The reading passage contends that a European silver coin brought to North America by the Norse who were European explorers is fake. On the other hand, the lecturer brings up several points to contradict this argument.
First, the lecturer argues that the coin is genuine. This is because it , which is one of the objects which traveled long distances following the Norse. Actually, the Norse traveled a thousand kilometers and they could bring some objects to the Maine site. This casts doubt on the reading passage's argument that the long distances between the Maine site and the Norse settlements show that the coin is a historical fake.
Second, according to the lecturer, other coins are not necessary to prove that the coin is not a fake. If the European packed up all coins well except just one coin, researchers could find the only coin in the Native American site. This refutes the reading passage's claim that the coin is not genuine because they could not find other coins.
The final point made by the lecturer is that it is doubtful that the Maine people thought the coin is was useless, and the Norse did not bring it to them. Norse could recognize that a the silver coin was is valuable. Because because the coin was beautiful beauty and appealing enough. They could want to make neckless or jewelry using the beautiful coin. Therefore, they could want trade with Norse. 이 부분 내용 좀 더 줄여도 될 것 같아요. 은으로 된 주화는 목걸이 등 다른 것을 만드는 데도 충분히 가치가 있으므로 거래를 원했을 것이다, 정도로도 충분해보입니다. This counters the reading passage's assertion that the Norse knew that people of Maine regarded the coin as useless things.
Comment :
각 본론에서 대립되는 주요 포인트가 잘 드러난다는 점이 좋습니다. 실제 지문과 대조하면서 더 간결하게 핵심내용을 줄일 수 있는 부분들 위주로 검토해주시면 좋을 것 같습니다. 과거 사실에 대한 추측 내용은 시제오류가 생기기 쉬우니 유의해주세요~ 수고 많으셨습니다~!
Integrated Writing Rubrics Score 4/5
A response at this level is generally good in selecting the important information from the lecture and in coherently and accurately presenting this information in relation to the relevant information in the reading, but it may have minor omission, inaccuracy, vagueness, or imprecision of some content from the lecture or in connection to points made in the reading. A response is also scored at this level if it has more frequent or noticeable minor language errors, as long as such usage and grammatical structures do not result in anything more than an occasional lapse of clarity or in the connection of ideas.