Both the reading passage and lecture deal with the global warming. Whereas the reading passage suggests few solutions to solve this problem, the lecturer counters the reading passage's assumption by pointing out flaws of the suggestions.
To start with, the reading passage contends that humans can harness sulfur sulfer (‘황’ 을 이야기 하는 거라면 sulfur을 쓰시는 게 맞아요. Sulfer 이라는 단어는 없습니다.) to deflect the sun's ray in order to cool earth down. However, the lecturer casts doubt on this opinion by pointing out the potential ramification of this method. Using sulfur sulfer to deflect the sun's ray might end up drying down the rainforests and inundate the deserts, countering reading passage's assumption. (이 내용은 앞에서 lecturer이 cast doubt 한다고 써 주셨으니 다시한번 쓰지 않아도 되는 부분 같아요)
Secondly, the reading passage argues that using algae can drastically reduce the CO2 rate. However, the lecturer counters this theory by pointing out the possible outcome of this method. Even though algae reduces the CO2 level during the a day, it simply has no point because they release CO2 back at night. In addition to, if algae proliferates too quickly, it will form the algo colony, destroying the adjoining ocean environment by producing too much bio-waste.
Lastly, the reading passage suggests that by collecting CO2 and put it into deep seabed, humans (제 생각엔 인간이 green house effect를 reverse 할 수 있는게 아니라 CO2를 모아서 deep seabed에 놓는 것이 reverse,를 하는 것 같네요. 주어를 정확히 해주세요) can reverse the green house effect. However, the lecturer contends that since there is too much of CO2 all around the world, humans simply don't have posess the technology to collect and put them in deep beneath the sea, indicating that the reading passage's suggestion can't be the solution to the green house effect.
전반적으로 reading passage와 lecturer의 의견은 잘 비교가 된 것 같아요. 하지만 두번째에서는 reading의 내용이 조금 부족한 감도 있는 것 같네요. 문법적으로도 큰 문제는 없으나 sulfur 같은 단어의 스펠링을 틀리지 않도록 조심 해 주시는 게 좋을 것 같아요. 항상 에세이를 다 쓰신 후에 proof reading을 해서 기본적인 문법이나 단어 스펠링 등을 확인 해 주시는 게 좋아요.