▶ Your Answer :
In the lecture, the lecturer
claims that the theories suggested in the reading are groundless. This casts
doubt on the reading's point that there are plausible theories to explain => explain what? The cause?source? "will-o'-the-wisp". First, the lecturer
asserts that chemical illumination is not responsible for the lights. The
lights by a chemical reaction don't resemble "will-o'-the-wisp".
The lights have totally different color from "will-o'-the-wisp". This
contrasts the reading's assertion that chemical illumination is cause of
"will-o'-the-wisp". Second, the lecturer
maintains that flying insects can't be the source of
"will-o'-the-wisp". The mysterious light spreads out when it's glowing, but fireflies, one of the
flying insects, glow like small balls and even don't even blink like the light does. This refutes the reading's insistence that the light
might be caused by flying insects. Lastly, the lecturer
argues that barn owls also don't cause "will-o'-the-wisp". In fact,
the lights by barn owls are not entirely white like the anomalous lights are. Also their glowing is not consistent unlike
the lights glow very long time. 어새갑니다. This rebuffs the reading's argument that barn owls may be the source of the
anomalous lights. Writing 0-30 Score
Scale Fair (17-23)
Overall Comment : 전체적으로 points 들은 잘 잡았지만, 설명 및 근거 가 조금 부족 해요. Body 1 에서 어떻게 resemble 하지 않는지 설명 해주시고, Body 2 에서는 spreads out 하는게 정확히 뭔지 써주세요. Body 3 에서는 consistency 에 대해서 더 구체적으로
points 잡아주세요. 조금 더 세부적으로 쓰도록 노력
해보세요! |