대광고 고2 · 답할 수 있는 정보 경계 5문항

A coastal town tested signs that warned visitors not to walk across nesting areas. After one month, fewer footprints appeared near the largest nests. The report did not identify how many visitors had read each sign, and it did not compare the result with a beach that had no signs. It also noted that volunteers had begun speaking to visitors during the same month. The town therefore described the signs as one possible contributor rather than the sole cause of the change. A later survey showed that most respondents understood the symbol on the sign, but the survey did not ask whether they had changed their route because of it. These records answer some questions: the footprints declined, the symbol was generally understood, and another intervention occurred at the same time. They do not answer how much of the decline each intervention caused. A careful reader must separate information that is absent from information that is merely inconvenient for a preferred conclusion.

A coastal town tested signs that warned visitors not to walk across nesting areas. After one month, fewer footprints appeared near the largest nests. The report did not identify how many visitors had read each sign, and it did not compare the result with a beach that had no signs. It also noted that volunteers had begun speaking to visitors during the same month. The town therefore described the signs as one possible contributor rather than the sole cause of the change. A later survey showed that most respondents understood the symbol on the sign, but the survey did not ask whether they had changed their route because of it. These records answer some questions: the footprints declined, the symbol was generally understood, and another intervention occurred at the same time. They do not answer how much of the decline each intervention caused. A careful reader must separate information that is absent from information that is merely inconvenient for a preferred conclusion.

A coastal town tested signs that warned visitors not to walk across nesting areas. After one month, fewer footprints appeared near the largest nests. The report did not identify how many visitors had read each sign, and it did not compare the result with a beach that had no signs. It also noted that volunteers had begun speaking to visitors during the same month. The town therefore described the signs as one possible contributor rather than the sole cause of the change. A later survey showed that most respondents understood the symbol on the sign, but the survey did not ask whether they had changed their route because of it. These records answer some questions: the footprints declined, the symbol was generally understood, and another intervention occurred at the same time. They do not answer how much of the decline each intervention caused. A careful reader must separate information that is absent from information that is merely inconvenient for a preferred conclusion.

A coastal town tested signs that warned visitors not to walk across nesting areas. After one month, fewer footprints appeared near the largest nests. The report did not identify how many visitors had read each sign, and it did not compare the result with a beach that had no signs. It also noted that volunteers had begun speaking to visitors during the same month. The town therefore described the signs as one possible contributor rather than the sole cause of the change. A later survey showed that most respondents understood the symbol on the sign, but the survey did not ask whether they had changed their route because of it. These records answer some questions: the footprints declined, the symbol was generally understood, and another intervention occurred at the same time. They do not answer how much of the decline each intervention caused. A careful reader must separate information that is absent from information that is merely inconvenient for a preferred conclusion.

A coastal town tested signs that warned visitors not to walk across nesting areas. After one month, fewer footprints appeared near the largest nests. The report did not identify how many visitors had read each sign, and it did not compare the result with a beach that had no signs. It also noted that volunteers had begun speaking to visitors during the same month. The town therefore described the signs as one possible contributor rather than the sole cause of the change. A later survey showed that most respondents understood the symbol on the sign, but the survey did not ask whether they had changed their route because of it. These records answer some questions: the footprints declined, the symbol was generally understood, and another intervention occurred at the same time. They do not answer how much of the decline each intervention caused. A careful reader must separate information that is absent from information that is merely inconvenient for a preferred conclusion.