대광고 고1 · D-1 근거·오답·전이 5문항

A coastal town restored a small wetland beside a road. Six months later, the number of bird species observed there had increased from nine to fourteen. Volunteers were encouraged, but the project leader resisted calling the restoration a complete success. Observation hours had also increased, and a nearby construction site had become quiet during the same period. The team therefore repeated the count with equal observation time and recorded noise levels. In the second survey, twelve species were found under conditions closer to the original survey. This still suggested improvement, but the change was smaller than the first comparison implied. The leader asked the team to mark three things in its report: the evidence that supported improvement, the alternative explanations that had been reduced, and the conditions that had not yet been tested. The wetland might respond differently during another season or after road traffic increased. A careful conclusion did not erase the positive evidence; it kept the claim within the range that the observations could support.

A coastal town restored a small wetland beside a road. Six months later, the number of bird species observed there had increased from nine to fourteen. Volunteers were encouraged, but the project leader resisted calling the restoration a complete success. Observation hours had also increased, and a nearby construction site had become quiet during the same period. The team therefore repeated the count with equal observation time and recorded noise levels. In the second survey, twelve species were found under conditions closer to the original survey. This still suggested improvement, but the change was smaller than the first comparison implied. The leader asked the team to mark three things in its report: the evidence that supported improvement, the alternative explanations that had been reduced, and the conditions that had not yet been tested. The wetland might respond differently during another season or after road traffic increased. A careful conclusion did not erase the positive evidence; it kept the claim within the range that the observations could support.

A coastal town restored a small wetland beside a road. Six months later, the number of bird species observed there had increased from nine to fourteen. Volunteers were encouraged, but the project leader resisted calling the restoration a complete success. Observation hours had also increased, and a nearby construction site had become quiet during the same period. The team therefore repeated the count with equal observation time and recorded noise levels. In the second survey, twelve species were found under conditions closer to the original survey. This still suggested improvement, but the change was smaller than the first comparison implied. The leader asked the team to mark three things in its report: the evidence that supported improvement, the alternative explanations that had been reduced, and the conditions that had not yet been tested. The wetland might respond differently during another season or after road traffic increased. A careful conclusion did not erase the positive evidence; it kept the claim within the range that the observations could support.

A coastal town restored a small wetland beside a road. Six months later, the number of bird species observed there had increased from nine to fourteen. Volunteers were encouraged, but the project leader resisted calling the restoration a complete success. Observation hours had also increased, and a nearby construction site had become quiet during the same period. The team therefore repeated the count with equal observation time and recorded noise levels. In the second survey, twelve species were found under conditions closer to the original survey. This still suggested improvement, but the change was smaller than the first comparison implied. The leader asked the team to mark three things in its report: the evidence that supported improvement, the alternative explanations that had been reduced, and the conditions that had not yet been tested. The wetland might respond differently during another season or after road traffic increased. A careful conclusion did not erase the positive evidence; it kept the claim within the range that the observations could support.

A coastal town restored a small wetland beside a road. Six months later, the number of bird species observed there had increased from nine to fourteen. Volunteers were encouraged, but the project leader resisted calling the restoration a complete success. Observation hours had also increased, and a nearby construction site had become quiet during the same period. The team therefore repeated the count with equal observation time and recorded noise levels. In the second survey, twelve species were found under conditions closer to the original survey. This still suggested improvement, but the change was smaller than the first comparison implied. The leader asked the team to mark three things in its report: the evidence that supported improvement, the alternative explanations that had been reduced, and the conditions that had not yet been tested. The wetland might respond differently during another season or after road traffic increased. A careful conclusion did not erase the positive evidence; it kept the claim within the range that the observations could support.