대광고 영어 내신 · 절 구조와 어법 판단 5문항

A school science club wanted visitors to understand the results of a water-cleaning experiment. The teacher, who had checked the equipment before the exhibition, ① was concerned that a list of numbers would be difficult to interpret. Instead of adding more technical terms, the students prepared short labels. The labels ② attached to each model explained what the group had changed and what it had kept constant. Each label included a question that encouraged visitors to compare two results. The questions that the teacher had helped the students write ③ was placed beside the models. After reading them, visitors could describe the comparison without ④ repeating every number. The club concluded that a useful explanation should make the relationship between conditions visible, rather than require readers ⑤ to remember isolated facts.

A school science club wanted visitors to understand the results of a water-cleaning experiment. The teacher, who had checked the equipment before the exhibition, ① was concerned that a list of numbers would be difficult to interpret. Instead of adding more technical terms, the students prepared short labels. The labels ② attached to each model explained what the group had changed and what it had kept constant. Each label included a question that encouraged visitors to compare two results. The questions that the teacher had helped the students write ③ was placed beside the models. After reading them, visitors could describe the comparison without ④ repeating every number. The club concluded that a useful explanation should make the relationship between conditions visible, rather than require readers ⑤ to remember isolated facts.

An archive invited students to design descriptions for objects whose original owners were unknown. At first, the students wrote ① what they imagined about each object, mixing observed details with possible stories. The curator did not ask them to remove every guess. Instead, she explained ② that a possibility should be identified as a possibility. The revised cards separated the details ③ that visitors could directly observe from the interpretations proposed by the writers. This distinction allowed visitors ④ to question an interpretation without denying the observed details. The team later discussed ⑤ what the new format made the boundary between observation and interpretation easier to recognize. They planned to test that idea with a different set of objects before drawing a broader conclusion.

A community workshop lent repair tools to residents who wanted to fix small household objects. The list of items stored in two cabinets (a) were checked every Friday. Volunteers first asked borrowers to describe the task, because choosing a tool depended on the material rather than on the size of the object alone. The tools (b) returned by the morning group were cleaned before another group arrived. A note on each case explained (c) what the next borrower should inspect the handle before using the tool. One volunteer reminded visitors (d) to report loose handles immediately. Keeping a short record of these reports (e) helped the workshop identify tools that required repeated repairs. The record was used to improve maintenance, not to compare how skillful individual borrowers were.

An accessibility team compared two versions of a museum guide. Some visitors misunderstood the longer guide, but the interviews did not establish that its length caused the misunderstanding. What mattered in several responses was whether readers could connect a direction to a visible landmark. The team therefore recommended a further test rather than an immediate rule limiting every guide to the same number of words. [통합할 두 문장] The interviews were conducted after the visit. They revealed a difficulty: readers sometimes failed to connect written directions to visible landmarks. [조건] 두 문장을 한 문장으로 합치되, 첫 문장의 수동 관계와 두 번째 문장의 어려움을 모두 유지하고, 글에서 확정하지 않은 원인은 추가하지 마시오.