대광고 고1 · 24시간 근거 재검사 5문항

A gardening club tried two methods for helping seedlings survive a hot week. Group A received shade cloth, while Group B was watered twice each day. More plants survived in Group A, but those plants had also started the week slightly taller. The club first wrote that shade was the better method. After reviewing the record, members revised the claim: shade may have contributed to survival, but the starting difference prevented a clean comparison. The next week, they used seedlings of similar height and gave both groups the same amount of water. Group A again received shade cloth, and Group B did not. The survival gap became smaller but remained. The club kept the result, noted the remaining uncertainty, and planned another test during a cooler week. Repeating the original conclusion would have hidden the design problem; discarding every result would have ignored useful evidence. The revised report did neither.

A gardening club tried two methods for helping seedlings survive a hot week. Group A received shade cloth, while Group B was watered twice each day. More plants survived in Group A, but those plants had also started the week slightly taller. The club first wrote that shade was the better method. After reviewing the record, members revised the claim: shade may have contributed to survival, but the starting difference prevented a clean comparison. The next week, they used seedlings of similar height and gave both groups the same amount of water. Group A again received shade cloth, and Group B did not. The survival gap became smaller but remained. The club kept the result, noted the remaining uncertainty, and planned another test during a cooler week. Repeating the original conclusion would have hidden the design problem; discarding every result would have ignored useful evidence. The revised report did neither.

A gardening club tried two methods for helping seedlings survive a hot week. Group A received shade cloth, while Group B was watered twice each day. More plants survived in Group A, but those plants had also started the week slightly taller. The club first wrote that shade was the better method. After reviewing the record, members revised the claim: shade may have contributed to survival, but the starting difference prevented a clean comparison. The next week, they used seedlings of similar height and gave both groups the same amount of water. Group A again received shade cloth, and Group B did not. The survival gap became smaller but remained. The club kept the result, noted the remaining uncertainty, and planned another test during a cooler week. Repeating the original conclusion would have hidden the design problem; discarding every result would have ignored useful evidence. The revised report did neither.

A gardening club tried two methods for helping seedlings survive a hot week. Group A received shade cloth, while Group B was watered twice each day. More plants survived in Group A, but those plants had also started the week slightly taller. The club first wrote that shade was the better method. After reviewing the record, members revised the claim: shade may have contributed to survival, but the starting difference prevented a clean comparison. The next week, they used seedlings of similar height and gave both groups the same amount of water. Group A again received shade cloth, and Group B did not. The survival gap became smaller but remained. The club kept the result, noted the remaining uncertainty, and planned another test during a cooler week. Repeating the original conclusion would have hidden the design problem; discarding every result would have ignored useful evidence. The revised report did neither.

A gardening club tried two methods for helping seedlings survive a hot week. Group A received shade cloth, while Group B was watered twice each day. More plants survived in Group A, but those plants had also started the week slightly taller. The club first wrote that shade was the better method. After reviewing the record, members revised the claim: shade may have contributed to survival, but the starting difference prevented a clean comparison. The next week, they used seedlings of similar height and gave both groups the same amount of water. Group A again received shade cloth, and Group B did not. The survival gap became smaller but remained. The club kept the result, noted the remaining uncertainty, and planned another test during a cooler week. Repeating the original conclusion would have hidden the design problem; discarding every result would have ignored useful evidence. The revised report did neither.