▶ Your Answer :
The reading passage and the lecture are both about the archaeology in England. The reading passage contends that they are facing a danger of archaeology for three reasons. On the other hand, the lecturer opposes the idea by bringing up the National law of England.
First, the lecturer argues that the National law would prevent the companies in England from developing the area with archaeological treasures. This is because when they destroy the site, they have pay for their mistakes according to the law. It could help companies to take care of it when they construct something. This goes against the reading passage's claim that it would be dangerous for historical sites to develop more areas due to population growth.
Second, the lecturer points out that archaeological researchers could get new money because of the law. This is due to the fact that companies should support some researches to develop the sites they want, indicating that the researchers could have both public and private funding. This casts doubt the reading passage's view that archaeological researchers does not have enough money for the insufficient funding from their government.
The final point made by lecturer is that the rare job opportunities for the graduates who majored of archaeology is unfounded. Because of the law, there are many grants and programs for the archaeology students. In addition, there are increasingly new commercial firms for archaeological researches. This rebuts the reading passage's idea that the students who majored archaeology are having difficulties to get a job except teaching archaeology.
통합형 format에 맞게 잘 써주셨습니다 다만 lecturer from reading? listening?왜 전혀 설명이 없는 건가요? 통합형의 whole point가 두개 주장간의 비교를 하는 것인 만큼, 더 정확하게 작성해주셔야 comparison이 명확해집니다. 어휘는 오류는 없지만 전체적으로 조금 기본적인 어휘에 그쳐있는 것 같습니다.. 조금 더 다양한 표현 써주세요 |