조건 추론 — policy scenario에서 if, would, might 쓰기

Jae is preparing a scenario paragraph about a school policy scenario about phone storage during study time. The task is not to copy a famous essay, a news article, a speech, or a literary excerpt. The class begins with a short original text written only for this lesson. The text is simple enough to read in one sitting, but it leaves room for interpretation. That is why Jae first writes a claim in one sentence and then checks whether the evidence actually supports it.

The original text gives three small details. First, a student chooses a place, object, or routine and notices that it changes how people respond. Second, another student reads the same situation differently, so the class cannot rely on a single quick answer. Third, the final line does not explain everything. It leaves a gap that a careful reader must discuss. If phones were stored at the front desk, some students might focus longer, but the policy would also create a responsibility risk. The recommendation depends on an assumption about trust and a likely outcome for study time.

In the first draft, Jae summarizes too much. The paragraph says what happened, but it does not yet explain why the details matter. During revision, the class uses four questions: What is the claim? What detail is explicit? What meaning is implicit? What reasoning connects the two? These questions slow the writer down, yet they also prevent vague analysis. Jae writes a cautious paragraph rather than a strong command because the scenario has several alternatives.

A second draft becomes more precise. It names the pattern, chooses one piece of evidence, and explains the implication without pretending that every reader must agree. The paragraph also avoids outside facts. If data appears in the lesson, the data is invented for classroom practice; if a scene appears, the scene is original; if two viewpoints appear, both are written for this lesson. This boundary is part of the learning goal because responsible analysis begins with knowing where the text comes from.

Before writing the final version, the class also tests a second possible claim. Students ask whether the same evidence could support a different reading, and they mark the answer with a small note. This step does not make the paragraph longer for its own sake. It helps the writer choose stronger wording, remove overclaims, and keep the analysis fair to a reader who may disagree. The teacher then asks each student to replace one vague word with a precise academic word. That last revision connects language control with interpretation: better wording makes the analysis easier to test. The class keeps this note in the margin so the final paragraph can show both confidence and care.

The final paragraph is compact, but it has a visible structure. The first sentence gives a claim. The second sentence points to evidence. The third sentence explains reasoning. The final sentence may add a limitation, a contrast, or a next question. When Jae reads the paragraph aloud, the class can hear the difference between summary and analysis. Summary retells the text. Analysis shows how a detail creates meaning for a reader.

If phones were stored away, focus might improve.
The policy would also create a responsibility risk.
The recommendation depends on the class context.

The text suggests ______.
The detail ______ supports this claim.
This matters because ______.
A limitation or next question is ______.