▶ Your Answer :
In this Both the lecture and the passage demonstrates deal with the topic of about the dinosaurs which called Sauropods. There are arguments about the
Sauropod’s neck position among in scientists. The argument point is whether it is horizontal
or not.
First, in the reading passage insists that talks about
it is horizontal because of the unique position of their tails. But in the lecture, the
professor explains Sauropod’s tail is slender and it’s filled with air so it
doesn’t affect to the balance issue. As a result, the Sauropod can have vertical
position neck.
Second, according to the author, the Sauropods eat marine food and
coastal plant, so it is easy when their neck positioned as horizontally. But in
the lecture, considering their diet habit that they would eat a variety of plants, . As
a result they would have had have to have upright positioned neck and which helped it helps to eat a great
range of plants even it in the high position.
Third, in the reading passage, the
Sauropods did not don’t have enough muscle to hold their neck in vertical way. The pProfessor, however, explains explained about that their muscles are enough because it can be helped by
shoulder muscles which connected with special bones.
Comment : 두 지문의 내용이 아직 완전히 잘 반영되지 않은 것 같아요. 각각 본론에서 어떤 중심내용에 어떤 주장과 근거로 서로 대립하는지가 좀 더 잘 드러나도록 흐름을 보완해주세요. 본론에서 요약하신 내용을 살펴보면 가로로 되었나/아닌가로 대립하는 게 아니라 가로 방향으로 목이 나 있는 이유에 대한 의견 대립일 수도 있을 것 같은데, 이 부분도 지문 내용을 다시 확인해보시면 좋을 것 같아요. 주술호응과 관계대명사, 절 표현 등에서 문법오류가 많은 편이니 정확한 작문에도 신경써주세요~ 수고 많으셨습니다~!
Integrated Writing Rubrics Score 2.5/5 A response at this level contains some relevant information from the lecture, but is marked by significant language difficulties or by significant omission or inaccuracy of important ideas from the lecture or in the connections between the lecture and the reading; a response at this level is marked by one or more of the following : - The response significantly misrepresents or completely omits the overall connection between the lecture and the reading. - The response significantly omits or significantly misrepresents important points made in the lecture. - The response contains language errors or expressions that largely obscure connections or meaning at key junctures, or that would likely obscure understanding of key ideas for a reader not already familiar with the reading and the lecture.
|