통합형
As far as E(e)gypt(국가이름-대문자!) is concerned, the lecturer takes a stand that opposes the thesis of the reading and presents three counterarguments. Specifically, the lecturer does not sympathize with the reading passage’s view (이 부분은 앞 문장이랑 거의 유사하고, 그냥 paraphrase만 한 것 같습니다. 굳이 쓸 필요가 없다는 뜻이죠. 단어수를 늘리기 위한 목적이라면 모르겠지만, 그게 아니라면 같은 말을 두 번 하는 것은 깔끔하지 못 하기 때문에 별로 좋지 않습니다)and argues that three factors suggested in the reading are do not sound convincing enough to lead to the empire’s collapse.
First, the lecturer discusses the same issue of E(e)gypt, but makes a rebuttal against the reading’s first supporting idea. (본문의 첫 문장은 topic sentence입니다. 통합형에서는 listening의 main argument를 말해주시구요. 때문에 여기서는 lecturer가 말하고자 하였던 포인트가 무엇이었는지, 또는 그가 반대하는 reading의 주장이 무엇이었는지를 정리하여 말해주셔야 합니다. 단순히 반대하였다~라고 하는 것은 좋지 않아요^^)In the lecturer’s opinion, it was not beneficial that the provincial governors opposed the rule of the paraoh / (the first point in the reading does not sound convincing since it was not beneficial for the provincial governors to oppose the rule of the paraoh.) (두 문장 다 괜찮아요_)This viewpoint contrasts with the author’s argument that the changed manner of the regional governors toward the monarchy is a cogent evidence for the collapse of the Old Kingdom. (리스닝 부분이 너무 빈약합니다. 통합형 문제에서는 리딩보다도 리스닝이 중점이 되어 말해주셔야하기 때문에 리스닝 내용을 더 추가해주시길 바래요~)
On the second point of egypt in the reading passage(,) is also argued against by the lecturer takes a different standpoint. According to the lecturer, historic documents are misinterpreted because only eastern regions of Old Kingdom suffered from serious drought. This argument is in runs contrary to the author’s claim that severe drought in the end of the third millenium BC resulted in famine. (여기도 리스닝 디테일 한 줄 정도 더 추가해주시면 좋겠습니다)
Last but not least, in the lecture, the reading passage’s final point about E(e)gypt is regarded as unsubstantiated and groundless. In fact, the lecturer notes that the central govermental system of the empire was so strong that it did not allow long turmoils. This critical argument(s) contradicts the author’s claim that a power struggle of that aroused when deciding Pepi’s successor provide(s)d a clear basis for the end of the empire.