▶ Your Answer :
In the lecture, the speaker argues that any ideas to explain ‘will o’ the wisp’ is not convincing. This challenges the reading’s assertion about three hypotheses to account for the the phenomenon.
Firstly, the lecturer contends that a chemical likes phosphine can’t make light similar to the will o’ the wisp. Experiments demonstrated Phosphine’s light doesn’t resemble with the mystical light. While the light of the gas is cool greenish, one of the phenomenon is warm yellow and white. This contradicts the reading’s insistence that the mysterious lights a kind of forms of chemical illumination.
Secondly, the speaker states that fireflies can’t be the source of the phenomenon. The insects tend to spread across large areas, wheras a wil.. appears as a small ball of lightThe light of the flies blinks so much, whereas one of the will o’ the wisp does not. (이 부분 어휘도 너무 반복되고, 의미를 정확하게 알 수 없습니다) It is in direct opposition to the reading’s contention that the source of the mystical light would be the flying insects.
Lastly, the lecturer asserts that it doesn’t make sense that barn owls are the source of the will o’ the wisp. The birds are not white so that they can’t make that kind of bright light. Also, they are not be (같은 문장인데 앞에 are이 이미 있으니 be동사가 또 나올 수 없습니다) able to be a consistence source as they should be lightened straightly to make the light. (무슨 의미인지 이해가 안 갑니다. 전체적으로 이해 자체가 힘든 문장들이 조금씩 보입니다) This casts doubt about the reading’s statement that the reason of the phenomenon might be barn owls.
lecturer from reading?listening 인지 꼭 적어주세요. 전체적으로 리스닝에 대한 주장 설명은 괜찮은 편인데 reading 설명이 조금 부족한 편인 것 같아요. reading도 text에 나온 것 그대로 적기보다는 paraphrase해서 한문장정도 더 적으면 좋을 것 같아요. 연결사 더 다양하게 적으면 좋을 것 같아요. 통합형이다 보니 단어가 어느정도 한정적인 것은 이해하지만 그래도 더 범주를 넓혀가는 게 좋습니다 |