In the given set of information, both the
reading passage and the lecturer discuss lead poisoning of the Roman Empire.
The lecturer, however, casts doubt on the author's assertion on several
possible reasons why lead poisoning was extensive among the Roman upper class.
First, the lecturer asserts that cosmetics used
by Romans are were unlikely to have caused lead
poisoning. Although small amounts of lead was
were included in cosmetics, lead would have only caused
flaking and scarring of skin, and not poisoning. Also, lead poisoning
develops when lead is injected into the blood stream, which
Romans never did. This refutes the author's claim that lead
poisoning was widespread because cosmetics containing lead was
were used by Romans.
Second, the lecturer claims that the theory of lead poisoning due to the supply of
water through lead pipes is problematic. This is because pipes composed of
calcium was were covered with minerals in
the inside inner wall, protecting water
from direct contact with lead. This counters the author's statement that lead
pipes for delivering water through the city was were
the cause of lead poisoning.
Lastly, the lecturer indicates that sapa, a
syrup that Romans mixed with their wine, contained too
little lead to be considered toxic. Excessive lead would be
have been removed while boiling wine, and only a trivial amount of lead would
have remained in wine. This refutes the reading passage's claim that
Romans’ love for that
enjoyed drinking sapa was poisoning themselves with lead.
Writing
0-30 Score Scale |
Fair (17-23) |
Score |
19 |
Overall
Comment: |
두 입장을 잘 비교하셨지만, 문법
오류가 매우 많습니다. 특히 동사 형태 (would have been, 등등) 오류가 많습니다. |
|
|