▶ Your Answer The reading and the lecture present quite
different takes on the same topic: establishment of quotas setting a maximum number
of visitors to refuges per certain period of time. The lecture argues that
capping the number of visitors can't make people protect the nature, while the
reading argues otherwise.
The lecturer notes the fact that most of
the refuges are funded by taxes, entrance fee, and funding by the government. So,
the lecturer says that it is unjust to limit the number of refuge's visitors.
On the other hand, the reading says that officials must put the safety of the
reserve first.
Moreover, as people normally don't want to
support the area that they are denied to access to, the lecturer says that to keep
the interests on the refuges, officials should promotes encourage people to visit refuges rather
than they to limit the number of tourists, . On the other hand, while the reading says that officials
should limit the number of visitors to show them how fragile they are. because of how fragile the place is.
To sum up, the lecturer argues that
limiting the number of visitors is ridiculous for the following reasons: sources
to operate wildlife refuges are funding by the public and if citizens are prohibited
to access the area, they will lose interests on in wildlife, while the reading argues that it
has definitely definite positive effects.
[Score] 25-26
[Feedback]
- "the lecturer says..." "the reading says..." says이런 표현보다는 같은 유의어로 바꿔 쓰시면 더 좋을 것 같아요. ex. the lecturer states/suggests/illustrates/etc. - Sentence structure는 좋았습니다. - 명사가 나오기 전에 관사를 붙여주세요.
수고하셨습니다. |