▶ Your Answer :
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 the existence of FOXP2 DNA enables 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 the extremely heavy rain fell during the time which was further in earlier years than the time that people usually know. This contradicts the reading passage's assertion that the Sphinx was a part of neighboring Khafra's burial site.
3.
Both the reading and lecture covered one of the reasons why the Ancient Roman population shrunk; lead poisoning. While the author in the passage pointed out that lead poisoning 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 did not affect the society widely.
First of all, the professor claims 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 areas. 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 negative effects of the lead on health were mitigated. However, the reading passage suggests that lead contaminated food and water, which led to poison the people.
4.
The reading passage suggested that the Anasazi civilization perished due to severe drought. However, the professor in the lecture refutes the author's claim pointing out other possible reasons and doubts the author's argument.
First of all, the professor mentioned that the drought cannot be the major reason since ~ (첫 번째 이유 간단히 요약 작성). Anasazi people were 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 that lived 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.
Third Point?
전반적 점수: 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
|
FAIR
|
FAIR
|
각 카테고리별 SCORE: LIMITED / FAIR / GOOD
|
- lecture내용 및 reading 내용 paraphrase + Reading/Listening detail 충분히 넣어야 합니다. - 문법 실수 (동사 시제/주어-동사 수 일치 등) 자잘한 것들이 많고 감점의 원인이 되므로 주의해주세요. - 사용된 단어 난이도: beginner - intermediate 정도 (not much advanced level vocab) |