▶ Your Answer : The reading passage states that Anasazi mysteriously disappeared due to a drought looking for other homelands according suggesting a few evidences. , however, However, the lecturer leturer refutes these points by providing several counterexamples. To begin with, the writer asserts that the malnutrition caused the Anasazi to leave. Bones from Anasazi graves indicate that it is likely that like for people in that period to have abandoned their places to consume more food. When experts examined the remains from a number of sites, they discovered evidence of inadequate diet, such as vitamin deficiencies and stunted growth in children. reading내용 설명이 너무 깁니다. 간단히 한 문장 정도로 줄여주세요. Conversely, the lecture contradicts this idea by stating that malnutrition was common. Many children often experienced malnutrition as they had to devote all the crops to the lord even during the harvest period. 결과적으로 두 지문의 입장대립은 '가뭄 때문에 주거지를 떠났을 것이다 vs. 아니다'의 구도입니다. 이 부분이 각각의 본론에서도 드러나야 합니다. Furthermore, the author contends that the condition of the abandoned settlements is the evidence of Anasazi's moving. leave. Archaeological excavations have revealed that the Anasazi sealed up the granaries with clay and blocked off the town entrances with wooden beams. In contrast, the speaker rebuffs belies this claim by stating that if Anasazi really tried to leave their land for avoiding drought, they would have come back. spell. However, they did not come back even though the drought was over. Moreover, the passage claims that their leaving leave is connected to water supplies. Researchers discovered new settlements in regions with dependable streams. This demonstrates that Anasazi abandoned their place for sufficient water supply. evidence가 되는 핵심 단어 1-2개만 남겨서 '~만 봐도 가뭄 때문에 떠난 게 맞다'하는 식으로 간단하게 줄여주세요. On the contrary, the lecturer rebuts this point by stating that there was less water inside the land which refers to in their new settlements. They moved to the land does not contain any moisture due to the water supplies. It is not fit. 마지막 두 문장 흐름이 맞지 않습니다. 이미 이주한 곳도 그닥 물이 많은 곳이 아니었다는 정리가 있으므로 불필요한 반복입니다. '그러니까 물 부족 문제로 이주한 게 아니다'라는 입장이 연결되는 것이 자연스러울 것으로 보입니다. 지문 내용 다시 확인해주세요.
Comment : 통합형은 reading의 주장을 lecture가 '어떤 근거로' 반박하는지를 정리하는 것이 핵심입니다. 현재 답안에서는 reading에서 언급한 내용이 불필요하게 많고, lecture가 그 내용을 어떤 근거로 뭐라고 반박하는지는 명확하지 않다는 점이 가장 아쉽습니다. reading의 주장은 간단히 한 문장 정도, lecture 내용은 그에 대한 반박 주장 한 문장과 근거 1~3문장 정도로 간결하게 정리해서 틀을 잡아보시면 좋을 것 같습니다. 실제 지문과 대조하면서 어떤 내용이 핵심 detail인지 체크해주세요~ 어법오류와 오탈자도 꼼꼼하게 봐주시기 바랍니다. 수고 많으셨습니다~!
Integrated Writing Rubrics Score 2.5/5 A response at this level contains some important information from the lecture and conveys some relevant connection to the reading, but it is marked by one or more of the following : - Although the overall response is definitely oriented to the task, it conveys only vague, global, unclear, or somewhat imprecise connection of the points made in the lecture to points made in the reading. - The response may omit one major key point made in the lecture. - Some key points made in the lecture or the reading, or connections between the two, may be incomplete, inaccurate, or imprecise. - Errors of usage and/or grammar may be more frequent or may result in noticeably vague expressions or obscured meanings in conveying ideas and connections.
|