▶ Your Answer :
In the given set of materials, there is some discrepancy between the views of the lecturer and the author over the issue of wave-energy facilities. The lecturer affirms that indeed, optimistic views on wave-energy facilities are just an illusion, whereas the author of the reading passage suggests otherwise. First, the lecturer insists debunks the author's first conjecture since wave-energy facilities are not constant and not dependable. The reason is that tThere are disruptions of power generation and moreover, converters malfunction frequently, which may cause fluctuation to the use of wave farms. This view is in opposition to the author's claim that wave-energy facilities are constant and predictable so that we can rely on them.사실상 앞부분에서 반박한다는 요소와 뒷부분에서 어떤 주장에 반박하는지가 겹치는 내용이니까 좀 더 간결하게 정리할 수 있을 것 같아요. 중복되는 요소를 최대한 줄이고 핵심만 제시하는 요약이 되도록 다듬어주세요.
In addition, the lecturer also indicates dissent over the author's idea on the environmentally friendly aspect of wave farms. This is because wave-energy facilities contain harmful chemicals that can cause environmental problems. To be specific, toxic substances released from wave farms which can negatively affect marine organisms. This rebuts the point made by the reading that wave farms are eco-friendly facilities which do not harm the environment including marine ecosystem. 중복되는 정보들이 많으니 하나만 남기고 흐름을 정리해주세요. Thirdly, the lecturer goes on to expound that the author's final point on the affect of wave farms on the scenery scenary of the landscape is flawed. As wave-energy facilities are painted in bright color, they can be highly visible so they can negatively affect the natural beauty. Moreover, they can even be spotted by tourists from beaches. This counters the author's theory that wave farms do not harm the scenery because they are unlikely to be noticeable to other people.
Comment : 두 지문의 대립되는 포인트가 명확하고 필요한 detail들을 잘 포함해주셨다는 점이 좋습니다. 요약문으로 보기에는 분량이 많다는 점이 조금 아쉬운데, 중복되는 내용들을 정리하고 문장을 간결하게 다듬는 부분에 신경써주시면 좋을 것 같아요. 수고 많으셨습니다~!
Integrated Writing Rubrics Score 4.5/5 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. |