Whereas (whereas 가 한 단어입니다. Where as 라고 쓰시면 안돼요) the writing suggests that the Roman Empire in the fifth century AD had collapsed due to the lead poisoning, the lecturer argues that it author’s point is highly unlikely since the assertion made in reading passage can be easily refuted.
To start with, the lecturer suggests that the idea that usages of cosmetic had caused lead poisoning is very unlikely to happen because, in order to be lead poisoned, one must directly ingest lead so that poison can run through blood vessels. And since the Roman upper class used lead carbonate powder only to paint their skins, it doesn't make any senses that the Roman elites were poisoned by lead. This refutes the point made in the reading passage that the usage of lead-based cosmetic powder cosmetics had caused the fall of Roman Empire.
And secondly, the lecturer also points out that lead pipes made for carrying to carry drinking water directly to the home can't be the reason for lead poisoning. Because the pipes used for conducting waters were coated with high amount of calcium, so water and lead pipe could not directly contact with each other even though ther pipes were made of lead. This cast doubt on the reading passage's assumption that lead water pipes had contributed the fall of the Roman Empire.
Lastly, although the lecturer acknowledges that lead pot used for boiling sapa is not innocuous to human body, she also points out that the sapa's dosage (sapa의 양인가요 아니면 sapa를 끓이면서 나오는 lead pot의 lead 양인가요? 후자라면 문장수정이 필요합니다) is very small and sapa had been used only enough to make wines little bit sweeter, so the poisonous lead was diluted. This contradicts the point made in reading passage that lead poison in sapa had caused the Roman elites to fall down.
전반적으로 reading passage에서의 point와 lecturer이 주장하는 point의 비교가 잘 되어있는 것 같아요. 하지만 문법적으로 조금은 고쳐주셔야 할 것 같아요. 정확하게 말을 표현하는 것과 같은 같은 반복하지 않는 것이 좋아요. 수고하셨습니다 ^^