A critical finding and a decision not to act
An original Swedish sentence reads: “Trots att utredningen pekade på allvarliga brister valde nämnden att inte ingripa”. The task asks how the finding relates to the board’s decision. One learner selects an option saying the board intervened because of criticism. Another says the investigation found no problems. A third identifies a critical finding followed by a decision against intervention. The exercise gives no real authority, legal duty, date or explanation for the decision. It is original practice material, not an authenticated government report. A supported answer should preserve the concessive relation and the scope of inte. The learner may discuss whether the decision seems surprising, but should not replace what the clause actually says with the action that might have been expected.
1. What occurred according to the sentence?
Read the worked answer
The investigation identified serious shortcomings, yet the board chose not to intervene. Trots att signals the contrast; att inte ingripa preserves the negative decision.
2. Which conclusions are unsupported?
Read the worked answer
The sentence does not state why intervention was declined, prove that the findings were false or establish the board’s legal duties. An expectation of action is not a report that action occurred.