▶ Your Answer : The lecturer argues that using wave energy instead of fossil fuel is not as optimistic as what the written author claims. This idea is completely opposite to that of reading passage’s idea. 통합형은 introduction이나 conclusion보다는 main paragraph가 훨씬 중요합니다. main을 좀 더 통통하게 쓴 후에 앞 뒤 적는 연습하는 게 좋아요. The lecturer refutes wave energy’s constant and predictable characteristics which was made by reading passage. She acclaims that because of technical problem, there are some break downs when using wave energy generator. This make people hard to predict the energy generating. Secondly, the lecturer casts doubt 이런식의 수일치 오류는 없도록 연습해줘야 합니다. about the idea that wave energy has no harm on environment. 앞에서 lecturer 라고 하고 뒤에서 she라고 나오면 누가 누구 아이디어를 이야기하는지 알 수 없습니다. listening lecturer라고 한번 언급을 해줘야 합니다. She says that often wave generators use chemical solutions to ensure that the generators are moving freely, destroying marine ocean in result.
Lastly, the lecturer strongly insists that wave generators would have negative effects on beautiful sceneries. On the contray, reading passage says that the generators would not harm natural beauty as they are not noticeable. The lecturer starts with the fact that the generators have to be painted with bright colors to be noticed by ships on sea. Thus, visitors would detect them easily on the beach.
우선 첫번째, 두번째 main paragraph detail이 부족합니다. 지금 보면 reading에 대한 detail은 거의 안 나오고 있는데 적어도 한두문장정도는 적어줘야 두 주장 비교가 이루어집니다. 그리고 리스닝은 적어도 1-3문장정도 더 나와줘야 합니다
보통 이런 식으로 적으면 몇점 정도 나오는 지 대충 알려주실수 있다면 알려주세요 ! 처음 적어봐서 떨리네요 ㅠㅠ 첨삭 감사합니다 |