▶ Your Answer :
In this given set of information, there is some discrepancy between the views of the lecturer and those of the author from reading passage over the issue of Diprotodon, a marsupial that thrived in the savannah and woodland areas of the Austrailia for about 1.6 million years. With three cogent explanations, the lecturer raise objections to the three possible theories that the author presented in the passage. First of all, the lecturer debunks the author's first conjecture that it is due to the low reproductive rate of Diprotodon. To elaborate in detail, the lecturer gives an example of another species living in Austrailia, which even give smaller number of births during thier life time. Hence, it is not plausible to conclude that small number of offsprings should be considered as a serious factor that led the extinction. This view is diametrically opposed to the author's idea that the low number of offspring could have resulted in negative population as Diprodotons were able to produce eight babies at most over their lives. The author thinks this will make them less adaptable and vulneralbe to the environment. In addition, the lecturer also indicates dissent over the actual cause of the extinction of Diprotodon. The lecturer sounds convinced that the author is making a manifest error about the shortage of food since the human use of fire had increased the nutritious content of the soil. Even if their major source of diet had been lost, he explains that it would have been possible for them to eat other types of plants. However, the author clarifies that the animal was gone because their saltbush had become scarce as a result of fire usage by early humans. Thirdly, the lecturer goes on to expound that the author's final point is flawed. The lecturer points out that author's assertion is not based on enough examination to corroborate it. He says that Diprodoton and its predators had lived together for a long time and it woud have dietd earlier if their body size or slow actions were crucial to their survical. On the other hand, the author claims that Diprotodon was killed off by predators becuase it possess huge body size without any ability to run away from its predators and fossilized bones of Diprotodon found with the shed teeth of crocodiles are clear evidence.
가장 큰 흠은 너무 많은 spelling오류입니다. 가장 아쉽습니다. spelling은 어휘를 볼 떄 가장 처음으로 보는 요소이기도 한데, 생각보다 spelling틀린 곳 너무 많습니다. proof reading한번 해도 드러나는 부분이니 주의해주세요. 문장 자체는 좋습니다. 어휘도 잘 선정해서 썼고, reading이랑 listening구분 짓는 부분도 아주 clear해서, 이해하기 좋습니다. 문법 오류도 거의 없고, 문장의 logic도 좋은 편입니다. 좋아요 |