According to the reading, there is an ample support for the author's claim that Etruscans came from Turkey. However, the professor in the lecture gives several reasons as a rebuttal to the author's point.
First, the professor contends that uncovered DNA evidence are hard to believe. DNA in Etruscan gravesites was from thousands of years ago. As a result, it might have been damaged from by several incidents. Also, since the possibility of contacting the sites (해석이 안되는 어색한 문장입니다, 더 명확한 설명이 필요해보입니다), DNA must be contaminated. This casts doubt on the reading passage's claim that DNA founded in Etruscan gravesites are hereditoryhereditary markers between Etruscans and ancient Turks.
Second, the professor insists that Etruscan language is not related to Turkish ones. Comparable alphabet (조금 어색합니다) is not the decision maker to connect Etruscan and Turkish language. Actually (informal한 느낌이 강합니다), it could be the only language that has survived from its language family (이것과 두 언어가 연관성이 없다는 것과 무슨 관련인지 설명이 더 필요합니다). This counters on the reading passage's suggestion that the language used by the Etruscans demonstrates that they are originated from Turkey due to the fact that researchers found some similarities between two nations.
Finally, the professor argues that there is no reason to assume a connection between the funerary practices of Etruscans and those of ancient Turks. It has been found that cremation was performed in northern Italy before the Etruscan lived. This indicates that Etruscans are successors to traditions. This refutes the reading passage's suggestion that a link between Etruscan and Turks is proven by comparable funerary methods.
Score: 22 Comments: - 전체적인 구조가 잘 잡혀있습니다.
- 설명이 모호한 부분들이 있습니다. 더욱 명확한 설명이 필요해보입니다. - 스펠링 실수가 있습니다. - 문법 실수가 있습니다. - 주요 포인트가 모두 언급되었고 흐름이 매끄럽습니다. 사소한 실수들만 하지 않게 노력해주시면 되겠습니다. |