The reading passage contend that the origin of Scotland fort with virtrified vitrified material can be fully expressed by three reasons. On the other hand, the lecturer brings up several points that contridict contradict this argument.
First, the speaker argues that it is not matched with the place of signal fire. In other words, 1 or 2 sites was were used and does not changed over time. By the fact of signal fire place, it might have to affect few areas. However, entire place was vitrified virtrified. This casts doubt on the reading passage’s claim that signal fire melted the rock and made it vitrified vertrified.
Second, according to the lecturer, lighting the origin of virtrified fort is problematic. The glass-like place is large, so dozen of lighting is required. Also, there is no chance that repeated lighting at the same area. Moreover, uneven surface normally is changed to poor condition by wearing. This refutes the reading passage’s assertion that lighting is the reasons of vertified vitrified fort.
The final point made by the lecture is that there is no evidence of volcanic activities. Therefore, constructor had to transpose materials. Also they used local materials because there are lack of roads. This counters the reading passage’s argument that volcanic rock is material of Scotland fort.
예상 점수: 17-21 총평: Spelling문제가 매우 많습니다. 기본적인 spelling부터 오류가 생기지 않게 확인하시기 바랍니다. 전체적으로 내용도 제가 물론 강의나 글을 안 읽어서 그럴수도 있지만, 조금 부실한 것 같아요. 조금 더 명확하게 설명을 해주시면 좋을 것 같아요. 현재의 글은 너무 툭툭 끊어지는 느낌이 있습니다. 조금 더 문장들의 연결이 부드럽게 앞 뒤 문장을 고려해서 써주시면 좋을 것 같아요. 수고 많으셨습니다.
|