The lecturer disagrees with the reading passage’s claim that severe drought caused the migration of the Anasazi people who lived in ancient America (소재에 대한 최소한의 정보는 설명해주는 게 좋습니다), by presenting three counter-arguments.
First, the lecturer argues that the signs of malnutrition does not prove that drought was the cause of immigration, as poor diet and insufficient food regardless of unrelated to drought also caused malnutrition. Moreover, Anasazi children suffered during abundant harvest and not during drought (왜?). This counters the reading passage’s claim that malnutrition caused by droupght drought was the reason to explain of the migration of Anasazi.
Second, the lecturer contends that after the Anasazi immigration during the dried dry period, the environment returned normal. This means that if the drought was the cause of immigration, the Anasazi civilisation should have returned when the drought was over. This counters the reading passage’s claim that the Anasazi abandoned the settlement to cope with drought.
Lastly, the lecturer claims that the relocated land had very low moisture that is unsuitable for agriculture than the previous region. If the drought was the cause, then the Anasazi immigration would not occur head to a more severe environment. This rebuffs the reading passage’s claim that the Anasazi resettled in areas with reliable water supplies.
Writing 0-30 scale
Fair (23-25)
전반적으로 두 지문의 내용을 잘 요약하고, lecture가 reading을 어떻게 반박하는지를 잘 설명했습니다.
다만 일부 단어의 선택이 어색한 경우가 있고, 전반적으로 관사의 사용이 자연스럽지 못합니다.