Visiting museums is the best way to learn about a country.
*진하게 표시한 부분은 제가 파악한 문단의 주요 내용이니 참고하세요^^
The intriguing topic of discussion at hand is whether visiting museums is the best way to learn about a country. Although the verdict may be out, in opinion, I believe there are several other better ways to learn about a country. In this essay I will present two reasons why I think visiting museums museum is not the best choice.
문단구분해주세요
To begin with, museums are often extremely expensive for foreigners. They have already used too much on plane tickets, so additional costs would apparently be a burden. Instead, other inexpensive ways to learn about a country exist such as eating traditional food. To take my friend as an illustration, he visited Korea for a vacation during in summer. He considered Korea as an interesting place, therefore we decided to gain more information about Korean history together. We decided to eat traditional Korean food and learn the origins of it. After tasting the most renown Korean traditional food, Bibibup, we were truly able to fathom the history of Korea as it demonstrated the poverty state of Korea long time ago. Plus, it costed no more than ten dollars for each meal. 완전히 어긋나는 내용은 아니지만, 논제가 묻는 내용은 결과적으로 <한 나라에 대해 배우기 위해서 가장 좋은 방법>이라는 점을 생각해야 합니다. 현재 내용은 learning보다는 'cost'에 초점이 가 있기 때문에 <그 나라에 대해 배우기 위해 좋은 방법>을 논하는 문제에는 답변이 되지 못합니다. 박물관에 방문하는 것이 그 나라에 대해 배울 수 있는 최고의 방법이 아니라는 입장을 support하기 위해서는 그 나라에 대해서 배우는 데 있어 부족한 점을 언급하는 것이 더 적절하지요. 예를 들어 박물관에 보존된 자료들은 간접적으로 '배우는' 것일 뿐 직접 경험하는 것만큼 생생한 경험적 지식을 남겨주지 못하므로 최고의 방법이 아니다, 하는 식의 논리처럼 learning에 초점을 둔 idea를 제시해주는 것이 좋습니다.
In addition, information in museums is are obscure and vague to those unfamiliar with the country. This is due to the fact that not enough information is provided to foreign people. Museums display traditions of a country with the premise that people possess posses basic background information. Thus, without a professional guide, it is impractical and useless to go. To take the friend I mentioned above as an illustration, he told me he paid a visit to a museum with his family. However, I was surprised to recognize his uncertainty about Korea's history after the visit. He complained that the information in the museum was too difficult to analyze from a foreign perspective. In the end, it was I who had to teach more about the history of Korea. 나라를 이해하기 충분한 정보를 제공하지 않는다는 설명은 적절합니다. body1의 내용도 body2처럼 논점에 맞도록 잘 다듬어보시면 될 것 같아요.
In conclusion, I have stated two reasons supporting my standpoint. Museums are often too expensive for people with a low budget as well as ambivalent to those new to the country. Although the jury may be out, as far as I am im concerned, I believe the two of my rationales are sufficiently convincing enough to support the majority of people who are also in favor of my claim.
주요 채점기준 (항목별 5-4-3-2-1점수로 30점 만점 자가채점)
논제 파악 effectiveness in addressing the task
적절한 설명 appropriate explanation
적절한 예증, 구체적 설명 appropriate exemplification, details
일관성, 단계적 구성, 주제와의 연관성 unity, progression, coherence
다양한 단어 구사 syntactic variety
적절한 단어 선택, 관용적 표현 word choice, idiomaticity
Writing 0–30 score scale
Fair (17–21)
[논제 파악]이라는 채점항목이 시사하듯, 논제가 제시하는 전제사항을 제대로 파악하고 내용을 전개하는 것 역시 중요합니다. 단순히 박물관 방문의 단점을 생각하는 것이 아니라 <한 나라에 대해 배우는 데 있어서> 어떤 점이 부족한지를 생각해야 논점에서 벗어나지 않는 답변을 제시할 수 있겠지요. 채점기준 항목별로 어떤 부분을 더 보완해야 할지 생각해보면서 검토하시면 도움이 되실 거예요^^ 수고 많으셨습니다. 화이팅!