The lecturer asserts that there were are negative results of from the Industrial Revolution. This counters the reading passage's claim that the Industrial Revolution improved the live life of people.
First, in response to the reading passage, the professor says that the work conditions were not good during the Industrial Revolution. She explains that the workers have to work long hours. The lecturer says that the workers only received little pay. This directly contradicts the claim mentioned in the reading passage that the poor to get good jobs (무슨의미인지 모르겠습니다. 문법적으로도 맞지 않아요. that절에는 완전한 문장이 와야 하는데 poor to get 은 온전한 문장이 아닙니다).
Second, the lecturer contests the reading's assertions by saying that people did not get healthier (무엇으로 인해 사람들이 더 건강해져야 하는지에 대한 이야기가 전혀 없어요). This is because the miners worked in very dangerous environment. The lecturer mentions that the respiratory problems occurred a lot because of mining. This explanation refutes the reading passage's claim that advances in mining improved people’s health.
Finally, the lecturer refutes the reading passage by stating that family farmers could not compete (compete에 대한 목적어를 써주셔야 합니다). She states that family farmers had to move to the cities. The speaker explains that the urban living was not easy, and thus, family farmers ended up performing more laborious jobs. This goes against the reading passage's claim that the progress in agriculture helped free people from toilsome work.
전반적으로 에세이가 정리가 안된 느낌 입니다. 리딩과 렉쳐에서 어느 부분을 비교해야 하는지에 대한 point는 잘 잡으신 것 같지만, 그 point들을 잘 연관지어서 에세이를 쓰지는 못한 것 같아요. 좀 더 리딩과 렉쳐의 배경에 대해서 설명하는 부분과, 리딩과 렉쳐의 의견을 정확하게 연결지은 부분을 더 쓸 수 있었으면 좋겠어요. 다시한번 에세이를 작성해 보시는게 좋을 것 같네요. 좀 더 detail하고 related 되게 해주세요.