대광고 영어 내신 · 답 변경 검토 순서 5문항

A coastal town tested two warning systems for sudden storms. The first sent the same message to every resident. The second sent different instructions to fishers, shop owners, and visitors according to their likely location. During the trial, more people followed the targeted instructions, but the weather was milder on those days. The town therefore did not claim that targeting alone caused the improvement. Reviewers checked whether each report separated the observed response from possible explanations. When a summary changed “more people responded” into “the targeted system proved superior,” they returned to the original records and rejected the stronger wording. The town kept both the response rate and the weather notes in the final report. It approved another trial in which the two systems would be tested under more similar conditions. Changing a conclusion was encouraged only when the revised claim matched the evidence more closely, not when it merely sounded more decisive.

A coastal town tested two warning systems for sudden storms. The first sent the same message to every resident. The second sent different instructions to fishers, shop owners, and visitors according to their likely location. During the trial, more people followed the targeted instructions, but the weather was milder on those days. The town therefore did not claim that targeting alone caused the improvement. Reviewers checked whether each report separated the observed response from possible explanations. When a summary changed “more people responded” into “the targeted system proved superior,” they returned to the original records and rejected the stronger wording. The town kept both the response rate and the weather notes in the final report. It approved another trial in which the two systems would be tested under more similar conditions. Changing a conclusion was encouraged only when the revised claim matched the evidence more closely, not when it merely sounded more decisive.

A coastal town tested two warning systems for sudden storms. The first sent the same message to every resident. The second sent different instructions to fishers, shop owners, and visitors according to their likely location. During the trial, more people followed the targeted instructions, but the weather was milder on those days. The town therefore did not claim that targeting alone caused the improvement. Reviewers checked whether each report separated the observed response from possible explanations. When a summary changed “more people responded” into “the targeted system proved superior,” they returned to the original records and rejected the stronger wording. The town kept both the response rate and the weather notes in the final report. It approved another trial in which the two systems would be tested under more similar conditions. Changing a conclusion was encouraged only when the revised claim matched the evidence more closely, not when it merely sounded more decisive.

A coastal town tested two warning systems for sudden storms. The first sent the same message to every resident. The second sent different instructions to fishers, shop owners, and visitors according to their likely location. During the trial, more people followed the targeted instructions, but the weather was milder on those days. The town therefore did not claim that targeting alone caused the improvement. Reviewers checked whether each report separated the observed response from possible explanations. When a summary changed “more people responded” into “the targeted system proved superior,” they returned to the original records and rejected the stronger wording. The town kept both the response rate and the weather notes in the final report. It approved another trial in which the two systems would be tested under more similar conditions. Changing a conclusion was encouraged only when the revised claim matched the evidence more closely, not when it merely sounded more decisive.

A coastal town tested two warning systems for sudden storms. The first sent the same message to every resident. The second sent different instructions to fishers, shop owners, and visitors according to their likely location. During the trial, more people followed the targeted instructions, but the weather was milder on those days. The town therefore did not claim that targeting alone caused the improvement. Reviewers checked whether each report separated the observed response from possible explanations. When a summary changed “more people responded” into “the targeted system proved superior,” they returned to the original records and rejected the stronger wording. The town kept both the response rate and the weather notes in the final report. It approved another trial in which the two systems would be tested under more similar conditions. Changing a conclusion was encouraged only when the revised claim matched the evidence more closely, not when it merely sounded more decisive.