The reading passage contends that the fossil information of agnostids does
not allow paleontologists to determine with certainty what agnostids comsumed
or how they acted, and the writer introduces three theories. On the other hand,
the lecturer brings up several points that contradict these 3 theories.
First, the speaker argues
that all free-swimming predators had well developed eyes. In other words, they
had a sense to chase their games. (이 문장이 뭔가 어색해요. Sense to
chase their games? 이거보다 had a good ability or instincts
in chasing their games가 더 적절할 것 같습니다.) In contrast, the agnostids were like blind since they
did not have good sight to trace their prey. This casts doubt on the reading
passage that the agnostids were free swimming predators that hunted tiny
animals.
Second, according to the
lecturer, seafloor dwellers move slowly and
occupy just small areas. On the other hand, the agnostids could move swiftly,
and they had the ability to make multiple areas
extensively. (multiple areas를 make하는 능력이 있었다는 말인가요?) So, it is unusual that
agile agnostids occupied small areas. This refutes the reading passage’s
assertion that agnostids may have inhabited on the floor of the sea.
The final point made by
the lecturer is that the population of each kind of parasite can’t be large.
This is because there are many kinds of parasites, and there is a certain
limitation that prevents their population from
increasing. However, the agnostids’ fossils
suggest that their population was so large, and this finding supports that they
cannot be considered as parasites. This fact counters the writer’s claim that
there is the a probability that the
agnostids were parasites.
Writing 0-30 Score Scale
Good (24-30)
Overall Comment:
비록 어색하거나 문단에 어울리지 않는 문장들이 몇 개 보이긴 했지만, 그걸
제외하면 아주 좋은 글입니다. 포인트도 잘 잡아주셨고 다른 문법 실수도 많이 보이지 않았습니다. 흐름도 매우 깔끔합니다.