▶ Your Answer :
The reading passage contends that the wave farms could be a
good alternative energy of fossil fuel. On the other and hand, the lecturer brings
up several points to contradict this argument.
First, the lecturer argues that wave-energy facilities are
no reliable power venerators. This is because it could have technical problem.
For example, it could be broken in the harsh marine environment. In this case,
capacity of a wave-power facility would be fluctuated. This casts doubt on the
reading passage’s claim that wave farms are constant and predictable generators.
Second, according to the lecturer, wave farms are not eco-friendly.
Actually, movement part of the facilities such as turbines contains chemical
pollutants. Therefore, if it were leaked to ocean, it could be a toxic and
adverse fuel to marine organisms. This counters the reading passage’s argument
that wave farms are environmental.
The final point by the lecturer is that the wave-energy
facilities have a negative effect on natural scenery. The wave-power convertors
are highly visible because it have bright colors. Also, finding the converters
is too easy to tourists. This is because the converters float on the surface
too close to shore. This refutes the reading passage’s assertion that the wave
farms do not have a bad impact on the surrounding landscape. Good: 24~30 점수: 24 일단 리스닝에 대한 정보는 부족함 없이 다 넣었습니다. 하지만 이 에세이에서 아쉬운 점은 리딩에 대한 정보가 많이 빈약합니다. 한 문장으로 리딩의 정보를 끝내려고 하는 것 보다는 리스닝을 좀 더 반박 할 수 있는 정보들을 더 넣어주시길 바랍니다. 통합형 에세이에서는 리딩과 리스닝을 비교하는 것 이기 때문에 균형있는 비교가 필요합니다. 수고많으셨습니다.
|