첫번째 통합형 에세이... 4.50점 / 27점 맞았습니다.
According to the reading passage, the writer says that human population growth is beneficial for people. However, the professor of the lecture makes different points with the reading passage. He says that human population growth is negative for people. There are some reasons supporting his idea.
Firstly, in the reading, the writer says that the idea of Thomas Malthus is completely wrong. He said that if the human population grows, the food supply will limited, so there will be war or disease that decrease the human population. However, the reading passage says that if the human population increases, the technology and economy will also increase. Therefore the food problem will not appear. However, the professor says that opinion of Malthus is true. Although technology is developed to produce enough food for human, other factors such as war or disease will cause a problem in vary aspects.
Secondly, according to the readin passage, human population growth means that human is successful species. On the contrary, the professor says that it is negative for human rather than positive. In the reading, the writer states that the more human population, the more consumer and producer. Therefore the economy and society will be developed. However, the professor says that human population growth is not mean success, particulary in the poor counturies. In poor country, if the food and other supplies are limited and human population is increased rapidly, their needs will increase. Therefore, ultimately, there can be disease and the ability to prevent the disaster will decrease.
In conclusion, the reading passage and lecture have opposite points about the human population growth. The professor says that human population growth is not always good for human. Rather it can cause limited food supply, war, disease and so on. Therefore, He states that human population growth cause negative effects.
두번째 통합형 에세이.. 3.25점 / 20점 맞았습니다.
In the reading passage, the writer deals with the benefits of aquaculture overall. According to the reading, aquaculture is effective way to supply reliable protein and it also help the consumer by decreasing the price. On the contrary, the professor makes a different opinion in the lecture. He says that aquaculture has several problem to correct. There are the examples to support his opinion.
Firstly, according to the reading, the writer says that the aquaculture is reliable way to support food source and this role will be continued into the future. However, the professor contradicts that point. He says that new farms like a aquaculture does not consider the future in long term. Therefore, although they earn rapidly increasing rate of profits, soon they might encounter the problem.
Secondly, in the reading, the writer insists that aquaculture is environmentally profitable because it prevent decrease of wild fishes. On the other hand, the professor states opposite opinion. He says that aquaculture are not helpful to protect wild fish species. Rather, he says that aquaculture makes some environmental problems. First, aquaculture makes great quantity of waste. Second, it makes both fish and human unhealthy. Third, drugs used in aquaculture pollute the environment. And finally, because people grow vary species of fishes together, many fishes die. If there are carnivore and herbivore fish in the same container, the carnivore fish will hunt the other to eat.
In conclusion, the writer and professor have opposite opinion about the aquaculture. According to the lecture, aquaculture are not effective way to keep economy and environment healthy. It is not reliable way to make profit, and even they can harm the environment.
분량도 비슷하고 컨디션도 비슷했는데 왜 점수가 크게 차이날까요?
두번째 에세이는 내용 이해가 부족해서 그런가요?
더불어 문장에 오류가 있으면 첨삭 부탁드립니다.