In
this given set of materials, there is a discrepancy between the view of the
lecturer and author over the issue of the Little Ice Age. With three cogent
explanations, the lecturer raises objections to the alleged causes of the
period.
To
start with, the lecturer debunks the author's first conjecture since it is not
found on a factual basis. To elaborate in detail, a study shows that there is
no apparent relationship between the number of sunspots and the amount of solar
radiation. This is in direct opposition to the author's claim that the decrease
in the number of sunspots during the period indicates a reduced level of solar
activity, which would have resulted in the Little Ice Age.
On
top of that, the lecturer also indicates the dissent over the author's idea on the
Little Ice Age. The lecturer sounds convinced that the author is making a
manifest error about a massive volcanic eruption since it could not have
lasted as long as 500 years if it was occurred by a volcanic eruption. However, the author
clarifies that a huge volcanic eruption in Indonesia would have led
to the Little Ice Age.
Finally,
the lecturer goes on to expound that the author's final point on glaciers is
flawed. The lecturer mentions clouds as one of causes that reflect sunlight back
to the space to corroborate in detail. She adds that there were less clouds during
the period due to the lack of water evaporation. This counters the author's
theory that the global cooling would have been caused by increasing the amount of glaciers
and snow.
Writing 0–30 score scale: Limited (1-16) / Fair (17-23) / Good (24–30)
ADDRESSING TOPIC
|
ORGANIZATION
|
PROGRESSION AND COHERENCE
|
LANGUAGE USE
|
GRAMMAR
|
GOOD
|
GOOD
|
GOOD
|
GOOD
|
GOOD
|
각 카테고리별 SCORE: LIMITED / FAIR / GOOD
|
- RC/LC 양측 입장이 잘 정리된 내용입니다. Spelling error 및 the 등 관사 실수 주의해주세요.