▶ Your Answer : The reading passage contends that many experts agree on (버린 당사자 민족/종족명) that they abandoning their homeland in response to a severe drought. On the other hands, the lecturer brings several points that contradict this argument.
First of all, the speaker argues that the discovered bone does not mean anything. Insufficient food was a common (cause of death) (~의 주 원인/이유였다 를 설명하기 위해 괄호 내 원인/이유를 추가해주세요) among the people. And Many children suffered from malnutrition even if it was possible to grow sufficient crops because people gave their crops for religious ceremonies. This casts doubt on the reading which states that the clear signs of malnutrition on bones form Anasazi suggest that the drought caused this migration.
In addition, according to the speaker, they (who?) did not plan to return again when the drought was over. If they had left them because of drought, they would have come back then. This rebuffs the reading's assertion that the condition of abandoned settlements proves that they (who?) were responding to a drought.
The final point made by the lecturer is that they actually do not have sufficient water. The settlement has little moisture and is not suitable for agricultures. This refutes that most of Anasazi resettled in areas with adequate water supply.
Writing 0–30 score scale: Limited (1-16) / Fair (17-23) / Good (24–30)
ADDRESSING TOPIC
|
ORGANIZATION
|
PROGRESSION AND COHERENCE
|
LANGUAGE USE
|
GRAMMAR
|
FAIR
|
FAIR
|
LIMITED
|
FAIR
|
FAIR
|
각 카테고리별 SCORE: LIMITED / FAIR / GOOD
|
- they가 누구인지 대상이 불분명할 때가 있으니 종종 주어를 clarify 해 주세요. - 문장 내 대문자, 쉼표가 잘못 사용된 경우가 종종 보입니다. - didn't --> did not 처럼 full sentence 형태로 작성해주세요. |