| |
| |
In the reading passage, there is ample support for the author’s claim that the US government’s significant payment to farmers should not be stopped. However, the professor in the lecture gives several reasons as a rebuttal to the author’s point. To begin with, the lecturer argues that subsidies do not stabilize the food supply because it does not result in an overall increase in the food supply. For example, over five years, farmers cultivated corn to produce ethanol. Those farmers did not contribute to the overall national food supply. This opposes the reading passage’s claim that the country will have enough supply of food. On top of that, the professor points out that farmers grow only some nutritious type of food. To be specific, farmers only harvest a certain type of fruit and food so a small amount of food will be yielded. Therefore, the price of vegetable and fruit will be raised. This disputes the reading passage’s claim that subsidies will lessen the cost of food because farmers can sell vegetable and fruit at a lower price due to government's (소유격) special payment. Finally,
the lecturer asserts that subsidies would not help rural people economically.
To explain specifically, cultivation is largely mechanized | |
|
1. 문법적 오류가 거의 없습니다.
2. reading and listening의 비율이 너무 listening쪽으로만 치우쳐져 있습니다.
비율은 5:5, 적어도 6:4 정도는 되어야 합니다.
이는 리딩에 대한 디테일 부족으로 이어지며, 분량 부족, 추가 설명 실패 등으로 이어질 수 있으니
리딩에서도 evidence를 많이 찾아서 써주시면 좋을 것 같습니다.
수고하셨습니다. *^^*