▶ Your Answer :
The reading passage contends that carbon sequestration can be accomplished
in a number of ways. On the other hand, the lecturer brings several points that
contradict this argument.
First of all, the lecturer questions the validity of
the point in the reading passage that people should increase
the number of phytoplankton by adding iron to the oceans. This is
attributed to the fact that as a the number
of phytoplankton increases, they run off
nitrogen, which leads to a decrease of these organisms, so the efficiancy efficiency of this method will be lowered. (위 문장이 매우 깁니다. 중간에 한 번 끊어주세요.) Thus, the reading
passage's first point is contradicted.
Moreover, the lecturer casts doubt on the point made by
the reading passage that creating artificial wetlands is one of the good ways to sequester CO2. This is because even
if artificial wetlands can delay emitting CO2, these artificial wetlands' efficiancy
efficiency is less 20% lower than natural ones. Also, it takes hundreds of
years to fully develop artificial wetlands. Consequently, the reading passage's
second point is invalid.
Last but not
least, the lecturer disagrees with the point made in the reading passage that CO2 can be stored in abandoned coal mines.
It is obvious that when coals attached with CO2 are used, they eventually
would emit CO2 into the atmosphere. As a
result, with such reasoning, the reading passage's final point is refuted.
Writing
0-30 Score Scale |
Good (24-30) |
Score |
24 |
Overall
Comment: |
두 입장을 잘 비교하셨어요. 핵심
요소들을 잘 포함하셨지만, 문제는 문법 오류가 좀 있었다는 점입니다. 철자 오류도 몇 개 있었으니 유의하시고 연습하시면 좋을 것
같습니다. |
|
|