The lecturer disagrees on the reading passage’s claim on health issues associated with sucralose consumption that sucralose consumption causes three health issues by presenting three counter-arguments.
First, the lecturer argues that what causes diabetes is other substances such as starch in rice, and sulcralose is not to be blamed causes diabetes and not sucralose. Moreover, diet soda prone to diabetes is due to primary obesity and not due to sucralose the reason why people experiencing diabetes after they drink diet soda is primarily because of their obesity, not sulralose. This counters the reading passage’s claim that sucralose causes diabetes.
Second, the lecturer argues that the sucralose experiment on harmful substances created when cooked is problematic the experiment suggested in the reading passage, that sulcralose makes harmful substances when cooked is problematic. This is because toxic substances are not found when eaten the harmful substances in dispute are no longer detected after consumption. Also, and the high temperature which was set during the experiment is unnecessary unrealistic in real life. This counters the reading passage’s claim that an experiment proved potential harmful substances when sucralose was heated at high temperature.
Lastly, the lecturer asserts that sucralose show there is no evidence of that sucralose causes allergic reaction and but the media influenced people to imagine the symptoms of sucralose. Besides, an experiment indicates that sucralose does not cause any severe reaction. This contradicts the reading passage’s claim that there have been many accounts of people experiencing allergic reaction after sulcralose consumption.
Writing 0-30 scale
Fair (21-25)
TOEFL Integrated Writing의 핵심은 1. reading passage의 주장을 요약/정리해서 2. listening passage가 그것을 어떻게 반박하는지를 설명하는 것입니다.
이 글에서는 두 지문의 주장은 어느 정도 요약이 이루어지는데, listening passage가 어떤 식으로, 또 reading의 어떤 포인트를 지적하고 반박하는지 그 논리는 잘 드러나지가 않습니다. 본문에 제가 수정한 문장이 원래 문장과 어떤 차이가 있는지를 잘 살펴보세요. (의미는 비슷하지만 앞뒤 문맥 속에서 흐름을 읽어보세요.)