▶ Your Answer :
In the given set of materials, there is some
discrepancy between the lecturer and the author on the issue of the possible
effective methods about protecting frog species in the world. The lecturer
affirms that (indeed,) the suggestions presented by the author are all
pointless because these solutions for rescuing them are less-effective or even
non-effective, whereas the author suggests otherwise.
To begin with, the lecturer debunks the
author's first conjecture. To elaborate in detail, the lecturer states that
using less pesticide does harm for farmers than no
good for frogs. This is because using less insecticide can give rise to
negative effects on farmers’ crops and (its) yields. Furthermore, there is small pollution on frog's habitat due to its
strict regulations. (rules to use it.) This
casts doubt on the reading passage's assertion that prohibiting farmers from
using harmful chemical pesticides can protect frogs.
On top of that, the speaker also indicates
dissent over the reading passage's idea on antifungal medication and treatments
to kill dangerous fungus for frogs. The lecturer sounds convinced that the
author is making a manifest error since it only can generate small impacts on a
small number of (amount of individual)
frogs. On the other hand, since (because)
frogs’ habitats are considerably
big, (so considerable large scale that) human actions cannot come up with all scale in fact. (*cannot
come up with all scale in fact. 가 무슨 의미인지 모르겠네요.) Furthermore, it also cannot protect frogs (every each generation) from all the harmful fungi.
(by this.) So the lecturer confirms that it is an expansive and useless
solution. However, the author clarifies that using antifungal treatments can
save frog populations from infection.
Third, the lecturer goes on to expound that the
author's final point on protecting frogs’
habitats such as lakes and marshes is flawed. To corroborate this opinion, the
lecturer mentions that it is just a secondary solution and the real reason of
declination of its population is global warming. (A lot of) The disappearance of water can be considered as a
result of indirect phenomena, global warming. This counters the reading
passage's argument that maintaining key water habitats for frogs can directly
help many frogs’ species. With three
convincing ideas that the lecturer posits, the assumptions made by the reading
passage are all rendered groundless.
Writing
Score (0-30): 22-24
Score
(0-5): 3.50-3.75
Grammar &
Feedback: 문법적 오류와 단어선택에 좀 더 주의 하세요. 내용 정리는 잘 하셨습니다. 수고하셨어요.
|