In the reading passage, there is an ample support for the author’s claim of objective explains for the red rain phenomenon in Kerala. However, the professor in the lecture gives several reasons as a rebuttal to the author’s point.
First, the professor contends that the rain is composed of the bats’ blood is far-fetched. If the arguments would be true, the amount of bats’ blood is needed five million of bats at the same time. (무슨 말인지 모르겠습니다. need to rewrite) And also, people cannot find any of bat’s bones or wings like that. This casts doubt on the reading passage’s claim that red rains are consists of the blood of bats.
Next, the professor insists that the volcanic eruptions from the Philippines is disproved. This is because no one else has even any damages from the eruption in Philippines. In addition to Vietnam and surrounded nations also not happened. (의미연결 안됨)This counters the reading passage’s assertion that red rain leads to a volcanic explosion from the Philippines.
Finally, the professor argues that there are not many factories in Kerala. Therefore, chemical toxic from the factories in Kerala is not a fact.(chemical toxic자체가 진실이 아니란건가요...?) In the end, it leads to actually nothing. This refutes the reading passage’s suggestion that red rain is due to the chemical pollution which is emitted from surrounded facilities.
문장의 뜻/쓴 이유를 이해할 수 없는 문장들이 너무 많습니다.
에세이보다는 문장 쓰기 연습을 조금 더 하시고 에세이를 쓰는게 quality높이는데 더 도움이 될 것 같습니다. 어휘가 용도와는 다르게 쓰인 부분이 조금 많은 편인데, 어휘 하나를 외우더라도 용도를 정확하게 알고 쓸 수 있도록 공부해주셔야 합니다.