*진하게 표시한 부분은 제가 파악한 문단의 주요 내용이니 참고하세요.
In According to the reading passage, historical buildings don't fit to modern development. However, the lecturer brings up several points that contradict this argument.
First, according to the lecturer, the economic benefit of historical buildings are is tremendous. This is because tourists come to see these old buildings and spend money on at the local market so they pump the local economy up. This casts doubt on the passage's assertion that old buildings' maintenance cost burdens citizens and this is not a productive cost.
Sencond Second, the lecturer explains that the old building's faculty facility is not awful because they have restored (they가 누구며 무엇을 restore하는지 써주시면 더 좋겠네요.)for a long time ago. Furthermore, workers are still working on electric wiring and plumbing. This opposes to the passage's claim that historical buildings decresease the quality of citizen's life lives because of their poor facilities.
Lastly, she the lecturer asserts that historical buildings can make a harmony with modern city. She suggests Amsterdam as an example of a city which has good combination between historical buildings and modern ones. This refutes writer's explanation that old buildings harm the harmonization in a city.
주요 채점기준 (항목별 5-4-3-2-1점수로 30점 만점 자가채점)
논제 파악 effectiveness in addressing the task
적절한 설명 appropriate explanation
적절한 예증, 구체적 설명 appropriate exemplification, details
일관성, 단계적 구성, 주제와의 연관성 unity, progression, coherence
다양한 단어 구사 syntactic variety
적절한 단어 선택, 관용적 표현 word choice, idiomaticity
Writing 0–30 score scale
Fair-Good (20-24)
전반적으로 문법적 오류이나 어색한 표현들이 없어 읽기 수월한 글이었습니다. 하지만 절대적으로 Reading과 Lecture에서 주어진 정보의 양에 비해 작성자님이 써주신 양이 적었습니다. 토플라이팅 통합형은 짧은 시간안에 얼마나 많은 양의 정보를 정확히 제공하냐가 중요하기 때문에 이 큰 틀에 조금씩 살을 붙여나가시고 또 Reading과 Lecture간의 대립관계에 연결성을 높여주시면 훌륭한 글이 될 것 같네요. 수고하셨습니다.^^