I looked very carefully and I ... see a figure in the distance.

[Grablevskij]

English Grammar in Use by R. Murphy, seconde edition, unit 26 (Can, could and be able to), page 52.

Please, have a look at the picture.

In the theoretical part it is said that:
1. We use "could" for general ability.
2. If we are talking about what happened in a particular situation, we use was/were able to... or managed to... (not could).

In the exercise 26.5 point 6:
I looked very carefully and I ... see a figure in the distance.

The answer in the key is could/was able to.

I suppose, that could is impossible here according to the abovementioned rules.

Am I right or wrong? If I'm wrong, could you clarify the grammar here?

 

[GoesStation]

Please edit your post to highlight words that it's about but that aren't otherwise part of the sentence in which they appear. You can use quotation marks, italics, or, as the quoted source does, bold face.

 

[Grablevskij]

I've tried to do that.

 

[Tarheel]

Example:

I suppose that "could" is impossible here ....

As for that sentence, you can use "could" and some people would. It is, however, not necessary. You could simply say you saw a figure in the distance.

 

[GoesStation]

Please edit your post to highlight words that it's about but that aren't otherwise part of the sentence in which they appear. You can use quotation marks, italics, or, as the quoted source does, bold face.

I've tried to do that.

Thanks for trying. I'm afraid you didn't get this right, though. You have to highlight every bit of text that you're writing about but which isn't otherwise part of the text. I've edited #1 to demonstrate the three methods I described. Don't do this in your own work; choose one method and stick with it.