Detalles explícitos
Relaciona la persona, hora, lugar o cantidad con el hecho correcto.
The doors open at eight. The class starts at nine.
B2
Un reportaje científico
Sobre esta lección
Un reportaje científico · B2. Relaciona la persona, hora, lugar o cantidad con el hecho correcto.
Lee el material original en inglés y responde con pruebas. El nivel es una orientación editorial, no un resultado certificado.
8 preguntas
Guárdalo para encontrarlo en Mi colección.
LecturaB2
When a cooler room is not the whole answer
Lee el material original en inglés y responde con pruebas. El nivel es una orientación editorial, no un resultado certificado.
Imagine a research team investigating whether a short break in a cooler room helps people concentrate. In this fictional study, sixty office volunteers completed a proofreading task, took a ten-minute break, and then completed a different version of the task. Half spent the break in a cool room; the others remained in the usual office. The cool-room group made fewer errors afterwards, on average. It would be tempting to conclude that lower temperatures caused the improvement. The researchers, however, had changed more than temperature. The cool room was also quieter, and participants had to walk along a corridor to reach it. Either silence or movement might have contributed. Moreover, people knew which room they were in, so their expectations could have influenced their effort. Random assignment reduced some differences between the groups, but it could not remove these features of the design. The team then ran a smaller follow-up in which both groups walked the same distance and sat in equally quiet rooms. The difference in errors became much smaller. That finding weakened the original temperature explanation, although it did not establish that temperature had no effect. A small follow-up may miss a modest effect that a larger experiment could detect. The useful lesson is not that the first study was worthless. It identified an interesting pattern and helped shape a more precise question. The problem would arise if an employer used the first result to justify expensive cooling equipment while ignoring the uncertainty. Before recommending a policy, the team wants a larger trial across several workplaces and a measure of comfort as well as accuracy. A room that improves a short test but makes workers uncomfortable all afternoon may offer little practical benefit.
Un poco de claridad
Razones · Inferencias a partir de pistas
Usa la razón dada; una razón externa que parece posible no basta. Combina las pistas reales sin añadir hechos no respaldados.
We meet inside because it is raining.
Postura y valoración · Aplicar el argumento
Busca valoraciones y reservas; un hecho positivo no implica aprobación absoluta. Relaciona la acción con el argumento y sus límites.
The writer likes the idea but asks for one change.
Material de aprendizaje
LecturaB2
When a cooler room is not the whole answer
Lee el material original en inglés y responde con pruebas. El nivel es una orientación editorial, no un resultado certificado.
Imagine a research team investigating whether a short break in a cooler room helps people concentrate. In this fictional study, sixty office volunteers completed a proofreading task, took a ten-minute break, and then completed a different version of the task. Half spent the break in a cool room; the others remained in the usual office. The cool-room group made fewer errors afterwards, on average. It would be tempting to conclude that lower temperatures caused the improvement. The researchers, however, had changed more than temperature. The cool room was also quieter, and participants had to walk along a corridor to reach it. Either silence or movement might have contributed. Moreover, people knew which room they were in, so their expectations could have influenced their effort. Random assignment reduced some differences between the groups, but it could not remove these features of the design. The team then ran a smaller follow-up in which both groups walked the same distance and sat in equally quiet rooms. The difference in errors became much smaller. That finding weakened the original temperature explanation, although it did not establish that temperature had no effect. A small follow-up may miss a modest effect that a larger experiment could detect. The useful lesson is not that the first study was worthless. It identified an interesting pattern and helped shape a more precise question. The problem would arise if an employer used the first result to justify expensive cooling equipment while ignoring the uncertainty. Before recommending a policy, the team wants a larger trial across several workplaces and a measure of comfort as well as accuracy. A room that improves a short test but makes workers uncomfortable all afternoon may offer little practical benefit.
01 / 8D01Guárdalo para encontrarlo en Mi colección.
When a cooler room is not the whole answer
What did the first cool-room group do better on average?
Tu ruta de aprendizaje
01
Paso 1 · Calentamiento
0/2Calentamiento
02
Paso 2 · Practicar la habilidad
0/1Detalles explícitos
Relaciona la persona, hora, lugar o cantidad con el hecho correcto.
The doors open at eight. The class starts at nine.03
Paso 3 · Practicar la habilidad
0/1Postura y valoración · Aplicar el argumento
Busca valoraciones y reservas; un hecho positivo no implica aprobación absoluta. Relaciona la acción con el argumento y sus límites.
The writer likes the idea but asks for one change.04
Paso 4 · Práctica relacionada
0/2Práctica relacionada
05
Paso 5 · Reto del texto
0/2Reto del texto
Repasos de esta unidad
0Haz que los errores sirvan.
Conserva el primer intento, comprueba la evidencia y prueba otra pregunta. Responder sobre el mismo material no demuestra transferencia a otro texto.
Aún no hay repasos. Prueba un calentamiento corto.
Mapa de la lección
B2Un reportaje científico
Puntos de la lección
Detalles explícitos
Relaciona la persona, hora, lugar o cantidad con el hecho correcto.
The doors open at eight. The class starts at nine.Razones · Inferencias a partir de pistas
Usa la razón dada; una razón externa que parece posible no basta. Combina las pistas reales sin añadir hechos no respaldados.
We meet inside because it is raining.Postura y valoración · Aplicar el argumento
Busca valoraciones y reservas; un hecho positivo no implica aprobación absoluta. Relaciona la acción con el argumento y sus límites.
The writer likes the idea but asks for one change.Preguntas y respuestas
Abrir una respuesta registra ayuda para esa pregunta.
When a cooler room is not the whole answer
What did the first cool-room group do better on average?
- Improved on every individual task without making errors.
- Made fewer proofreading errors afterwards.
- Reported greater comfort during the rest of the working day.
- Completed the proofreading task more quickly afterwards.
Respuesta y explicación
Made fewer proofreading errors afterwards.
La respuesta respaldada es «Made fewer proofreading errors afterwards.». Prueba: «The cool-room group made fewer errors afterwards, on average.». Compara la alternativa «Improved on every individual task without making errors.». Esto convierte un resultado matizado en una afirmación sin excepciones. Contrasta el pasaje «on average» con la pregunta y la afirmación «Improved on every individual task without making errors.». Compara la alternativa «Completed the proofreading task more quickly afterwards.». Esto sustituye el resultado medido o comunicado por otro distinto. Contrasta el pasaje «made fewer errors afterwards» con la pregunta y la afirmación «Completed the proofreading task more quickly afterwards.».
When a cooler room is not the whole answer
Why was temperature not the only possible explanation?
- The groups spent their breaks in equally quiet rooms.
- Participants were unaware of which condition they had entered.
- The researchers compared comfort rather than proofreading accuracy.
- Noise and movement also differed between the groups.
Respuesta y explicación
Noise and movement also differed between the groups.
La respuesta respaldada es «Noise and movement also differed between the groups.». Prueba: «The cool room was also quieter, and participants had to walk along a corridor to reach it.». Compara la alternativa «The groups spent their breaks in equally quiet rooms.». Esto confunde dos fases: la situación inicial y una comprobación o decisión posterior. Contrasta el pasaje «The cool room was also quieter» con la pregunta y la afirmación «The groups spent their breaks in equally quiet rooms.». Compara la alternativa «Participants were unaware of which condition they had entered.». Esto invierte la relación indicada en el texto. Contrasta el pasaje «people knew which room they were in» con la pregunta y la afirmación «Participants were unaware of which condition they had entered.».
When a cooler room is not the whole answer
What did random assignment fail to remove?
- The unequal proportion of volunteers assigned to each room.
- The sample-size difference between the original study and its follow-up.
- Differences built into the experimental conditions.
- A difference in the scheduled length of the two breaks.
Respuesta y explicación
Differences built into the experimental conditions.
La respuesta respaldada es «Differences built into the experimental conditions.». Prueba: «it could not remove these features of the design.». Compara la alternativa «The unequal proportion of volunteers assigned to each room.». Esto invierte la relación indicada en el texto. Contrasta el pasaje «Half spent the break in a cool room; the others remained in the usual office.» con la pregunta y la afirmación «The unequal proportion of volunteers assigned to each room.». Compara la alternativa «A difference in the scheduled length of the two breaks.». Esto añade un detalle que el relato no aporta; que parezca plausible no lo convierte en prueba textual. Contrasta el pasaje «took a ten-minute break» con la pregunta y la afirmación «A difference in the scheduled length of the two breaks.».
When a cooler room is not the whole answer
How does the writer assess the first study?
- Its larger sample makes its temperature explanation stronger than the better-controlled follow-up.
- Its limitations mean the pattern is too unreliable to guide further questions.
- Useful for refining a question, but insufficient for policy.
- Its practical promise is sufficient grounds to invest before another trial.
Respuesta y explicación
Useful for refining a question, but insufficient for policy.
La respuesta respaldada es «Useful for refining a question, but insufficient for policy.». Prueba: «It identified an interesting pattern and helped shape a more precise question.». Compara la alternativa «Its limitations mean the pattern is too unreliable to guide further questions.». Esto usa una limitación para descartar toda la aportación, en vez de distinguir su utilidad de sus límites. Contrasta el pasaje «helped shape a more precise question» con la pregunta y la afirmación «Its limitations mean the pattern is too unreliable to guide further questions.». Compara la alternativa «Its practical promise is sufficient grounds to invest before another trial.». Esto recomienda actuar antes de contar con las pruebas o garantías adicionales solicitadas. Contrasta el pasaje «Before recommending a policy, the team wants a larger trial» con la pregunta y la afirmación «Its practical promise is sufficient grounds to invest before another trial.».
When a cooler room is not the whole answer
What changed in the follow-up design?
- The two groups worked in the same room rather than separate rooms.
- Walking distance and room quietness were matched.
- Both groups tested newly installed cooling equipment at work.
- The team compared participants across several different workplaces.
Respuesta y explicación
Walking distance and room quietness were matched.
La respuesta respaldada es «Walking distance and room quietness were matched.». Prueba: «both groups walked the same distance and sat in equally quiet rooms.». Compara la alternativa «The two groups worked in the same room rather than separate rooms.». Esto añade un detalle que el relato no aporta; que parezca plausible no lo convierte en prueba textual. Contrasta el pasaje «sat in equally quiet rooms» con la pregunta y la afirmación «The two groups worked in the same room rather than separate rooms.». Compara la alternativa «Both groups tested newly installed cooling equipment at work.». Esto confunde dos fases: la situación inicial y una comprobación o decisión posterior. Contrasta el pasaje «justify expensive cooling equipment while ignoring the uncertainty» con la pregunta y la afirmación «Both groups tested newly installed cooling equipment at work.».
When a cooler room is not the whole answer
What does the smaller difference in the follow-up imply?
- The follow-up settles the question without needing a larger experiment.
- The original temperature explanation became less convincing.
- The smaller difference shows that temperature can be ruled out as a cause.
- The follow-up establishes silence as the cause of the original improvement.
Respuesta y explicación
The original temperature explanation became less convincing.
La respuesta respaldada es «The original temperature explanation became less convincing.». Prueba: «That finding weakened the original temperature explanation». Compara la alternativa «The smaller difference shows that temperature can be ruled out as a cause.». Esto atribuye a las pruebas más certeza o alcance del que permiten. Contrasta el pasaje «it did not establish that temperature had no effect» con la pregunta y la afirmación «The smaller difference shows that temperature can be ruled out as a cause.». Compara la alternativa «The follow-up establishes silence as the cause of the original improvement.». Esto convierte una asociación observada en una conclusión causal no demostrada. Contrasta el pasaje «Either silence or movement might have contributed.» con la pregunta y la afirmación «The follow-up establishes silence as the cause of the original improvement.».
When a cooler room is not the whole answer
Why does the team want to measure comfort?
- To confirm the discomfort already reported by the first cool-room group.
- To use workers’ opinions instead of measuring their accuracy.
- To find out whether discomfort explains all the original proofreading errors.
- Short-term accuracy may not mean practical benefit all afternoon.
Respuesta y explicación
Short-term accuracy may not mean practical benefit all afternoon.
La respuesta respaldada es «Short-term accuracy may not mean practical benefit all afternoon.». Prueba: «A room that improves a short test but makes workers uncomfortable all afternoon may offer little practical benefit.». Compara la alternativa «To find out whether discomfort explains all the original proofreading errors.». La comprobación del confort busca saber si la mayor precisión aporta un beneficio práctico durante la tarde. No se propone explicar todos los errores originales mediante el malestar. Contrasta el pasaje «a measure of comfort as well as accuracy» con la pregunta y la afirmación «To find out whether discomfort explains all the original proofreading errors.». Compara la alternativa «To confirm the discomfort already reported by the first cool-room group.». Esto presenta una comprobación futura como un resultado ya establecido. Contrasta el pasaje «wants a larger trial» con la pregunta y la afirmación «To confirm the discomfort already reported by the first cool-room group.».
When a cooler room is not the whole answer
Which policy response would the article support?
- Base the investment decision on proofreading accuracy without measuring comfort.
- Abandon the temperature question because the follow-up found a smaller effect.
- Seek broader evidence before investing in cooling equipment.
- Invest in cooling first and check its wider workplace benefits afterwards.
Respuesta y explicación
Seek broader evidence before investing in cooling equipment.
La respuesta respaldada es «Seek broader evidence before investing in cooling equipment.». Prueba: «Before recommending a policy, the team wants a larger trial across several workplaces». Compara la alternativa «Invest in cooling first and check its wider workplace benefits afterwards.». Esto recomienda actuar antes de contar con las pruebas o garantías adicionales solicitadas. Contrasta el pasaje «Before recommending a policy, the team wants a larger trial» con la pregunta y la afirmación «Invest in cooling first and check its wider workplace benefits afterwards.». Compara la alternativa «Abandon the temperature question because the follow-up found a smaller effect.». Esto usa una limitación para descartar toda la aportación, en vez de distinguir su utilidad de sus límites. Contrasta el pasaje «it did not establish that temperature had no effect» con la pregunta y la afirmación «Abandon the temperature question because the follow-up found a smaller effect.».