▶ Your Answer :
The reading and the lecture both
talk about alternative energy, commonly known as wave farms. The reading states
that there are three reasons that the new energy is beneficial. However, the
lecturer argues that the reasons given in the reading are not convincing and
that not everyone agree. First of all, the reading states
that because they make use of waves that are constant and predictable, it is
possible to accurately predict the generation capacity of a wave-power
facility. On the contrary, the lecturer argues that the statement is false.
this is because this new technology is easily broken down and it is ongoing
issue. For example, because converters malfunction so often, so the amount of
power generated tends to fluctuate wildly. Next, in the reading, the author
argues that wave-energy facilities have been proven to be environmentally
friendly. In contrast, the lecturer claims the notion is erroneous. The reason
for this is that this equipment also contain harmful chemicals and they can
damage ocean ecosystem. Also, she goes on to say that these substances are very
toxic and be able to move freely on ocean, so they may have an effect on marine
organisms.
Finally, the reading goes on to
explain that wave farms don't have any negative impact on the natural beauty of
the surrounding landscape. On the other hand, the professor, in her lecture,
asserts the idea does not make sense. This is because that they have negative
effect on surrounding scenery. This is because, they usually are painted by
bright colors and easily spotted by tourists from beaches. reading 주장은 패러프레이징을 거의 안했고, 첫번째 본문에서 렉쳐 일반적 진술?의견 표현 하는것을 놓쳤고, 들렸던 예시 두개를 넣었습니다. 이 두가지가 얼마나 감점이 되는지 궁금합니다. 항상 감사드립니다. |