▶ Your Answer :
The lecture asserts
that hypotheses to explain the cause of will-o’-the-wisp are not convincing.
This contradicts the reading’s claim that there are advanced explainations for that.
To begin with, the lecturer argues
that chemical reaction is not the cause of will-o’-the-wisp. To be specific,
experiment results have proven that colors of the lights from chemical reaction
are cool and greenish while those of will-o’-the-wisp are warm and yellowish.
This contradicts the reading’s claim that this phenomenon is a form of chemical
illumination.
On top of that, the lecture contends
that flying insects are not the source of the phenomenon. In detail, the glows
froorm flying insects are spread largely while the lights from will-o’-the-wisp
look like a small ball. Moreover, the lights from flying insects are blinking
on and off, but the lights of will-o’-the-wisp are steady without blinking. This
refutes the reading’s claim that flying insects are likely to be the cause of
the light.
Finally, the lecturer says that the
assertion that barn owls may be responsible for the lights does not make sense.
This is due to the fact that if barn owls
are the source of the lights, constant lights are needed to reflect their
feathers. Without them, lasting radiant like will-o’-the-wisp cannot be seen.
This rebuffs the reading’s claim that barn owls may account for the mysterious
light.
Good (24–30)
전체적으로 잘 정리해서 쓰셨습니다. proofreading을 통해 스펠링 실수를 줄이는 연습 해주세요. 수고하셨습니다~ |