The lecturer contends that there is no
evidence backing a hypothesis that the Chinese discovered America prior to
Columbus. This casts doubt on the reading passage’s argument that there are
several archaeological evidences which is consistent with the hypothesis.
To begin with, the lecturer maintains that
a stone road on Canada’s Cape Breton Island seems to have been be formed naturally. To be
specific, stones were not cut and carefully placed. In addition, there are no
Chinese writings in inscriptions of characters, so they seem to have been be fabricated. This
refutes the claim made by the author that the stone road and inscriptions of
Chinese characters are strong evidence of the hypothesis.
On top of that, the lecturer asserts that
the doughnut-shaped anchors cannot be evidence of the hypothesis. This is due
to the fact that the Chinese used those anchors not only before the 15th
century until the late 18th century. TH century. 시기에 대한 설명이 왜 근거가 되는지 드러나도록 detail을 더 보완해주세요. This counters the author’s
argument that the existence of those anchors in California back the hypothesis.
Lastly, the lecturer insists that the
Newport Tower in Rhode Island seems to have been be built by European people. This is
attributed to the fact that the tower is more similar to a European windmill
than a Chinese lighthouse. In addition, according to a study, the tower was
built in 1660, and it is identical to an17th’s English windmill of 17th century. This
contradicts the claim in the reading passage that the tower closely resembles a
lighthouse in southern China, so it is strong evidence of the hypothesis.
Comment :
각 본론에서 대립되는 포인트가 명확히 드러나는 점이 좋습니다. lecture에서 '왜' 반대하는지에 대한 설명이 모호한 부분들은 표현을 더 정확히 해주는 편이 좋을 것 같아요. It seems to-v구문에서 과거사실에 대한 추측내용 to have p.p 사용해서 정리하는 부분 참고해주세요. 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.