▶ Your Answer :
In the reading passage, there are ample support for the author's claim that carbon sequestration can help reduce global warming. However, the professor in the lecture gives several reasons as a rebuttal to the author's point. First, the professor contends that adding iron to the ocean does not work.(For what purpose?) This is because it cannot lead to the permanent increase in the number of phytoplanktons. To explain, if the organism increases, the nitrogen that is needed to live will decrease resulting in the overall population decrease. (About what?) Moreover, this method only capture 3% of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. This counters the reading passage's claim that because the planktons feed on iron, adding iron would increase the population by absorbing a lot of carbon dioxide. Second, the professor insists that artificial wetland is not a effective way to sequester carbon dioxide. According to a study, the capacity of artificial wetland is 23% lower than the natural one. In addition, it takes too long to develop. (Develop itself, you mean?) So when it becomes functional, it will be too late. (Bit awkward) This casts doubts on the reading passage's assertion that the artificial wetland reduces the amount of carbon dioxide releasing to the air by putting off the decomposition of oxygen. Third, the professor argues that coal mining also can be problematic. When carbon dioxide and coal meet, the methane is released with chemical reaction. The Thus, if this methane including includes carbon dioxide so if it is burned, carbon dioxide inside it will be emitted and leak out to the atmosphere. As a result, the coal mines cannot reduce carbon dioxide at all. This refutes the reading passage's point that carbon dioxide can be captured in the coal mine for a long time.
채점기준표
|
Grammar
|
Contents
|
Example
|
Coherence
|
점수
|
2
|
3
|
2
|
2
|
Score
|
Limited 15-17
|
- specific details들이 상당히 생략되어 있는 편이에요. 어떤 population인지 thesis 어떤 goal을 위한 것인지 밝혀주셔야 합니다. - 단어활용이 적절하지 않은 부분들이 종종 보입니다.
|
|