대광고 고1 영어 · 조건과 실제 결과 구분 5문항

A coastal research station introduced a new system for short sampling trips. A team received authorization only after it had registered its route and had its equipment inspected. Completing these two steps did not settle everything: a weather warning suspended all authorizations until the warning ended. When no warning was in force, a registered team with inspected equipment was authorized to depart. Even then, authorization did not establish that a trip had occurred. A team might decide to stay ashore, or its boat might be unavailable. Station records therefore kept three separate entries: the preparation requirements, the authorization status, and the actual departure. One report mistakenly described every authorized team as having collected samples. The coordinator corrected it, explaining that departure itself did not ensure collection either; a team could return because conditions at the sampling site were unsuitable. All participating teams followed the authorization rules. The station did not regard these distinctions as empty paperwork. Combining the entries would make it impossible to tell whether a missing sample resulted from incomplete preparation, a suspended authorization, a cancelled departure, or a decision made at sea. Accurate records had to preserve what each statement established without adding an outcome that it merely made possible.

A coastal research station introduced a new system for short sampling trips. A team received authorization only after it had registered its route and had its equipment inspected. Completing these two steps did not settle everything: a weather warning suspended all authorizations until the warning ended. When no warning was in force, a registered team with inspected equipment was authorized to depart. Even then, authorization did not establish that a trip had occurred. A team might decide to stay ashore, or its boat might be unavailable. Station records therefore kept three separate entries: the preparation requirements, the authorization status, and the actual departure. One report mistakenly described every authorized team as having collected samples. The coordinator corrected it, explaining that departure itself did not ensure collection either; a team could return because conditions at the sampling site were unsuitable. All participating teams followed the authorization rules. The station did not regard these distinctions as empty paperwork. Combining the entries would make it impossible to tell whether a missing sample resulted from incomplete preparation, a suspended authorization, a cancelled departure, or a decision made at sea. Accurate records had to preserve what each statement established without adding an outcome that it merely made possible.

A coastal research station introduced a new system for short sampling trips. A team received authorization only after it had registered its route and had its equipment inspected. Completing these two steps did not settle everything: a weather warning suspended all authorizations until the warning ended. When no warning was in force, a registered team with inspected equipment was authorized to depart. Even then, authorization did not establish that a trip had occurred. A team might decide to stay ashore, or its boat might be unavailable. Station records therefore kept three separate entries: the preparation requirements, the authorization status, and the actual departure. One report mistakenly described every authorized team as having collected samples. The coordinator corrected it, explaining that departure itself did not ensure collection either; a team could return because conditions at the sampling site were unsuitable. All participating teams followed the authorization rules. The station did not regard these distinctions as empty paperwork. Combining the entries would make it impossible to tell whether a missing sample resulted from incomplete preparation, a suspended authorization, a cancelled departure, or a decision made at sea. Accurate records had to preserve what each statement established without adding an outcome that it merely made possible.

A coastal research station introduced a new system for short sampling trips. A team received authorization only after it had registered its route and had its equipment inspected. Completing these two steps did not settle everything: a weather warning suspended all authorizations until the warning ended. When no warning was in force, a registered team with inspected equipment was authorized to depart. Even then, authorization did not establish that a trip had occurred. A team might decide to stay ashore, or its boat might be unavailable. Station records therefore kept three separate entries: the preparation requirements, the authorization status, and the actual departure. One report mistakenly described every authorized team as having collected samples. The coordinator corrected it, explaining that departure itself did not ensure collection either; a team could return because conditions at the sampling site were unsuitable. All participating teams followed the authorization rules. The station did not regard these distinctions as empty paperwork. Combining the entries would make it impossible to tell whether a missing sample resulted from incomplete preparation, a suspended authorization, a cancelled departure, or a decision made at sea. Accurate records had to preserve what each statement established without adding an outcome that it merely made possible.

A coastal research station introduced a new system for short sampling trips. A team received authorization only after it had registered its route and had its equipment inspected. Completing these two steps did not settle everything: a weather warning suspended all authorizations until the warning ended. When no warning was in force, a registered team with inspected equipment was authorized to depart. Even then, authorization did not establish that a trip had occurred. A team might decide to stay ashore, or its boat might be unavailable. Station records therefore kept three separate entries: the preparation requirements, the authorization status, and the actual departure. One report mistakenly described every authorized team as having collected samples. The coordinator corrected it, explaining that departure itself did not ensure collection either; a team could return because conditions at the sampling site were unsuitable. All participating teams followed the authorization rules. The station did not regard these distinctions as empty paperwork. Combining the entries would make it impossible to tell whether a missing sample resulted from incomplete preparation, a suspended authorization, a cancelled departure, or a decision made at sea. Accurate records had to preserve what each statement established without adding an outcome that it merely made possible.