When a study is corrected · B2. Keep the requested person, time, place or amount attached to the correct event. Separate supported claims from what the evidence leaves unknown. No mention does not prove absence.
Read the original English material and answer with evidence. The level is an editorial guide, not a certified result.
Read the original English material and answer with evidence. The level is an editorial guide, not a certified result.
The following research case is fictional and is provided for reading practice, not as scientific evidence.
A community garden project compared two ways of reminding volunteers about watering duties. One group received a fixed weekly message; the other received a message only when its scheduled watering day was approaching. The project team initially reported fewer missed sessions in the second group and suggested that more timely reminders might be useful. It did not claim to have discovered the best reminder for every kind of voluntary work.
Several weeks later, a volunteer checking the records noticed that a cancelled session had been counted as a missed duty. The cancellation followed a damaged water pipe, not a failure by the person scheduled to attend. On its own, that entry changed little. However, the discovery prompted a review of how cancellations had been recorded across both groups.
The team found that one coordinator had removed cancelled sessions before calculating a rate, while another had retained them. The groups were therefore being compared on inconsistent terms. Correcting this difference reduced the apparent advantage of the day-specific reminders. A small difference remained, but the team considered it too uncertain to support the confidence of its original summary.
The corrected report kept the raw attendance records, explained the changed calculation and displayed the original summary beside the replacement. It did not quietly overwrite the earlier document. This allowed readers to see what had changed and why. Personal details of individual volunteers remained withheld; transparency about a method did not require publishing their private contact information.
Some readers interpreted the correction as proof that all the project’s work was worthless. Others wanted to ignore it because the remaining difference pointed in the same direction. The report rejected both responses. The collection of attendance information still described useful aspects of the project, but the strength of the original comparison had been overstated. Keeping the preferred conclusion while refusing to reconsider its support would not repair that problem.
For the next season, the team proposed a shared definition of a cancelled session, agreed before data collection began. It also planned to record whether a reminder had actually been delivered. A message sent to an outdated address could not influence attendance in the same way as one received and read, although delivery records alone would not show how carefully anyone considered it.
The case illustrates a distinction between defending a particular finding and improving a process for reaching findings. A correction can weaken a result while making the reasoning behind the next investigation more dependable. Its value depends on whether the explanation is specific enough for others to inspect, not on whether the revised headline remains impressive.
Keep the requested person, time, place or amount attached to the correct event. Separate supported claims from what the evidence leaves unknown. No mention does not prove absence.
The doors open at eight. The class starts at nine.
Use the reason actually given; a plausible reason from outside the text is not enough. Keep the requested person, time, place or amount attached to the correct event. Separate supported claims from what the evidence leaves unknown. No mention does not prove absence.
We meet inside because it is raining.
Separate supported claims from what the evidence leaves unknown. No mention does not prove absence. Use the whole text: a true detail is not automatically the main point.
The notice gives a price, but says nothing about delivery.
Read the original English material and answer with evidence. The level is an editorial guide, not a certified result.
The following research case is fictional and is provided for reading practice, not as scientific evidence.
A community garden project compared two ways of reminding volunteers about watering duties. One group received a fixed weekly message; the other received a message only when its scheduled watering day was approaching. The project team initially reported fewer missed sessions in the second group and suggested that more timely reminders might be useful. It did not claim to have discovered the best reminder for every kind of voluntary work.
Several weeks later, a volunteer checking the records noticed that a cancelled session had been counted as a missed duty. The cancellation followed a damaged water pipe, not a failure by the person scheduled to attend. On its own, that entry changed little. However, the discovery prompted a review of how cancellations had been recorded across both groups.
The team found that one coordinator had removed cancelled sessions before calculating a rate, while another had retained them. The groups were therefore being compared on inconsistent terms. Correcting this difference reduced the apparent advantage of the day-specific reminders. A small difference remained, but the team considered it too uncertain to support the confidence of its original summary.
The corrected report kept the raw attendance records, explained the changed calculation and displayed the original summary beside the replacement. It did not quietly overwrite the earlier document. This allowed readers to see what had changed and why. Personal details of individual volunteers remained withheld; transparency about a method did not require publishing their private contact information.
Some readers interpreted the correction as proof that all the project’s work was worthless. Others wanted to ignore it because the remaining difference pointed in the same direction. The report rejected both responses. The collection of attendance information still described useful aspects of the project, but the strength of the original comparison had been overstated. Keeping the preferred conclusion while refusing to reconsider its support would not repair that problem.
For the next season, the team proposed a shared definition of a cancelled session, agreed before data collection began. It also planned to record whether a reminder had actually been delivered. A message sent to an outdated address could not influence attendance in the same way as one received and read, although delivery records alone would not show how carefully anyone considered it.
The case illustrates a distinction between defending a particular finding and improving a process for reaching findings. A correction can weaken a result while making the reasoning behind the next investigation more dependable. Its value depends on whether the explanation is specific enough for others to inspect, not on whether the revised headline remains impressive.
When a study is corrected
Use the reason actually given; a plausible reason from outside the text is not enough. Keep the requested person, time, place or amount attached to the correct event. Separate supported claims from what the evidence leaves unknown. No mention does not prove absence.
We meet inside because it is raining.Separate supported claims from what the evidence leaves unknown. No mention does not prove absence. Use the whole text: a true detail is not automatically the main point.
The notice gives a price, but says nothing about delivery.Keep the requested person, time, place or amount attached to the correct event. Separate supported claims from what the evidence leaves unknown. No mention does not prove absence.
The doors open at eight. The class starts at nine.Keep your first attempt, check the evidence and try another question. A follow-up on the same material does not prove transfer to a new text.
No practice notes yet. Try a short warm-up.
Keep the requested person, time, place or amount attached to the correct event. Separate supported claims from what the evidence leaves unknown. No mention does not prove absence.
The doors open at eight. The class starts at nine.Use the reason actually given; a plausible reason from outside the text is not enough. Keep the requested person, time, place or amount attached to the correct event. Separate supported claims from what the evidence leaves unknown. No mention does not prove absence.
We meet inside because it is raining.Separate supported claims from what the evidence leaves unknown. No mention does not prove absence. Use the whole text: a true detail is not automatically the main point.
The notice gives a price, but says nothing about delivery.Opening an answer records help for that question.
When a study is corrected
The supported answer is “Weekly reminders with reminders timed near a person’s watering day.”. Evidence: “One group received a fixed weekly message; the other received a message only when its scheduled watering day was approaching.”. Compare the alternative “Reminders used in gardening with those used by other voluntary organisations.”. This claims more certainty or wider applicability than this evidence allows. Compare the alternative “Fixed weekly messages with messages triggered by a water-pipe failure.”. This substitutes a different outcome for the one that was measured or reported.
When a study is corrected
The supported answer is “A cancelled session had been counted as a missed duty.”. Evidence: “a cancelled session had been counted as a missed duty.”. Compare the alternative “A revised summary showed a smaller difference before anyone checked the entries.”. This confuses two stages of the account: the initial situation and a later check or decision. Compare the alternative “A missed duty caused the scheduled volunteer’s message to be withdrawn.”. This confuses the reason for an action with its possible consequence or a separate response.
When a study is corrected
The supported answer is “A water pipe was damaged.”. Evidence: “The cancellation followed a damaged water pipe”. Compare the alternative “The scheduled volunteer could not be contacted at the recorded address.”. This adds a specific detail that the account does not provide; plausibility is not textual evidence. Compare the alternative “The team decided to stop collecting attendance records for the season.”. This extends a qualified finding into a claim without exceptions.
When a study is corrected
The supported answer is “The coordinators treated cancellations differently in the calculations.”. Evidence: “one coordinator had removed cancelled sessions before calculating a rate, while another had retained them.”. Compare the alternative “The coordinators used different reminder times rather than different cancellation rules.”. This substitutes a different outcome for the one that was measured or reported. Compare the alternative “Cancelled sessions were removed from the rates for both groups.”. This reverses the relationship stated in the passage.
When a study is corrected
The supported answer is “It became smaller and less convincing.”. Evidence: “Correcting this difference reduced the apparent advantage of the day-specific reminders. A small difference remained, but the team considered it too uncertain to support the confidence of its original summary.”. Compare the alternative “The reduced difference still justified the original level of confidence.”. This claims more certainty or wider applicability than this evidence allows. Compare the alternative “The correction reversed the result and established weekly reminders as better.”. This reverses the relationship stated in the passage.
When a study is corrected
The supported answer is “They would not show how carefully a message was considered.”. Evidence: “delivery records alone would not show how carefully anyone considered it.”. Compare the alternative “They would establish that every delivered message had been considered carefully.”. This claims more certainty or wider applicability than this evidence allows. Compare the alternative “They could not help distinguish a failed delivery from a successful one.”. This extends a qualified finding into a claim without exceptions.
When a study is corrected
The supported answer is “It did not reveal volunteers’ private contact information.”. Evidence: “transparency about a method did not require publishing their private contact information.”. Compare the alternative “It discarded the raw records so that individual entries could not be checked.”. This reverses the relationship stated in the passage. Compare the alternative “It allowed the corrected summary to be seen but not the original version.”. This reverses the relationship stated in the passage.
When a study is corrected
The supported answer is “Dismissing all the work and ignoring the correction to preserve a preferred result.”. Evidence: “Some readers interpreted the correction as proof that all the project’s work was worthless. Others wanted to ignore it because the remaining difference pointed in the same direction. The report rejected both responses.”. Compare the alternative “Agreeing cancellation rules and recording actual message delivery.”. This statement is consistent with the account. It is not the answer because the question asks for a claim rejected, avoided or not justified by the evidence. Compare the alternative “Retaining attendance data and explaining the corrected calculation.”. This statement is consistent with the account. It is not the answer because the question asks for a claim rejected, avoided or not justified by the evidence.
When a study is corrected
The supported answer is “The attendance information about aspects of the project.”. Evidence: “The collection of attendance information still described useful aspects of the project”. Compare the alternative “The original level of confidence in the superiority of day-specific reminders.”. This claims more certainty or wider applicability than this evidence allows. Compare the alternative “The applicability of the result to voluntary work beyond this project.”. This claims more certainty or wider applicability than this evidence allows.
When a study is corrected
The supported answer is “A shared definition of a cancelled session.”. Evidence: “a shared definition of a cancelled session, agreed before data collection began.”. Compare the alternative “The conclusion the next report should retain if the difference becomes smaller.”. This reverses the relationship stated in the passage. Compare the alternative “Which volunteers’ private contact details should accompany the published records.”. This assigns a feature or action to the wrong group or speaker.
When a study is corrected
The supported answer is “It displayed it beside the corrected replacement.”. Evidence: “displayed the original summary beside the replacement.”. Compare the alternative “It substituted a list of volunteers’ contact details for the original summary.”. This reverses the relationship stated in the passage. Compare the alternative “It retained the original as the only public account of the comparison.”. This reverses the relationship stated in the passage.
When a study is corrected
The supported answer is “A weaker result can accompany a more dependable investigative process.”. Evidence: “A correction can weaken a result while making the reasoning behind the next investigation more dependable.”. Compare the alternative “A calculation error removes the value of the underlying attendance information.”. This treats a limitation as a reason to discard the whole contribution, rather than distinguish its use from its limits. Compare the alternative “Improving the process confirms the substantive claim made in the original summary.”. This claims more certainty or wider applicability than this evidence allows.