▶ Your Answer : In the reading passage, there are ample supports for the author's claim that there are some factors of the Angkor's demise. However, the professor in the lecture gives several reasons as a rebuttal for the author's point.
First, the professor claims that the plague is not responsible for the demise. The black death only affected on coastal areas because the route that plague introduced was usually ship way. In other words, Angkor was not a coastal city so they are (동사는 어디있나요?) unlikely to be attacked by the black death. This casts doubt on the reading passage's point that the major factor of decreased population is The black death.
Next, the professor insists that the problem of water system was not disastrous for Angkor's people. There were a number of water systems such as irrigation. Therefore, people was able to deal could deal (people는 복수 주어 입니다) with contamination problems. Engineering faults was not that crucial were not crucial (faults는 복수 주어 입니다) for them. This counters the reading passage's assertion that failed water system makes people hard to live on.
Finally, the professor argues that maritime trade was not impact for them did not bring an impact. Actually, Angkor's economy was based on agriculture, not a maritime trade. Thus, decline of maritime trade was merely one of the small problems on their economy. It was not significant challenge for them. This refutes the reading passage's suggestion that Angkor collapsed since they relied on maritime trade too much.
점수 ;23 리딩에 대한 정보가 많이 부족한 통합형 에세이입니다. 통합형 에세이에서 가장 중요한 부분을 차지하는 것은 한 주제에 대하여서 서로 다른 정보를 가지고 있는 리딩과 리스닝이 어떻게 비교하고 반박을 하는 것인지를 보는 것 입니다. 지금 이 에세이 같은 경우에 있어서는 리딩에 대한 부분을 각 단락에서 한 문장으로만 서술하였는데. 한 문장으로 끝내는 것 보다는 리스닝을 반박할 수 있는 부분들을 더 서술하시길 바랍니다. 수고많으셨습니다. |