▶ Your Answer :
In this lecture, the speaker argues that there are lots of controversies for the Anasazi civilization’s migration. This challenges the reading’s assertion that the civilization moved from their homeland due to a harsh drought.
First, the lecturer contends that the discovery of bones that shows of malnutrition doesn’t mean anything. Anasazi people commonly suffered by malnutrition regardless of crop yields. This is because religious leaders used up much foods for their ceremony. This contradicts the reading’s insistence that bones from Anasazi graves reveal definite indications of malnutrition. (이 부분 reading에 대한 얘기 조금만 더 나왔으면 흐름 훨씬 좋았을 것 같아요)
Secondly, the speaker states that the condition of the abandoned settlements can’t prove anything.(the Anasazi did not plan to return even when the drought was over. This can’t explain why the civilization didn’t come back after the drought.(무슨 말인지 이해가 안 갑니다. 위에서는 drought이 끝나고 나서도 did not plan to return했다고 말하지 않았나요?) It is in direct opposition to the reading’s contention that the condition of the abandoned settlements shows responding to a drought of the Anasazi.
Lastly, the lecturer insists that the area the Anasazi civilization migrated did not precisely have reliable water supply. The place where the civilization migrated had very little moisture in actual so it wasn’t suit for agriculture. It is not likely that people fleeing from drought would choose a region with harsher conditions. This casts doubt about the reading’s argument that the resettled place of the civilization had dependable water supplies.
from reading?listening? 무조건 화자가 누군지 정확하게 비교해서 적어야 합니다. listening에 대한 detail이 한문장 정도 더 나왔으면 전체적인 주장 이해가 쉬웠을 것 같습니다. reading도 text에 나온 것 그대로 적기보다는 paraphrase해서 써야 한다는 점 잊지말아주세요. 어휘가 조금 기본적인 편입니다. 연결사경우에도 first, second좋은데 그래도 더 색다른 어휘 쓰면 전체적인 문장이 조금 더 흥미로워집니다 |