■ Direction You have 20 minutes to plan and write your response. Your response will be judged on the basis of The quality of writing and on how well your response presents the points in the lecture and the relationship to the reading passage. Typically, an effective response will be 150 to 225 words. ■ Question Summarize the points made in the lecture you just heard, explaining how they cast doubt on the points made in the reading
|
|
|
|
|
▶ Your Answer :
According
to the reading, there is ample support for the author's claim that preventing
the menhaden fishing will be inconvenient and harmful (품사). On the other hand, the
lecturer brings up several points that contradict this argument.
First, the professor insists that it is doubtful that this restriction
will bring economic problem. If the menhaden's population will increase due to the
restriction, it would be helpful for the fishing industries. Also, even if the
menhaden fishing is prohibited, humans will be able to adapt to new circumstance
and find other means to earn money. This casts doubt on the reading passage's
suggestion that preventing the menhaden fishing will negatively affect the
fishing industries.
Next, the professor contends that it is untrue that this regulation will
destroy the aquatic food chain. The food chain has potential to maintain
itself, so they (They = 무엇인가요?) will be stable in spite of changing number of the menhaden. For
example, the striped bass that are predators of menhaden can sustain while
eating other fish and algae. This refutes the reading passage's assertion that
preventing the menhaden fishing will cause destruction of the food chain.
Finally, the professor argues that restricting the number of striped
bass instead of the menhaden is not a good solution. Low population of striped
bass means that fewer predator of the menhaden. However, it is also influences (주어 동사 불일치) other fish that are up in the food chain. This counters the reading passage's
claim that preventing striped bass can solve the menhaden's low population.
|
|
1. 사소한 문법 오류가 많은 편입니다.
검토를 꼼꼼히 해주세요!
2. reading and listening의 비율이 너무 listening쪽으로만 치우쳐져 있습니다.
비율은 5:5, 적어도 6:4 정도는 되어야 합니다.
이는 리딩에 대한 디테일 부족으로 이어지며, 분량 부족, 추가 설명 실패 등으로 이어질 수 있으니
리딩에서도 evidence를 많이 찾아서 써주시면 좋을 것 같습니다.
(전체적으로 분량 증량이 필요한 상황입니다.)