The reading passage is about EFL which is being more popular than the ILB. and The author says that EFL is not good to people and the environment so it shouldn't should not be used. However the lecture is about CFL is not harmful to both humans and the environment and its better than the ILB. First, the reading passage says that CFL emits UV and this causes skin problems and cancer when people are exposed for a long time. but However, the lecture argues that both CFL and ILB contains this UV and it won't would not be harmful as CFL has a boudle layer glass to protect it. Second, the reading passage insists that CFL has mercury which is harmful to humans. This makes people get exposed by the broken CFL and contaminate the soil and make the water polluted by the trashed ones. However, the feature lecture claims that when people just follow the nustruetious (?), it would be safe and nothing to worry about. Third, the reading passage says that CFL costs much more than ILBs. However, the lecture argues that it does cost more that the ILBs but it lasts much more longer than the ILB. (구체화해주세요.) For these reasons,m the reading passage suggests that CFL is harmful and it be sued but the lecture claims that CFL is not harmful and it should be used. Writing 0-30 scale Fair(20-23) TOEFL 글쓰기는 academic writing skill을 평가하는 시험입니다. 약자(EFL, CFL, ILB, UV 등)를 쓰기 전에는 반드시 적어도 한 번은 원래 표현이 무엇이었는지를 밝혀야 합니다. 오타가 많습니다. 사소해 보이는 실수라도 반복, 누적되면 감점 요인이 될 수 있습니다. 조금 더 꼼꼼하게 글을 작성하고, 완성한 뒤에는 반드시 다시 읽어보는 시간을 가지세요. 그 외 문법 및 표현상 어색한 부분은 본문의 첨삭을 참고하세요. |