▶ Your Answer : In the reading passage there is ample support for the author's claim that the forts in Sscotland were are originally built with vitrified stones. However, the professor in the lecture gives several reasons as a rebuttal to the author's point. 아래 본론 내용들을 살펴보면 유리화된 '이유'에 대한 대립이지 '유리화된 돌로 만들어졌다/아니다'로 대립되는 글은 아닌 것 같아요. 지문 내용을 다시 한 번 확인해주세요.
First, the professor contends that the signal fire stones of the fort cannot have been the reason for the vitrified stones. Only a few signal fires were are used at the first place. This would have only effected a small area of the walls even if it was really used. This casts doubt on the author's claim that continuous heat of the signal fire would have been melted the upper wall and vitrified the stones.
Second, the professor insists that dozens of large lightnings are needed to vitrify the walls, which is not plausible. Also, it is fairly normal that the walls have cracks cracked because stones of the wall have dealt with numerous of terrors and gone through many years. This counters the author's claim that the the heat of the lightning transformed rocks into vitrified stones and caused uneven appearance of the walls.
Finally, the professor argues that it is highly doubtful that the fort is made of volcanic rocks. This is because there was no volcanic activities in the region and people in the area used local materials instead of stones moved from other places because there was lack of road that people can move carry heavy materials on. This refutes the author's claim that lava from volcanic eruption have melted and fused the rocks and these are used to build fortress in the region.
Comment : 각 본론에서 대립되는 point와 설명들이 잘 제시되어 있다는 점이 좋았어요. 서론에서 제시한 main topic이 조금 어색하게 느껴지는데 이 부분 실제 지문 체크해보시면 좋을 것 같습니다. 문법표현에서 과거시제 표현과 과거추측 표현 정확하게 반영되도록 체크해주세요~ 수고 많으셨습니다~!
Integrated Writing Rubrics Score 4 A response at this level is generally good in selecting the important information from the lecture and in coherently and accurately presenting this information in relation to the relevant information in the reading, but it may have minor omission, inaccuracy, vagueness, or imprecision of some content from the lecture or in connection to points made in the reading. A response is also scored at this level if it has more frequent or noticeable minor language errors, as long as such usage and grammatical structures do not result in anything more than an occasional lapse of clarity or in the connection of ideas. |