편입영어 · imply와 infer의 방향 기록 연습

In a letter, a manufacturer said that delivery would resume once a replacement part arrived. The letter gave no arrival date and made no promise about the week in which production would restart. The retailer nevertheless told customers that their orders would ship the following Monday. When the part arrived two weeks later, the retailer accused the manufacturer of breaking a dated promise. The manufacturer replied that the letter had identified a dependency, not a timetable. The retailer's expectation may have been understandable in light of earlier deliveries, but it went beyond what this particular message committed the manufacturer to doing.

In a letter, a manufacturer said that delivery would resume once a replacement part arrived. The letter gave no arrival date and made no promise about the week in which production would restart. The retailer nevertheless told customers that their orders would ship the following Monday. When the part arrived two weeks later, the retailer accused the manufacturer of breaking a dated promise. The manufacturer replied that the letter had identified a dependency, not a timetable. The retailer's expectation may have been understandable in light of earlier deliveries, but it went beyond what this particular message committed the manufacturer to doing.

A detective found dry footprints beneath a window after rain had soaked the courtyard. She inferred that someone had crossed the courtyard before the shower and entered through the window. Her colleague pointed out that a sheltered passage also led to the same spot. That possibility did not show that the detective's account was false, but it weakened the claim that the footprints established it. The evidence supported an explanation only in conjunction with assumptions about the available routes. Before presenting the inference as a finding, the detective would need evidence that excluded, or at least made less plausible, the alternative route.

A detective found dry footprints beneath a window after rain had soaked the courtyard. She inferred that someone had crossed the courtyard before the shower and entered through the window. Her colleague pointed out that a sheltered passage also led to the same spot. That possibility did not show that the detective's account was false, but it weakened the claim that the footprints established it. The evidence supported an explanation only in conjunction with assumptions about the available routes. Before presenting the inference as a finding, the detective would need evidence that excluded, or at least made less plausible, the alternative route.