▶ Your Answer : In this established topic, both the reading passage and the speaker discuss several aspects of whether the evidence that of the chinese (Chinese) had explored America before Columbus arrived is real or not. The reading pasaage (passage) claims that there are some evidence which show that the chinese Chinese more faster had arrived at America than Columbus. arrived America faster than Columbus. The speaker argues that the assertions made in the reading passage are wrong. This casts doubt on the reading passage's claim.
To begin with, in contrast to the reading passage, the speaker discusses that the old map is fake. The reason is that the old chinese (Chinese) map made much later. Because two hemisphier (hemispheres) concept in this map were not in chinese (Chinese). Besides, the text in the map were transmitted into chineses (Chinese) from Jesuit maps 17C 17th Century (에세이에서는 줄인 말을 쓰면 안됩니다). This contradicts the reading passage's claim that there is an old map shows showing how the world appeared in 1418. On top of that,the speaker claims that the presence of artifacts can not prove that chinese (Chinese) had explored America before Columbus. Especially explaining, if it is true, chinese (Chinese) had to left marked far more obviously. However there are only few coins, it is not evident. This refutes the reading passage's argument that the presence of pre-Columbian Chinese artifacts indicates that the Chinese discovered North America prior to Columbus.
Finally, the speaker argues that the lacquering technique is just coincidence. In details, for example, Egypt's pyramide (pyramid) and America's pyramide (pyramid) are similar , but both two countries were not contact did not contact before. This opoeses (opposes) the reading passage's assertion that a traditional Chinese lacquering technique was in use in Mexico prior to Columbus's arrival.
In conclusion, the speaker challenges the explanation from the reading passage on account of the reasons stated above.
Good: 24~30 점수: 24 리딩과 리스닝을 잘 비교했습니다. 다만 문법 적 오류와 단어 틀린 것이 많아서 감점을 드렸습니다. 또한 통합형 에세이에서는 리딩과 리스닝을 비교하는 에세이이기 때문에, 결론이 필요 없습니다. 여기 에세이에서 나온 결론은 반복적이기 때문에 필요가 없습니다. 수고하셨습니다. |