▶ Your Answer :
In the reading passage, there is ample support for the author's claim that carbon sequestration can help reduce global warming. However, the professor in the lecture gives several reasons as a rebuttal to the author's point. First, the professor contends that adding iron into the ocean does not work.(For what thing?) This is because it cannot lead to the permanent increase in the number of phytoplanktons. To explain, if the organism increases, the nitrogen that is needed to live(Who live?)will decrease resulting in the overall population decrease. (What population?) Moreover, this method only captures 3% of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. This counters the reading passage's claim that because the plankton feed on iron, adding iron would increase the population of plankton, which feed on iron, by absorbing a lot of carbon dioxide. Second, the professor insists that artificial wetland is not a effective way to sequester carbon dioxide. According to a study, the capacity of artificial wetland is 23% lower than the natural one. (What capacity?) In addition, it takes too long to develop. So when it becomes functional, it will be too late. This casts doubts on the reading passage's assertion that the artificial wetland reduces the amount of carbon dioxide releasing to the air by putting off the decomposition of oxygen. Third, the professor argues that coal mining also can be problematic. (for what things?) When carbon dioxide and coal meet together, the methane is released. The methane includes carbon dioxide so if it is burned, carbon dioxide will be emitted and leak out to the atmosphere. As a result, the coal mining would not mines cannot reduce carbon dioxide at all. This refutes the reading passage's point that carbon dioxide can be captured in the coal mine for a long time.
채점기준표 | Grammar | Contents | Example | Coherence | 점수 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 2 | Score | Limited 15-18 | - Thesis에서 제시된, 세 가지 포인트들이 명료하지 않습니다. - 어떠한 capacity인지 population인지 상세하게 정의해주실 수 있어야 합니다. |
|