▶ Your Answer :
The reading passage contends that carbon sequestration which involves storing CO2 can be reduce atmospheric CO2. On the other hand, the lecturer brings up several points to contradict this argument.
First, the lecturer argues that an increase in the amount of phytoplankton by adding iron to oceans is unlikely to reduce CO2. This is because the population of phytoplankton is not increased permanently. When phytoplankton run out of nitrogen, their population is decreased again. Also, study showed that phytoplankton can absorb very little amount of atmospheric CO2, by three percent. 핵심이 되는 내용에 초점이 가도록 중요한 detail만 남겨서 남겨서 더 간결하게 정리해주세요. 연구 내용은 크게 중요한 부분이 아니니까 실제로 그다지 큰 효과를 보여주지 못한 연구결과도 제시했다고 언급하는 정도면 충분할 것 같아요. This casts doubt on the reading passage’s claim that injecting iron-rich dust to oceans will help to increase phytoplankton population, increasing the amount of CO2 kept in the oceans. Second, according to the lecture, creating artificial wetlands is ineffective. The reason is that study found that artificial wetlands can store less amount of CO2 than natural wetlands by 23%, although natural wetlands can absorb CO2 a lot. In addition, it takes too long for artificial wetlands to be fully developed. This refutes the reading passage’s arguments that creating artificial wetlands can reduce atmospheric CO2 greatly. The final points made by the lecturer is that storing CO2 in abandoned coal mines is problematic. When CO2 meets coals, methane is released. Because methane contains CO2, it also can emit CO2 when it is burnt. Also, not all CO2 is attached to coal, leaking out coal mines. Therefore, it is not useful to reducing reduce CO2. This counters the reading passage’s assertion that abandoned coal mines could store and reduce CO2.
Comment : 전반적으로 각 지문의 핵심내용을 잘 캐치하신 것 같아요. 실제 지문과 대조검토하면서 서술이 다소 장황하거나 불필요한 내용까지 언급된 부분들을 체크하고 딱 핵심만 되는 요소만 남길 수 있게끔 다듬어보시면 좋을 것 같습니다. 품사 관련 문법오류도 꼼꼼하게 체크해주쉐요~ 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. |