▶ Topic :
In the reading passage, there is ample
support for the author’s claim that there have been many possible sources of
the origin of the ashen light of Venus. The professor, however, gives several
reasons as a rebuttal to the author’s point.
The first point that made in the passage is
that the ashen light could be the result of a chemical process. The lecturer,
however, challenges this viewpoint by arguing that when carbon monoxide and
oxygen combine, light is faint and almost invisible. To be specific, he stresses
that the light from the said chemical reaction could be seen only by powerful telescope. <(clarity랑 cohesion이 조금 떨어 지는 문단 입니다. chemical process 를 이야기 하실때 carbon monoxide and oxygen에 대한 chemical reaction이라고 해 주시고 그 reaction 는 light가 faint and almost invisible 하다고 말씀해주시는게 더 좋을 것 같습니다. 마지막 문단도 저런 phrase들을 덫붙여서 연관성을 지어 주시면 더 좋을 것 같습니다.)
Another point the article puts an emphasis
on is that the ashen light could simply be sunlight that is reflected off
clouds. In contrast, the lecturer contends that the ashen light occurs very
rarely, on the other hand, Venus is much more exposed to the Sun. Also, he says that the
ashen light should occur more frequently if the reflecting theory is right/correct.
Finally, it is stated in the reading that the
glow is aurorae, which are light displays that happen when plasma from the Sun
enters a Venus’s atmosphere. On the contrary, it is accentuated in the lecture
that plasma only enters when there exist magnetic fields. However, there is no
magnetic field in the Venus. Overall Score: Fair (17~23) Comment: 내용을 잘 정리를 하셨고 문법상 크게 문제 될부분은 없어 보입니다. 그 외에는 두 번째 문단에 있는 코멘트를 봐주시면 될 것 같습니다. |