▶ Your Answer :
Both the lecturer and the writer are discussing about how the settlements of Chaco Canyon in New Mexico, so called "great houses", were used. The writer presents three theories about the structures. In regards to the theories, the lecturer rebuffs by giving three counterarguments.
Introduction paragraph에서 가장 중요한 부분인 thesis statement 에 필요한 내용이 약간 빠져있는데요, thesis statement 에서는 주제/주장 소개와 근거 나열을 해주셔야 합니다. 3가지 주장이 어떤 것인지 나열해주셔야 합니다~
To begin with, the lecturer asserts that the function of the Chaco structures was not for dwelling. According to the reading, the structures are critically similar to the "apartment buildings" in New Mexico where there has large population. In contrast, the lecturer explains that, if the structures were houses, it had to include enough places for cooking. However, the places were only few. Furthermore, the number of rooms was not appropriate to be as apartment, accommodating lots of people.
토플 통합형의 주목적은 lecture나 reading passage의 내용을 옮겨 적는 것이 아니라, 핵심 내용을 잡아서 서술하는 것입니다. 그러니 그에 맞춰서 문장이나 글의 구조를 주제에 초점을 맞추는 것이 중요합니다. 포커스가 reading 보다는 listening에 집중되어 있으니, 분량 생각하시면서 써주세요~
Secondly, the lecturer insists that the Chaco structures were not plausible as food storage. This goes against the reading passage's claim: grain maize found in the structures proves the fact that the buildings were used for food storing. In contrast to the claim, the lecturer argues that the amount of grain maize found from the place is not enough to support the reading passage's idea.
간단명료하게 핵심을 잘 잡아서 써주셨습니다. Lecture에서 언급한 예시라던가 디테일을 덧붙여서 써주시면 더욱 좋을 것 같아요~
Thirdly, the lecturer disagrees with the last theory that the Chaco structures were ceremonial centers. The writer explains that the one of the Chaco buildings identified as an enormous mound, called Pueblo Alto, and it contained lots of broken pots, so it would have been used for ceremonial centers. To rebuff the writer’s mention, the lecturer says that the structures were just used for abandoning stuffs. It is because in the structures, not only broken pots but also lots of used-up building materials, traces of having meals, and trashes were found.
글의 순서와 구조 모두 잘 써주셨습니다. Lecture가 중심이니 만큼, reading 부분은 간단히 설명해주시고 lecture의 내용이 그에 어떻게 반대되는지, 어떠한 근거를 토대로 반대하는지에 대해 써주시면 됩니다. 한가지 덧붙이자면, 좀 더 간단한 문장구조를 써주시면 더욱 이해하기 쉬울 것 같네요~
통합형은 꼭 conclusion paragraph를 써주시지 않아도 됩니다~
좋은 글은:
Addressing topic, Task
Organization, Development, Explanations, Exemplifications
Unity, Profession, Coference
Consistency in language, Syntactic Variety, Vocabulary, Grammatical Accuracy
들을 다 갖춰야해요
전체적으로 글이 깔끔하고 핵심 내용을 잘 잡으신 것 같아서 이해하기 쉬웠습니다. 문법이나 문장 구조는 큰 문제가 없으니, 문장 구조를 간략하고 명학하게 하시는 데 좀 신경써주시면 될 것 같아요~ 수고 많으셨어요, 이상 갤러거였습니다 :)
Raw Score:
4.5/5 -> 28/30
|