▶ Your Answer :
In the reading passage, there is ample support for the author's claim about possible sources of ashen light in Venus. However, the professor in the lecture gives several reasons to the rebuttal to the author's point. First, the professor contends that it is not possible that the chemical recombination accounts for the light. To explain, when the carbon monoxide and oxygen combines together, the emitting light from (something) is so faint So that it can be only seen by a powerful telescope. (Explain it) However, the Venus was discovered by a simple one. This counters the reading passage's assertion that the chemical reaction caused the light. Second, the professor insists that it is not unlikely that the source is sunlight reflected off from clouds. This is because the light is hardly generated (by what?) happens rarely and the Venus is constantly exposed to the sunlight. (How can two sentences be different?) If the sunlight was the source of light, it might occur happen much more often. This refutes the reading passage's suggestion that clouds reflected the sunlight and it is definitely the ashen light. Third, the professor argues that it cannot be true that the light is aurorae. Plasma goes in to the atmosphere only when it is pulled in a magnetic field. However, the Venus doesn't have any magnetic field. This casts doubts on the reading passage's point that the light is the aurorae that caused by the collision of plasma and atoms in atmosphere.
채점기준표 | Grammar | Contents | Example | Coherence | 점수 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 3 | Score | Fair 16-19 | - 설명이 다소 부족하고, 의미가 불분명한 부분들이 종종 보이네요.
- 내용의 인과관계를 보여줄 수 있도록 해주시고, 제시된 three main points 를 정확히 반박하여 주세요.
|
|