To begin with, the reading passage mentions that the Black Death caused the Angkor’s quick collapse. As Angkor actively traded products with China, it was likely that the terrible disease was transmitted from China to Angkor. This counters the lecturer’s point that Black Death did not spread to Angkor which was located in inland areas. Since Black Death was transmitted by ship, only residents who lived in coastal cities suffered from the disease. Furthermore, it is not evident that the outbreak prevailed in Southeast Asia. This hypothesis just relies on the speculation that the influx of the disease was along the spice trade routes.
Second, according to the reading passage, the failure of irrigation systems for agriculture has attributed Angkor’s ruin. A lot of engineering defects in the water system were uncovered through modern archaeological research, which was responsible for the tragedy of insufficient crops. This contradicts the lecturer’s claim that the canal system was not critical to supply water to Angkor. As the intact water system only covered half the population, the city did not depend on it. In other words, Angkor must have operated different resources in order to resolve the shortage of water.
The final point made by the reading passage is that the growth of maritime trade brought about Angkor’s demise. While Chinese sea trade revived actively, the economic power of inland cities, including Angkor, continued to decline. This casts doubt on the lecturer’s argument that maritime trade in Asia did not have a negative impact on Angkor’s economy. The maritime merchants focused on luxurious items, which indicated Angkor still remained important to trade agriculture products despite the rise of coastal cities.
listening passage라고 적어주면 훨씬 좋을 것 같아요.
listening에 대한 supporting detail이 조금 부족한 편인 것 같습니다. 적어도 1-2문장정도 더 나오면 훨씬 설득력있게 주장 비교할
수 있을 것 같아요. reading보다는 listening이 훨씬 자세하게 부각되어야한다는 점 잊지 말아주세요. 똑같이 반반 나오면 안 됩니다
그리고 reading도 text에 나온 것 그대로 적기보다는 paraphrase해줘야합니다.
어휘 조금 더 범주 넓혀가면서 쓰면 좋을 것 같아요