▶ Your Answer :
Although the author of the reading passage argues that Gastornis were meat-eating birds, the lecturer brings up several points to contradict this argument.
First of all, the speaker maintains that the assertion related to similarity between Gastornis and terror birds has flaws. Although it is true that Gastornis had similar body structure with the terror bird, other herbivorous birds had upright positions, too. This contradicts the author’s claim that Gastornis had analogous body structure with carnivorous birds.
Second, the lecture says that the shape is more important the size in defining whether an animal is herbivorous or carnivorous. The Gastornis had the straight bill, not curved one, meaning that their beaks were more suitable to eat plants. Additionally, the bird had large jaw muscles which were developed to consume tuff plants. This goes against the author’s claim that Gastornis had huge beaks which were useful to prey on animals.
The final point made by the professor is that Gastornis’ feet indicate that they were plant-eating animals. This is because their footprints were not long and curved, but rather short and small, which means that the shape was ineffective to catch animals. This contradicts the reading passage’s assertion that Gastornis’ strong and long feet are strong evidence to prove that they were meat-eating birds. In this set of issues, both the reading passage and the speaker discuss the causes of Angkor’s collapse. To be specific, according to the reading passage, the city was ruined by plague, failed water system, or economical fall. However, the speaker counters these explanations for the following reasons. To begin with, the lecturer argues that the Black Death did not have critical impact on the city. The reason is that the plague was usually traveled by ship. Therefore, its impact was so huge in costal cities, not inland cities such as Angkor. Moreover, the debate whether the plague was dispersed in Southeast Asia is still ongoing. Therefore, the explanation cannot be reliable fully. So, these arguments cast doubt on the reading passage’s insistence that the Black Death might cause the fall of the city. On top of that, the speaker claims that the city might not be ruined due to the faulty in their water system. This is because their irrigation system had only limited amount water for the public. Therefore, the city might have another water resources. Hence, even if their water system had some weak points, those things might not have huge negative impacts on the presence of the city. These claims refute the reading passage’s explanation that they could not help but be collapsed since the city relied on the irrigation system with several faulty issues. Finally, the professor asserts that the opinion that maritime trade caused the city to fall is not true. The reason is that the city was usually based on the trade of agricultural products, not luxury items which were traded in coastal cities. In addition, Angkor still remained same even though the maritime trade rose. Thus, these assertions challenge the reading passage’s opinion that the rise of maritime trade leaded to the city’s collapse.
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 |
- 각 포인트별로 대체적으로 내용이 잘 정리되어 있습니다. Minor grammar mistakes 도 감점의 원인이 될 수 있으니 주의해주세요. 수고하셨습니다.
|