▶ Your Answer :
Both the reading passage and the lecture deal with a rare weather phenomenon known as red rain. In the lecture, the speaker asserts that theories suggested in the reading are groundless. This casts doubt on the reading’s claim that there are rational explanations for the phenomenon. To begin with, the lecturer points out that it is absurd to believe that the red rain contained the blood of bats. Experts said that in the Indian state of Kerala, bats had been destroyed nearly extinct at that time. They were hardly able to discover wings and bones of bats. Thus, a large amount of bat blood would could not have been dispersed through the atmosphere. This counters the reading’s insistence that the red rain was originated from the blood of bats. Secondly, according to the speaker, the explanation that the red rain resulted from a volcanic eruption in the Philippines is not proved. If the volcanic eruption was the main cause of the red rain, the red rain would have been observed by those who lived in the Philippines too. However, this is not supported by the fact that it was hard to observe the phenomenon in the nations countries (단어의 쓰임새가 약간 다릅니다.) near the Philippines. This rebuffs the reading passage’s assertion that a volcanic eruption in the Philippines resulted in the red rain. Lastly, the lecturer maintains that the red rain phenomenon were was not (그게 아니라는 것이 lecture의 주장) caused by chemical pollution which local factories generated from local factories. Pollutants would not have combined with moisture in the atmosphere since there were very few factories in the state. Furthermore, the red rain was rarely observed in the area where unchimney factories were concentrated. This is contradictory to the reading’s point that chemical pollution from local factories without filters could be responsible for the red rain phenomenon. Writing 0-30 scale Fair(23-25) 전반적으로 reading passage와 listening passage의 주장을 잘 정리하고 요약하였습니다. 다만 지문에서 밝힌 사실 관계를 정 반대로 서술한 점이 있으며, 그 외에도 단어의 쓰임이나 표현이 어색한 부분이 있습니다. |