▶ Your Answer :
The lecturer claims that the reading's assertion is groundless. This casts doubt on the reading's claim that the Anasazi abandoned their homeland due to a severe drought.
First, the lecturer asserts that bones from Anasazi graves don't mean malnutrition. In fact, malnutrition was is common phenomenon in Anasazi's society regardless of annual productivity. This is because they used use a huge amount of crops for religious ceremony, not for eating. This contrasts with the reading's argument arguement that the migration of the Anasazi people was is due to malnutrition.
Second, the lecturer maintains that the condition of the abandoned settlements can't be a reason of their return. This is because it doesn't make sense that the Anasazi wanted to return after they had found a better place to live. This refutes the reading's insistence that the the condition of the abandoned settlements is a clue that their migration due to a drought. 설명 내용이 잘 이해되지 않습니다. 첫 부분에서 '버려진 settlement가 돌아올 이유가 되지 못한다'라는 설명은 지문의 입장과 맞지 않는 것 같습니다. 각 지문의 내용을 다시 검토해주세요.
Lastly, the lecturer argues that it is not true that most of the Anasazi resettled in areas with reliable water supplies. In fact, their new settlements had has even lower moistures, so there is no reason for the Anasazi to live in harsher condition. This rebuffs the reading's point that the Anasazi migrated because there were not adequate amounts of water.
Writing 0–30 score scale Fair (17-23)
과거에 대한 내용을 정리할 때는 시제 표현에 유의해주세요. 전반적인 구성은 잘 잡혀 있지만 아직 내용 흐름이 어색한 부분들이 있어 아쉽습니다. 지문 내용과 실제 답을 검토하면서 빠진 detail이나 잘못 파악된 내용 등을 한 번 더 체크해보시면 좋을 것 같아요. 수고 많으셨습니다. ^^
|