▶ Your Answer :
According to the lecture, the lecturer
asserts that theories in the reading passage are groundless. This challenges
the reading passage’s claim that three hypotheses about the cause of TLPs are
plausible.
To begin with, the speaker contends that
clouds of lunar gas are not responsible for TLPs. This is because the fact that
TLPS are seen near craters is just a coincidence, because craters are is the most a common feature of the Moon. Also, it has been determined that there is are only a little few amount of gas, which cannot be seen from the Earth. This rebuffs the reading
passage’s assertion that clouds of lunar gas causes transient lunar phenomena.
Second, the lecturer claims there is no
evidence to support the reading's argument that transient lunar phenomena are illuminated clouds of
dust floating above the lunar landscape. This is due to the fact that In order to be
seen from Earth, there must be huge storms on the Moon, but there’s no
indication of such storms on the Moon. Moreover, there is only a little dust
floating around the lunar landscape. This casts doubt on the reading passage’s point
that the phenomena are illuminated clouds of dust floating above the lunar
landscape.
Lastly, the speaker says the theory that
solar radiation causes TLPs is an insufficient idea. There was a research
comparing the dates of TLPs and those of solar flares, and the result showed was, that there is are no correlation between TLPs and solar flares. This refutes the reading’s
passage’s claim that solar radiation causes the phenomena.
Comment : 전반적으로 각 본론에서 두 지문이 대립되는 point를 잘 짚어주고 계신 것 같아요. 간결한 요약문을 요구하는 문제이니 반복되는 표현을 최대한 줄이고 꼭 필요한 핵심내용만 남길 수 있도록 다듬어주세요. 실제 지문과 비교하면서 빠진 detail이나 잘못 파악된 내용은 없는지 한번 더 검토해주세요~ 수고 많으셨습니다~!
Integrated Writing Rubrics Score 4/5 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. |