A science feature

The supported answer is “Made fewer proofreading errors afterwards.”. Evidence: “The cool-room group made fewer errors afterwards, on average.”. Compare the alternative “Improved on every individual task without making errors.”. This extends a qualified finding into a claim without exceptions. Check the source wording “on average” against the question and the claim “Improved on every individual task without making errors.”. Compare the alternative “Completed the proofreading task more quickly afterwards.”. This substitutes a different outcome for the one that was measured or reported. Check the source wording “made fewer errors afterwards” against the question and the claim “Completed the proofreading task more quickly afterwards.”.

The supported answer is “Noise and movement also differed between the groups.”. Evidence: “The cool room was also quieter, and participants had to walk along a corridor to reach it.”. Compare the alternative “The groups spent their breaks in equally quiet rooms.”. This confuses two stages of the account: the initial situation and a later check or decision. Check the source wording “The cool room was also quieter” against the question and the claim “The groups spent their breaks in equally quiet rooms.”. Compare the alternative “Participants were unaware of which condition they had entered.”. This reverses the relationship stated in the passage. Check the source wording “people knew which room they were in” against the question and the claim “Participants were unaware of which condition they had entered.”.

The supported answer is “Differences built into the experimental conditions.”. Evidence: “it could not remove these features of the design.”. Compare the alternative “The unequal proportion of volunteers assigned to each room.”. This reverses the relationship stated in the passage. Check the source wording “Half spent the break in a cool room; the others remained in the usual office.” against the question and the claim “The unequal proportion of volunteers assigned to each room.”. Compare the alternative “A difference in the scheduled length of the two breaks.”. This adds a specific detail that the account does not provide; plausibility is not textual evidence. Check the source wording “took a ten-minute break” against the question and the claim “A difference in the scheduled length of the two breaks.”.

The supported answer is “Useful for refining a question, but insufficient for policy.”. Evidence: “It identified an interesting pattern and helped shape a more precise question.”. Compare the alternative “Its limitations mean the pattern is too unreliable to guide further questions.”. This treats a limitation as a reason to discard the whole contribution, rather than distinguish its use from its limits. Check the source wording “helped shape a more precise question” against the question and the claim “Its limitations mean the pattern is too unreliable to guide further questions.”. Compare the alternative “Its practical promise is sufficient grounds to invest before another trial.”. This recommends acting before the further evidence or safeguards requested in the passage are available. Check the source wording “Before recommending a policy, the team wants a larger trial” against the question and the claim “Its practical promise is sufficient grounds to invest before another trial.”.

The supported answer is “Walking distance and room quietness were matched.”. Evidence: “both groups walked the same distance and sat in equally quiet rooms.”. Compare the alternative “The two groups worked in the same room rather than separate rooms.”. This adds a specific detail that the account does not provide; plausibility is not textual evidence. Check the source wording “sat in equally quiet rooms” against the question and the claim “The two groups worked in the same room rather than separate rooms.”. Compare the alternative “Both groups tested newly installed cooling equipment at work.”. This confuses two stages of the account: the initial situation and a later check or decision. Check the source wording “justify expensive cooling equipment while ignoring the uncertainty” against the question and the claim “Both groups tested newly installed cooling equipment at work.”.

The supported answer is “The original temperature explanation became less convincing.”. Evidence: “That finding weakened the original temperature explanation”. Compare the alternative “The smaller difference shows that temperature can be ruled out as a cause.”. This claims more certainty or wider applicability than this evidence allows. Check the source wording “it did not establish that temperature had no effect” against the question and the claim “The smaller difference shows that temperature can be ruled out as a cause.”. Compare the alternative “The follow-up establishes silence as the cause of the original improvement.”. This turns an observed association into a causal conclusion that the account does not establish. Check the source wording “Either silence or movement might have contributed.” against the question and the claim “The follow-up establishes silence as the cause of the original improvement.”.

The supported answer is “Short-term accuracy may not mean practical benefit all afternoon.”. Evidence: “A room that improves a short test but makes workers uncomfortable all afternoon may offer little practical benefit.”. Compare the alternative “To find out whether discomfort explains all the original proofreading errors.”. The proposed comfort check asks whether better accuracy has practical value over an afternoon. The passage does not propose explaining all the original errors through discomfort. Check the source wording “a measure of comfort as well as accuracy” against the question and the claim “To find out whether discomfort explains all the original proofreading errors.”. Compare the alternative “To confirm the discomfort already reported by the first cool-room group.”. This treats a proposed future check as an already established finding. Check the source wording “wants a larger trial” against the question and the claim “To confirm the discomfort already reported by the first cool-room group.”.

The supported answer is “Seek broader evidence before investing in cooling equipment.”. Evidence: “Before recommending a policy, the team wants a larger trial across several workplaces”. Compare the alternative “Invest in cooling first and check its wider workplace benefits afterwards.”. This recommends acting before the further evidence or safeguards requested in the passage are available. Check the source wording “Before recommending a policy, the team wants a larger trial” against the question and the claim “Invest in cooling first and check its wider workplace benefits afterwards.”. Compare the alternative “Abandon the temperature question because the follow-up found a smaller effect.”. This treats a limitation as a reason to discard the whole contribution, rather than distinguish its use from its limits. Check the source wording “it did not establish that temperature had no effect” against the question and the claim “Abandon the temperature question because the follow-up found a smaller effect.”.