▶ Your Answer :
As far as the fossil
from the broken T-rex's leg is concerned, the lecturer takes a stand that
opposes the thesis of the reading and presents three counterarguments.
Specifically, the lecturer does not sympathizes with the reading's view
and argues that the findings can be explained by other hypothesis.
In the first
place, the lecturer points out that the soft substance is not a necessary
presence for the T-rex's blood vessels. Instead
of that, organic materials from dead bacteria could fill the hollow blood
channels. This directly contradicts the reading’s point
that the soft material in the T-rex's leg bone
can be an evidence of the blood vessels.
Secondly, the
speaker goes on to say that iron cannot be found in other species' fossils in
the same place. He argues that also, the
spheres probably are probably not iron, but another mineral. This point
tarnishes the impact of the reading that the existence of iron in the fossils
of T-rex was contained by the spheres in
red blood cells.
Last
but not least, the lecturer concludes by saying that collagen has not been in
fossils from other older animals. Therefore, the remaining collagen could be
not from the T-rex, but from quite recent
animals like human skins. This casts doubt on the reading passage that collagen
was found in the T-rex's bone.
Writing
0-30 Score Scale |
Fair (17-23) |
Score |
22 |
Overall
Comment: |
두 입장을 잘 비교하셨지만,
전체적으로 문법 오류가 많습니다. A/the 와 같은 전치사 이용 연습을 더 하시고, 문장 구조를 더 다양하게 쓰는 연습을
하세요. |
|
|