According to the reading, there is ample support for the author's claim that there are several options available to the problem of the Ash borer. However, the professor in the lecture gives several reasons as a rebuttal to the author's point.
First, the professor in the lecture contends that removing the affected trees is (주어는 removing이기 때문에 단수 동사가 옵니다) not effective solution. the (대소문자 구분) symptom of infected trees will be showed 1~2 years after infection. When we see the symptom, it would be too late to prevent from it and it can only work in urban area because the density of the forest makes (주어 동사 불일치) people impossible to cure them. This casts doubt on the reading passage's claim that removing the affected trees is the (관사) easiest method (단수/복수) because it is easy to identify.
Next, the professor in the lecture insists that a chemical treatment is highly problematic because it can contaminate ground and water. Also, it will be not work if larvaes take a majority of the trees because larvaes can prohibit the tree passing the chemical. This counters the reading passage's assertion that a chemical treatment is a (관사 필요합니다) good option to deal with.
Finally, the professor argues that biological pest control has a lot of issues. Biological pest like wasps can affect the environment by killing narrative species. Also, they can not survive when they face the climate that they are not familiar like cold winter. This refutes the reading passage's suggestion that biological pest control can be a good solution.
-
1. 각 문단 시작 전에 tab 버튼 눌러서 들여쓰기 해주세요.
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.