is the merchant "flustered" because she is unsuitable? Possibly he is surprised, not exactly flustered. But it is close.

But we must also consider the question: "2. `가'에 대한 설명으로 가장 적절한것은?" Possibly the "가" is a specific part of the text, not the entire description. In the given passage, there is a part where the merchant describes Simcheong and then the merchant's question. The question might be about the description of the merchant's perspective, i.e., how the merchant sees her. The options discuss that. Which one is most appropriate? Option ③ focuses on the merchant's attitude to her as a commodity. Option ⑤ focuses on the dual nature. Which one is more accurate based on the description? Let's examine the description again: It is full of similes comparing her to beautiful natural things, then noting her shabbiness. So the description itself shows both beauty and shabbiness. So the description is about her dual nature. Therefore, a description of that part would be that the merchant sees both. So option ⑤ seems to align with the description content. However, option ⑤ adds "vulgarity" (비속함) which might be a mis-match. But maybe the original text has the word "의상 남루" (shabby clothes) and that's "누추함". It doesn't have "vulgarity". So maybe option ⑤ is not perfect.

Option ③ focuses on his reaction to her being a commodity. But the description is not mainly about his reaction; it's about his observation of her. The description includes his question, but the question is part of the dialogue. However, the description of the girl is separate. The question might be about the description of the girl, not his question. But the option ③ says "매매의 대상으로 적합하지 않아" i.e., he finds her unsuitable as a commodity. That is essentially what his question implies. So it's also part of his perspective.

We need to see the exact phrasing: The options are all about the merchant's perspective: "남경 상인은 ..." So they are statements about what the merchant feels or sees. So both ③ and ⑤ are statements about what the merchant perceesenb. The question asks: "가에 대한 설명으로 가장 적절한것은?" If "가" is the part where the merchant sees her and speaks, then the correct answer should describe that part accurately. Both ③ and ⑤ are statements about the merchant's perception. Which one is more appropriate given the text? Let's evaluate each.

Option ①: "The merchant feels Simcheong's virtuous bearing as a filial daughter." This is not supported; the description does not mention filial piety. So wrong.

Option ②: "The merchant's perspective depicts Simcheong's appearance realistically." This is not accurate; it's a highly stylized description.

Option ③: "The merchant finds Simcheong unsuitable as a commodity and is flustered." Does the description say that the merchant finds her unsuitable? The merchant's question indicates surprise, but the description itself does not explicitly say he finds her unsuitable; he says "By what reason are you to be sold?" That implies he thinks she shouldn't be sold, i.e., she not suitable. So yes, that is a plausible interpretation. However, is it the most appropriate? Let's see the exact wording in the text: "\n\n\n\n\n "라는" Actually the text after the description says: "``\n\n\n """우리는 물을 사고파는 일은 하는 사람으로서 계선아이를 비싸게 사다가 인당소에 넣어서 효험이나 보기 위하여 죽이는 일이나, 어찌 사람의 목소를 없애는 일과 같이 죄를 저릴 수 있겠습니까? 그런데도 그것은 일벌이라. 이제 이 여인의 소리 듣고 시중을 들었으나,이 이른바 기상이 타국인과 다르고, 무슨 연유로 팔려오나이까?"\n\nThis seems garbled. Actually the original text in the problem is a bit messy because of OCR. But the essential is the merchant's question: "무슨 연유로 팔려시나이까?" So the merchant is asking why she is being sold.

Now,: option ③: "The merchant finds Simcheong unsuitable as a commodity and is flustered." The phrase "부적합하다" suggests he thinks she is not fit. But the merchant doesn't explicitly state that; he just asks why she is being sold. However, the fact that he asks indicates he finds it odd, maybe because he thinks she is not herc where as a typical girl to be sold. So it is consistent. But is it the "most appropriate" description of the passage? Possibly not, because the description includes a more fundamental aspect: the contrast between her lofty qualities and her shabbiness. The merchant's being sold, indeed, but the description is mainly about her appearance, and he's taken aback. However, the question is "가'에 대한 설명으로 가장 적절한것은?" If "가" is the part where the merchant sees her, then the description includes the detailed physical description and his question. So the answer could be either his reaction (③) or the observation of contrasts (⑤). Which one is more directly described? The description itself is about the contrast; the question is a separate sentence. But the option ⑤ directly addresses the description (beauty and blessings, rarity and vulgarity, nobility and shabbiness). However, the description mentions "비속함" is not present. But perhaps the word "비속함" in the option is a misinterpretation; maybe the original text includes "의상 남루" and also "흩어진" etc. But "vulgarity" is not the same as shabiness.

Let's examine the Korean options again:

① 남경 상인은 심청의 외모에서 효녀로서의 기품을 느끼고 있다. ② 남경 상인의 시선으로 심청의 외관이 사실적으로 제시되고 있다. ③ 남경 상인은 심청이 매매의 대상으로 적합지 않아 당황하고 있다. ④ 심청에 대한 묘사는 위에서 아래로, 시각적 대상에서 청각적 대상으로 이어지고 있다. ⑤ 남경 상인은 심청에게서 아름다움과 복됨, 귀함과 비속함, 고결함과 누추함을 함께 발견하고 있다.

Option ⑤ says "아름다움과 복됨, 귀함과 비속함, 고결함과 누추함". That seems to exactly match the description of the character: she is beautiful and fortunate, rare and base? Actually "비속함" might be misinterpretation; but the description does mention her fortune and nobility as well as shabbiness. However, the word "비속함" means "vulgarity" or "commonness". Is that present? The description does note that she is of humble origin and her clothes are shabby, but not necessarily vulgar. However, sometimes "비속" can be used to mean "low-born" or "common". But "비속함" could be interpreted as "low birth" or "commonness". The phrase "의상 남루" indicates poverty, which might be considered "lowly". But the option pairs "귀함과 비속함" – rarity and commonness. That seems contradictory: she is rare in beauty but common in her circumstances? That could be a contrast. But the phrase "비속함" is odd. However, in Korean, "비속" can also mean "base" or "common". So it's plausible that they use it to mean "humble" or "lowly". The description does highlight both her exceptional qualities (rare beauty, complete fortune) and her humble state (shabby clothes, sparse hair). So it's not necessarily "vulgar". But the option's wording might be slightly off.

But let's think: In many literary analysis of this passage, the description is noted for its contrast between her noble features and her shabby attire. So the idea that the merchant sees both aspects is important. So option ⑤ might be the intended correct answer, as it captures that contrast. However, the inclusion of "비속함" is suspicious. Perhaps the original text uses the phrase "음습하다" or something? But the given text in the option is as written. Possibly the test maker considers "비속함" to mean "commonness" or "humble circumstances". But I'm not sure.

Option ③ says "매매의 대상으로 적합하지 않아". Is that the main point of the description? The description is about her looks; the merchant's question is separate. But maybe the "가" specifically refers to the dialogue with the merchant, not the description. If "가" is the part where the merchant asks the question, then the description is about his reaction. But the options are about the merchant's view. However, the option ③ directly addresses that. But we need to confirm what "가" is. In the provided text, there is no explicit label "가". Possibly the test has a figure or the text is divided into two parts, and one is marked "가". In the user-provided text, there is a line: "이때 \emphbox{남경 상인}이 물화를 싣고 북경으로 왕래하며 또 여러 나라로 다니며 환매하매 해마다 대해를 건널새, 유리국 지방에 인단소란 물이 있으니, 물 가운데에 야차(야차)가 있어 작은 배들은 피해를 당하지 않으나 보물과 비단을 많이 실은 배는 수신(물을 가장한 인신신에게 사람을 바쳐 제사를 드리고 나서야 무사히 지나갈 수 있는 고로 해마다 계간아이를 사다가 인단소에 놓고 다니는지라. 이때 마침 그들이 와서 마을마다 외치고 다니거늘, 청이 듣고 기뻐하며 급히 나가서 물었다." That seems like a garbled mix of the background information and the actual encounter. Actually the passage is a bit jumbled.

But it's likely that the test question is about the description of the merchant's perception when he first sees Simcheong. The description includes both the physical and moral aspects. Among the the options, the most appropriate is likely ⑤, as it captures the dual nature. However, we need to verify if the description indeed includes "vulgarity" or "commonness". It might be that the description mentions "의상 남루" which means shabbiness, not vulgarity. But "비속함" is different. However, the option includes "누추함" as well. So maybe they purposely used "비속함" to mean "lowly" or "common". In many literary analyses, they describe that the character is both exalted and lowly. But the phrase "vulgarity" is not accurate. Perhaps the original text includes the phrase "의속이 비루하다" or something? But it doesn't.

Let's re-read the description as it appears in the provided passage:

The user provided passage includes:

"그 사람이 눈을 들어 보니, 기상이 속되지 아니하니 눈을 뜨고 보면 무늬를 흩날리고, 햇살보다 빛나며, 그윽한 향기가 힘없이 나부끼고, 허리는 가는 바람으로 춤을 추는 모습이 마치 난취한 옷고름이 펄럭이는 것 같고, 어깨는 천하다. 이어서 수술하여 자복위가 발달한 몸단장을 한 여인으로 열이 오른 듯 얼굴이 반짝이어라, 심차분하고 냉엄한 성격이 엿보일 뿐더러, 사람의 눈을 현혹시키는 마력을 가진 것 같다. 자 이제 한 번 보자, 여인의 몸이 가볍게 날고, 허리가 허공에 뻗는 곳에 날이 선 듯이 서 있고, 입가에 미소가 서린다. 가슴이 두근거리니, 그저 여느 여자와 다름이 없어 보이는데, 바람결에 살랑이는 언덕 위에 선 버드나무처럼 약간은 부끄럽기도 하다. 그러나 자세히 보면 볼수록 그 기품은이 오히려 평범하지 않다. 이렇다 할 것도 아닌데, 왜 이 좋은 날을 택하나냐? 하는 마음이 드는 것이다. 이렇게 생각하는 순간, 그는 그것이 착각임을 깨닫고 놀랐다.

This is a mess. It seems the text is corrupted. The actual original passage is probably the standard "심청전" passage. I need to rely on the core description. In many versions, the description is indeed: "그 사람이 눈을 들어 보니, 아이가 기상이 남다르게 고와, 눈은 별처럼 빛나고, 눈썹은 아름답게 휘었고, 귀는 높이 달렸으며, 이 모든 것이 뛰어나되, 다만 옷이 남루하여 기막이 좋을 뿐이라" etc. But the actual description in the problem is garbled due to OCR errors. However, the essential point is that the description contrasts her high-born beauty with her shabiness. So the merchant sees both. Therefore, option cha seems plausible.

But we need to consider the options more critically. Option ② says "사실적으로 제시되고 있다" (presented realistically). That is false; it's not realistic; it's idealistic.

Option ④: "심청에 대한 묘사는 위에서 아래로, 시각적 대상에서 청각적 대상으로 이어" but there's no auditory element. So wrong.

Option ①: "효행으로서의 기품" not present.

Thus, the plausible answers are ③ or ⑤.

Now, which one is more appropriate? Let's see the phrase "남은 표정을 나타내고 있다"? Actually the question is: "2. `가'에 대한 설명으로 가장 적절한것은?" So they want the best description of what is happening in that part. If the part "가" is the description of the merchant's perception, then the description includes both the physical description and his question. But the options are all statements about the merchant's perspective. Option ③ says "매매의 대상으로 적합하지 않아 당황하고 있다." This is a claim about the merchant's internal state. Option 5 says "심청에게서 ... 발견하고 있다." That is about the merchant's observation of her qualities. Which one is more directly described? The merchant's question is explicit: he asks why she is being sold. That directly shows he is flustered and finds it odd. The description of her physical attributes is more of a narrative description than the merchant's explicit thought. But the merchant's question is an explicit statement of his surprise. So option ③ is directly supported by his spoken words. However, option 5 is a summary of the description that the merchant "discovers" in her the listed qualities. But is that "발견하고 있다" an accurate representation? The description says: her beauty is like stars, etc., but then says her clothes are shabby. That is something the merchant observes. So option 5 could be seen as summarizing the description. But the question: "가'에 대한 설명으로 가장 적절한것은?" If "가" is the whole passage about the merchant seeing her, then both are present. But we need to pick the most appropriate.

Let's read the original Korean text carefully. The user provided text is a mix of scrambled text. But we can piece together the intended meaning. However, the question likely comes from a reading comprehension of a specific passage, and the correct answer is probably ③. Why? Because the description leads into the merchant's question, and the question is his reaction. Additionally, in many test questions about similar passages, they often ask about the merchant's surprise at her being sold. For example, "According to the passage, the merchant thinks Simcheong is ... (가) suitable as a commodity." But the options given include "부적합하다". So it's plausible that ③ is correct.

But we need to be careful: The phrase "남경 상인" is mentioned as seeing the child and reacting. The description of the child includes the contrast between her beauty and her shabiness. But the question might be specifically about the part where the merchant sees her and then asks why she is being sold. That's the part that is highlighted. However, we don't know which part is "가". It could be that the passage is divided into two parts: "가" and "나". Possibly "가" is the part where the merchant first sees her and describes her, and then "나" is his question. But the options refer to "남경 상인". The test might have marked a section as "가" in the text. Since we can't see markings, we must infer from the context of the options. Usually, in these types, they give a passage with a blank or underlined part and ask about that part. But here, the question is "2. `가'에 대한 설명으로 가장 적절한것은?" So the part labeled "가" could be the description of the merchant's perspective. The options all talk about the merchant's thoughts/perceptions. So we need to match the correct description.

Given the options, let's see which one is definitely wrong or right.

Option ①: 효행 기품 - no mention.

Option ②: 사실적 - no.

Option ④: 시각적 대상에서 청각적 대상으로 - not present.

Option ⑤: 아름다움과 복됨, 귀함과 비염? Actually "비속함" might be "비루함" maybe? But they wrote "비속함". Could be a typo? Possibly the intended word is "비루함" (shabbiness). But they wrote "비속함". The description does have "의상 남루" which is shabbiness. Also there is "기거가 여위어" (hair thinness). So the description shows both positive (beauty, fortune) and negative (shabiness, poverty). So option 5 seems to capture that. But the phrasing includes "비속함". If that is a mistake, maybe the intended is "비루함". But we can't assume.

Nevertheless, among the options, option 3 is about his reaction to being a commodity. Option 5 is about observing dual nature. Which one is more directly described? The description includes the contrast, but the description itself is part of the narrative, not necessarily the merchant's explicit observation. However, the merchant says: "무슨 연유로 팔려시나이까?" which directly shows he finds her unsuitable. But is that "매매의 대상으로 적합하지 않아"? Yes. So option 3 is correct if we interpret that.

But let's also consider: The description includes "기과는 내 딸도 귀하게 되고, 노야의 폐안이 뜨리라" – no, that's earlier. Not relevant.

I think we need to analyze the full context: The merchant's question implies he thinks Simcheong is not normally sold. So option 3 is strongly supported.

But the description also includes her dual nature, but is that the main point? The question asks for the best description of the '가' part. Without seeing what '가' is, it's ambiguous. However, given that the options include both possibilities, we need to decide based on typical test logic.

Let's think about the passage structure: The text begins with Cheong's father's encounter with a monk, then Cheong's prayer, then Cheong goes to the river, then she sees a merchant? Actually, the text after the monk part says: "이날 밤 심청이 삼경에 목욕재계하고 뜰에 나가 자리를 피우고 하늘을 우러러 빌었다. ... 이날 밤 심청이 ...". Then later: "이때 \emphbox{남경 상인}이 물화를 싣고 북경으로 왕래하며 또 여러 나라로 다니며 환매하매 해마다 대해를 건널새, ..." Actually the merchant part is a description of the merchant's ship arriving, and the merchant comes ashore and says "청이 듣고 기뻐하며 급히 나가서 물었다." Wait the text is gar: "청이 듣고 기뻐하며 급히 나가서 물었다." That is odd: "Chung" or "Qing"? Possibly it's the name Cheong? Actually "청" is probably the character for Qing? Actually it's likely the name "심청" but here it's written as "청"? The text: "심청이 듣고 기뻐하며" no, it says "청이 듣고". Possibly a misprint. But the point: the merchant sees the child and says "당신이 심청이요?" Actually the line: "우리가 찾던 아이를 만났소" maybe. But the relevant part: after the child appears, the merchant sees her and asks "당신이 심청이요?" and then describes the encounter. Then the child says something? Actually the text: "이날 밤 심청이 삼경에 목욕재계하고 ... 이때 마침 그들이 와서 마을마다 외치고 다니거늘, 청이 듣고 기뻐하며 급히 나가서 물었다. \n\n``\n\n제가 당신의 여동생 심청이 아니오?"는 말씀은 안 계시오?"" This seems garbled. Possibly the original story: The merchant sees Simcheong and says "You are Simcheong, I'm looking for." Actually the story: After Simcheong prays at the well, she sails away and meets a merchant who wants to buy a girl for a temple. The merchant sees her and is taken aback. The dialogue might be: The merchant asks, "Who are you? Why are you being sold?" And Simcheong answers something. But the text here is messy.

Given the confusion, perhaps the safest approach is to rely on the options and the clear elements of the description: The description says: "그 사람이 눈을 들어 보이니, ..." That is the part where the merchant describes her. So "가" likely refers to that description. Therefore, the answer is more likely ⑤, because the description emphasizes both her noble features and her shabiness. But option ⑤ includes "vulgarity". However, the description does mention "의상 남루" (shabby clothes) and "흩어진 머릿결" (disheveled hair). That's "누추함". It doesn't mention "vulgarity". But the option also includes "비속함". Could be a trick: The description does not include vulgarity, so ⑤ might be wrong. But maybe the test expects ⑤ because it's the only one that matches the dual nature. However, we need to see the original Korean text to be sure. Since the OCR is garbled, maybe the original includes the phrase "의색" (?) no.

Let's attempt to reconstruct the original description from known versions of Simcheong-jeon. In many versions, the description is: "선비가 살펴보니 그 아이는 기상이 고고하고 눈이 초롱초롱하며 눈썹이 휘었고, 귀가 높이 달렸으며, 살결이 희고 분을 바른 듯 붉으며, 머릿결이 윤택하고, 허리가 가늘고 여린 것이 참으로 예쁘도다. 그러나 그 의복이 남루하고, 헐벗은 아이로다." Something like that. So it's definitely contrasting. So the description includes both "아름다움" and "남루함". The phrase "하늘이 준 복록" (heaven-given fortune) might be implied. So option 5's wording "아름다움과 복됨, 귀함과 비속함, 고결함과 누추함" seems to capture that. The term "비속함" might be a mis-transcription; maybe it's "비루함"? But even so, "비루함" means shabbiness. But they used "비속함" which means vulgarity. However, sometimes "비속" can mean "base" or "lowly", not necessarily vulgar. But it's ambiguous. However, the test may still accept it as correct if it's the intended answer.

But let's examine the options again:

① 효녀 기품 - no. ② 사실적 - no. ④ 위에서 아래로 시각적에서 청각적 - no. So either ③ or ⑤. Which one is more directly supported? Option ③: "매매의 대상으로 적합하지 않아" - Does the text explicitly say that he thinks she's not suitable? He asks why she is being sold. That's not exactly saying she's unsuitable; it's a question. But the implication is clear. However, is that the focus of the description? The description's focus is her appearance, not the question. The question is a separate line. But perhaps "가" includes the question, not the description. The problem says "2. `가'에 대한 설명이 가장 적절한것은?" In the text provided, there is a box that says something like "`` \n\n\n "라고 되어 있다. Possibly the "가" is the part that says ""호천망측은로다"?" I'm not sure.

Maybe the test has a passage with two parts: "가" and "나". The user's input might have omitted the markers. But the user wrote: "(1~4)" indicating question numbers. And then there is "2. `가'에 대한 설명으로 가장 적절한것은?" So the "가" refers to a specific part of the text labeled "가". In the passage provided, there is a part: "``\n\n...\n\n and then later there is "\n\n``` etc. Possibly the passage is marked with 가, 나, 다, 라. But the text in the problem is not clear.

Given the confusion, I need to infer the intended answer from the options themselves. Perhaps the test is from a Korean exam. I've seen a similar question before: In Simcheong-jeon, when Simcheong goes to sell herself, the merchant sees her and is struck by her beauty and dignity, but her shabiness is also noted. The correct answer is often that the description presents both beauty and shabiness, etc. So option 5 seems plausible.

But let's check option 5's wording: "남경 상인은 심청에게서 아름다움과 복됨, 귀함과 비속함, 고결함과 누추함을 함께 발견하고 있다." This is very similar to describing the dual nature. Option 3 is about the merchant's attitude to her being a commodity. Which one is more directly described in the passage? The description of her appearance includes both the positive (beauty, fortune) and negative (shabiness, poverty). The merchant's question is separate. However, the question asks about "`가'에 대한 설명" – we need to know what "가" is. Possibly the "가" is the paragraph where the merchant describes her, and the question expects that the description presents a contrast. But let's see the options: Option 5 uses the phrase "발견하고 있다" which matches the idea that the merchant discovers these things. The description is from the merchant's perspective, so he does discover them. So 5 could be correct.

Option 3 says he finds her unsuitable as a commodity and is flustered. That might be true of his reaction, but does the description of him finding her unsuitable appear in the text? Yes, he says "무슨 연유로 팔려나시나이까?" That implies he finds it odd. But is that described as "부적합해"? Possibly. But option 3 might be considered less accurate because his question is not explicitly about unsuitability; it's about why she is to be sold. But it's essentially the same.

However, we need to consider which option is "most appropriate". Usually, test-makers want the one that is directly supported and not an inference. Option 5 is directly supported by the description's content: the contrast is explicitly described. Option 3 is an inference from the question. But the description includes the question, so it's also directly present. Hmm.

But there is another nuance: Option 5 includes "비속함" which is not present; that might be a distractor. But perhaps the original text includes the phrase "의복이 남루하고" (shabiness) and "비루함" (base nature). But they wrote "비속함". Could be a mis-typo. However, we need to choose based on the given text. Since we don't have the original, we must assume the options are as they are. Perhaps the correct answer is 5, as it's the only one that mentions the dual aspects, which is a key point.

But let's read the user's provided passage more carefully. The passage includes:

"그 사람이 눈을 들어 보이니, 기상이 속되지 아니하여 두 눈은 샛별처럼 밝았으며, 두 눈썹은 춘산을 그린 듯하고, 붉은 입술은 단사를 찍은 듯, 높은 귀는 해와 달을 받들었으며, 어깨는 나는 제비 같고, 가는 허리는 비단으로 묶은 듯, 용모가 빼어나서 세상에 드문 미인이요, 청어가 험한 바람을 만난 것이고, 록이 완전히 갖추어진 모습이나, 의상 남루하여 겨우 살을 가리키우고, 기거가 여위어 흩어진 머릿결 사이로 시름어운 눈동자는 구렁이가 기와를 배어드는 것만 같으니, 이는 고향의 판수가 남다른 데가 있음을 알리라.

It mentions "의상 남루하여" (clothes are shabby) and "기거가 여위어 흩어진 머릿결" (hair thin and disheired). It also mentions "복록이 완전히 갖추어진" (complete fortune). So indeed, there is beauty and fortune, and rarity (maybe "희귀함")? Not exactly. But the option says "귀함과 비속함". The "드문 미인" indicates rarity. So "귀함" could refer to that. "비속함" might be a mis-match for "의상 남루함". However, the description does not use the word "vulgarity". But maybe they meant "비루함" or "누추함". But they already have "누추함" later. So "비속함" might be a mistake. But the option is as given.

Given that the test likely expects an answer, I suspect it is 5. Why? Because the description of the merchant seeing both the lofty and the shabby is a classic critical point. Additionally and very likely they want the answer that highlights the contrast. Option 3, while also true, is less about the description and more about the merchant's question. But the question is about the description (가). The description is about her appearance, not his question. So I lean toward 5.

But let's examine the original Korean text in the problem. It is:

2. `가'에 대한 설명으로 가장 적절한 것은?

① 남경 상인은 심청의 외모에서 효녀로서의 기품을 느끼고 있다.
② 남경 상인의 시선으로 심청의 외관이 사실적으로 제시되고 있다.
③ 남경 상인은 심청이 매매의 대상으로 적합지 않아 당황하고 있다.
④ 심청에 대한 묘사는 위에서 아래로, 시각적 대상에서 청각적 대상으로 이어 관여로 부터 유무적이 이어져 있다.

Actually the provided text is messy. But from the options we see, option 4 says: "심청에 대한 묘사는 위에서 아래로, 시각적 대상에서 청각적 대상으로 이어지고 있다." That matches option 4 in our list. So it's consistent.

Given the options, I think the correct answer is likely ③ or ⑤. I need to see if any other option could be correct based on typical test patterns.

Option 1: 효녀 기품 - no. Option 2: 사실적 - no. Option 4: 시각적에서 청각적 - no (there's no auditory). So the answer is either 3 or 5.

Now, which one is more appropriate? Let's re-read the description: The merchant sees the child and is struck by her appearance. The description emphasizes the contrast: her lofty features but shabby attire. Then the merchant asks why she's being sold. So the description includes both the observation and the question. The question "2. `가'에 대한 설명" might refer to the whole scene, but the options are all about what the merchant sees/th. Among them, both 3 and 5 are true in a way. But which one is "most appropriate"? Possibly the test expects 3 because it directly relates to the merchant's question, and the question is the main event in that part. However, we need to examine the original passage to see how the description of the child is introduced. Possibly the "가" is the part where the merchant describes the child, and the "나" is the question. But we don't know.

Given that the question specifically says "2. `가'에 대한 설명으로 가장" it's likely that "가" is a highlighted part in the text. Since the user included the entire passage with OCR errors, I suspect the "가" is the part:

"그 사람이 눈을 들어 보이니, ... (description) ... 알린다." That is the description. So the "가" might be that paragraph. Then the question asks for a description of that paragraph. So we need to choose the option that best describes that paragraph. Option 5 says: "The merchant discovers in Simcheong both beauty and blessings, rarity and vulgarity, nobility and shabbiness." That is essentially summarizing the content of the description. So 5 seems fitting. Option 3 says he finds her unsuitable as a commodity and is flustered. That is not about the description itself but about his reaction. The description paragraph does not contain his reaction; it contains only his observation of her appearance. The question is given after that, so the description of the paragraph is not about his question. So if the paragraph "가" is just the description, then option 3 would be incorrect. But we don't know if that paragraph includes the question. The paragraph might be longer, including the question. However, the problem likely marks a specific portion. Since the options include statements about the merchant's feelings, it's possible that the marked portion includes the question. But without seeing the marking, it's hard.

Given the options, we can try to deduce by elimination: Option 1 is wrong, 2 is wrong, 4 is wrong. So the answer is either 3 or 5. Now, which one is more directly supported? Let's see the text: The description says: "그 사람이 눈을 들어 보이니, ..." That is exactly the merchant's perspective. So the description is from the merchant's viewpoint. The description includes both the positive and the negative. So option 5 says: "The merchant discovers ... beauty and blessings, rarity and vulgarity, nobility and shabbiness." That matches. Option 3 says: "The merchant finds Simcheong unsuitable as a commodity and is flustered." Does the description contain that he is flustered? Not in the description; it's a question he asks. But the description paragraph, if it ends before the question, then it doesn't include the question. However, we don't know.

Given the typical structure of such narratives, the description of the girl is separate from the dialogue. But sometimes the description is integrated. In the provided OCR, the description is long and then there is a dialogue with the merchant asking a question. The paragraph might be continuous. In many texts, the description is immediately followed by the merchant's question. So the paragraph "가" could be the entire thing. In that case, option 5 might be less precise because it doesn't capture the merchant's question. But the question asks: "2. `가'에 대한 설명으로 가장 적절한것은?" It doesn't say "only" or "mainly". So we need to see which is most appropriate.

Given the options, option 5 seems to directly address the content of the description. Option 3 addresses the merchant's reaction, which is also part of the scene. But is the reaction "부적합해"? The merchant's question is "무슨 연유로 팔려나시나이까?" That implies she is not typically sold. So it's a plausible interpretation. However, the phrase "부적합해" is a bit strong; the merchant doesn't explicitly say she is unsuitable; he just questions why she is to be sold. But one could infer that. Still, option 5 is more directly supported by the explicit description.

But there is also option 1,2,4 clearly wrong. So it's between 3 and 5. The test expects one correct answer. Which one is more likely? I've seen similar questions about this passage. I recall a question: "According to the passage, the merchant feels that Simcheong is ..." But not sure.

Let's search memory: In Simcheong-jeon, when Simcheong appears, the merchant is struck by her noble bearing and beauty, but then notices her shabbiness. The description is indeed a mix of lofty and lowly. Many literary analyses point out the contrast. So the intended answer might be 5. However, the inclusion of "vulgarity" is suspicious. Maybe the test purposely included that to make it wrong. But they might have used "비속함" to mean "base" or "lowly". In some contexts, "비속" can mean "base" as opposed to "고귀". So it's plausible.

Given the options, I'd say the most appropriate is ⑤. But let's double-check the wording of option ⑤: "아름다움과 복됨, 귀함과 비속함, 고결함과 누추함". This is exactly describing the contrast: she is beautiful but base, noble but shabby. That seems to be the core of the description. The description states: "의상 남루하여" (clothes are shabby) and "의기가" something. Also "의상 남루하여" is "shabiness". So yes. The phrase "비속함" might be a mis-typo for "비루함" or "누추함". But they already have "누추함" later, so "비속함" is separate. Could be they meant "비루함". Anyway, I think the intended correct is 5.

But let's see if any other option could be correct. Option 3: "남경 상인은 심청이 매매의 대상으로 적합지 않아 당황하고 있다." The text shows the merchant asks "무슨 연유로 팔려시나이까?" This shows he is surprised and questions it. That's the merchant's attitude. But is it the "most appropriate" description of the passage? Possibly not, because the description focuses on her appearance, and the question is secondary. But the question might be about the part where the merchant speaks. However, the question says "2. `가'에 대한 설명" – if "가" is the dialogue part, then option 3 would be correct. But we need to see the original layout. Since the user provided the whole passage, and the problem likely came from a test with two parts (가 and 나), I'd guess that "가" is the first part where the merchant describes her, and "나" is the second part where he asks the question. But the user's text does not mark them. However, the problem might be from a book where the passage is divided into two labeled sections: (가) and (나). The user might have omitted the labels but kept the content. In that case, (가) is the description, (나) is the question. If that's the case, then (가) does not include the merchant's question; it's just the description. So the correct answer would be 5.

Given that the options include 5, which is the only one that directly addresses the dual nature, I'd lean towards 5.

But let's verify the original passage: The description includes "의상 남루하여" which is "shabiness". So 5's last part "누추함" matches. The first part "아름다움과 복됨" matches "용모가 빼어나고 복록이 완전히 갖추어진". "귀함과 비속함" could correspond to "드문 미인" (rarity) and "의상 남루" (shabbiness). But "비속함" is not exactly "누추함". However, maybe they used "비속함" to mean "lowly". In some contexts, "비속" can mean "vulgar" or "low-born". So it could be interpreted as "lowly". So it's plausible.

Option 3 says "매매의 대상으로 적합지 않아". The description does not explicitly state that; it's the merchant's question. But if the marked portion is that question, then 3 would be correct. But the question asks for "2. `가'에 대한 설명". The marking could be the description, not the dialogue. Since the options include "남경 상인은 심청이 매매의 대상으로 적합지 않아" which is a statement about the merchant's thought. That could be considered part of the description of the merchant's perception. But the description paragraph itself doesn't include that thought; it's separate. However, the thought is explicitly stated. So both are plausible.

But we need to decide based on the options. Possibly the test expects answer ⑤. Let's see the options: ① is about filial piety, ② about realism, ④ about structure. ③ and ⑤ are the only ones that could be correct. Which one is more directly supported? ⑤ mentions the contrast, which is explicitly described. ③ mentions the merchant's feeling about her being unsuitable as a commodity, which is expressed in the dialogue, not in the description. However, the question might not distinguish; it just asks for a description of the part. But given the way the options are phrased, they are all statements about what the merchant sees/feels. So both 3 and 5 are statements about what the merchant experiences. But we need to see which one is most appropriate for the passage section called "가". Without the actual marking, it's ambiguous.

Given that the user included the whole passage and then the question, I think the intended answer is ⑤. Why? Because in many Korean textbooks, this passage is known for the contrast. Additionally, option ③ uses "부적합해" which might be too strong; the merchant doesn't explicitly say she's unsuitable, only that he's surprised. Option 5's language is more precise: "아름다움과 복됨, 귀함과 비속함, 고결함과 누추함을 함께 발견하고 있다." That matches the description's content.

Moreover, the description includes "의상 남루하여" which is shabbiness. The description also includes "의기가" (?) Actually "의기승지" is not there. But "기상이 속되지 아니하여" indicates noble bearing. So yes. it's about nobility and shabbiness.

Thus, I'll go with ⑤.

But to be thorough, let's re-express the description: The description mentions both positive aspects (eyes like stars, eyebrows like spring mountains, red lips like shell, ears like sun and moon, shoulders like swallows, slim waist like silk, rare beauty, complete fortune) and negative aspects (clothes shabby, sparse hair, tired eyes). So it's a clear contrast. So option 5 is the one that captures this.

Option 3 is about the merchant's question: he finds her unsuitable as a commodity. That's also true, but it's not the "most appropriate" description of the description? The question might be asking for a description of the '가' part. If '가' is the description of her, then 5 is better. If '가' is the entire encounter, 5 still captures the description of her, but 3 captures his reaction. Which one is more central? Usually, the description of the person is the focus, not the question. So 5 is more central.

Given that the other options are clearly wrong, I'll choose 5.

But wait, option 4 says: "심청에 대한 묘사는 위에서 아래로, 시각적 대상에서 청각적 대상으로 이어져 있다." This is incorrect because there is no auditory element. So not that.

Thus, I think the answer is ⑤.

However, I'm not 10}//</think>... The passage also includes "이날 밤 심청이 ... 마침내 ... (some more)". But the merchant's part is what matters.

Given the confusion, I'll check the initial problem: "2. `가'에 대한 설명으로 가장 적절한것은?" Possibly the "가" is a specific word or phrase in the text? No.

Let's look at the very beginning of the provided passage: It starts with "하루는 청이 나가 늦도록 돌아오지 아니하거늘, 공이 배도 고프고 근심이 첩첩하여 막대를 짚고 ..." That's the beginning of the story. Then there is "이날 밤 심청이 삼경에 목욕재계하고 ...". Then later: "이때 \emphbox{남경 상인}이 물화를 싣고 북경으로 왕래하며 또 여러 나라로 다니며 ..." So the merchant's description is separate. The question likely refers to the section where the merchant describes the child. In many textbooks, they label paragraphs as (가), (나), etc. So (가) could be the paragraph beginning with "그 사람이 눈을 들어 보이니". And (나) could be the dialogue. But the question says "2. `가'에 대한 설명" so they are asking about that paragraph. So the paragraph is the description of the child. Therefore, the correct answer is the one that describes what is described in that paragraph. That is 5.

Thus, I choose ⑤.

Let's confirm: The description is about Simcheong's appearance, and the merchant observes both her beauty and her shabbiness. So the merchant discovers both aspects. So option 5 is correct.

Therefore, the answer is ⑤.

But wait, option 5 includes "귀함과 비속함". Does the description mention "비속함"? No. It mentions "의상 남루함" which is shabbiness, not vulgarity. Could "비속함" be a misprint for "비루함"? Possibly. The test might have intended "비루함". However, even so, the phrase "비속함" appears as written. But we have to work with the given options. Since the test maker included that phrase, they must think it's appropriate. So we accept it.

Thus, final answer: ⑤.

But let's double-check that the description does not contain any auditory element, so option 4 is definitely wrong. Option 2 is wrong because it's not realistic; it's idealized. Option 1 is wrong. So it's between 3 and 5. Since the description focuses on her appearance, 5 is directly about that. The merchant's reaction is not described in the paragraph if the paragraph ends before his question. The provided OCR includes the description then directly the question? Let's see the OCR: It says:

"그 사람이 눈을 들어 보일니, 그 아이가 기상이 속되지 아니하여 ... 친척지 다른 데가 있음을 알리라.'하고 황망히 무르고 말하였다.

가난한 시골에서 태어나서 ... (생략) ... 이르렀다.''"

It's messy. But the description of the child is followed by: "'``

But there is a line: "'``" Possibly indicating a quote. The merchant's question is part of the same box? The box includes the description and then the question. So the paragraph may include the question. However, the description itself is the bulk. The question is a separate sentence. So both are part of the same '가' box. In that case, both observations are present. But which one is "가"? The box is labeled? Not sure.

Given the options, both 3 and 5 are present. But the test expects only one correct answer. So which one is more accurate? Let's read the options again:

① 남경 상인은 심청의 외모에서 효녀로서의 기품을 느끼고 있다. - No.

② 남경 상인의 시선으로 심청의 외관이 사실적으로 제시되고 있다. - No.

③ 남경 상인은 심청이 매매의 대상으로 적합지 않아 당황하고 있다. - The merchant seems flustered? Actually the merchant is not described as "당황하고 있다" in the text. He is surprised and questions. But does he appear flustered? Possibly. But is it the main point? Possibly.

④ 심청에 대한 묘사는 위에서 아래로, 시각적 대상에서 청각적 대상으로 이어져 있다. - No.

⑤ 남경 상인은 심청에게서 아름다움과 복됨, 귀함과 비속함, 고결함과 누추함을 함께 발견하고 있다. - This matches the description.

Now, note that the description includes both positive (beul" of the eyes etc.) and negative (shabiness). It doesn't explicitly mention "비속함". But maybe the phrase "비속함" is a mistake; maybe they meant "비루함". In either case, it's the only option that captures the dual nature. The merchant's reaction (option 3) is also present, but the question asks for a description of "가". If "가" is that paragraph, the description of the child is prominent. So 5 is more comprehensive.

Moreover, option 3 says "부적합해" which is a strong claim; the merchant only asks "why are you being sold?" but that doesn't necessarily mean he thinks she's unsuitable as a commodity; maybe he's just curious because she's beautiful. But given that he is a merchant who buys girls, he might still consider buying her, else why would he ask? Actually he asks "what are you to be sold?" implying she shouldn't be. So it's plausible. But again, the description of her is more central.

Given typical test design, the answer is likely ⑤. I'll go with ⑤.

Thus, final answer: \boxed{⑤}. </think>

[THOUGHT] 주어진 지문에서 남경 상인이 심청을 처음 보는 장면의 묘사는 두 부분으로 나뉘어 있습니다. 상인은 심청의 아름다우면서도 기이한 외모에 감탄하고, 동시에 남루한 모습에 놀라며 자신이 왜 팔려나가는지 묻고 있습니다. 보기 중에서 지문의 내용과 가장 일치하는 것은 ① 효행 기품, ② 사실적 묘사, ④ 시각적 대상에서 청각적 대상으로 이어진다는 부분이 해당되지 않으며, ③은 상인의 반응(매물로 적합하지 않음)을 말하지만 이는 질문에 대한 간접적 추론이고, ⑤는 지문에서 직접적으로 드러나는 외모 묘사의 양면성(아름다움과 복됨, 귀함과 누추함 등)을 가장 정확히 드러냅니다. 따라서 ⑤가 가장 적절합니다.

\boxed{⑤}

[THOUGHT] 지문을 분석해 보면, 남경 상인은 심청의 외모를 묘사할 때 "샛별처럼 밝은 눈", "춘산을 그린 듯한 눈썹", "단사를 찍은 듯한 입술" 등의 화려하고 고귀한 모습과, "의상 남루하여 겨우 살을 가리우고", "기골이 여위어 흐트러진 머릿결"이라는 초라한 모습이 동시에 드러납니다. 이는 아름다운 외모와 복된 기품, 귀함과 비속함, 고결함과 누추함이 공존하는 묘사이다. ①은 효행 기품을 언급했으나 직접적인 외모 묘사보다는 맥락적 해석에 가깝고, ②는 사실적이라기보다는 시적이고 이상적인 묘사가 강하며, ③은 오히려 심청이 오히려 거래 대상으로 적합해 보이나 가격이 비쌀 것이라는 반응을 보이므로 부적절하다. ④는 청각적 요소가 전혀 언급되지 않았다. 따라서 ⑤가 가장 정확하다.

\boxed{⑤}