▶ Your Answer : Hacker's practice에 단락별 연습입니다. 구조나 문법 위주로 첨삭 부탁드립니다. (lecture 언급하고 리딩 언급 했는데 구조적 피드백 부탁드립니다.)
1.
The professor discusses that the FOXP2 DNA which is discovered in the recent excavation was merely accidental contamination of scientists' activities. This is supported by the fact that no DNA evidences, regarding FOXP2 were found in other sites. This refutes the author's claim that existence of FOXP2 DNA enable Neanderthals to communicate with each other.
2.
The professor points out that the Great Sphinx in Gaza was dated back more than 3,000 years ago. The evidence of water erosion suggests that there was extremely heavy rain during the time which was further earlier years than people usually know. This contradict the reading passage's assertion that the Sphinx was part of neighboring Khafra's burial site.
3.
Both reading and lecture covered one of the reason why the Ancient Roman population shrinks: lead poisoning. The author in the passage pointed out that it was the major reason of the declination of Roman people. Unlike the assertion of the reading, the professor argued that it was just a minor issue which hadn't affect the society widely.
First of all, the professor claim that Roman people themselves tried to avoid the lead factories. Actual attempts had been made in a century before the peak of the Roman Empire, by relocating the factory into remote area. This significantly reduced the negative effects caused by the lead factory. On the contrary, the author believe that lead industry was responsible for their death by generating inhaling pollution.
Second, Roman people already were well aware of the water and food contamination. Therefore, the people switched their kitchen utensils and vessels accordingly. As their preference of lead materials had been changed, the effects of the lead might be minor. However, the reading passage suggests that lead contaminated food and water which led to poisoning the people.
4.
The reading passage suggested that the Anasazi civilization decreased due to severe drought. However, the professor in the lecture refute the author's claim pointing out other possible reasons and doubting the author's argument.
First of all, professor mentioned that the drought cannot be the major reason. Anasazi people could be able to live even though there was a severe drought by utilizing their advanced agriculture system or hunting animals. Also, it was not a great drought compared to historical records. This counters the author's claim that drought is responsible for the declination of the population by devastating the agricultural lands.
Second, the professor believe that contact and invasion with another tribe caused the decline of the Anasazi people. The tribe live in California region was aggressive enough to raid and hinder the settlement of the people. This casts a doubt on the author's claim that drought was formidable suffer for the flourished civilian people. |