▶ Your Answer :
The reading passage and lecture hold different positions respectively, on the issue of a forest restoration program which eliminates all dead trees by firing forest (이 의미로 쓰신 것이 맞나요?) after forest fires. The lecture's argument is formed around many points that are in direct contrast to the materials in the reading passage.
First off, the reading passage suggests that people can offer spaces for living trees to grow and thrive by eliminating dead trees in the fire zone. However, the lecture rebuts this point by claiming that the truth is that rotten rotting trees are beneficial for a new group of trees that survived in forest fire. This is because dead trees enrich the nutrients in soil which will help plants prosper with nutrients with which new plants can prosper.
Also, the reading passage argues that the program benefits forest because it drives away harmful insects by removing rotten rotting trees. On the other hand, the lecture refutes this point by claiming that these insects have a positive influence on living trees. The reason is that the insects attract birds which feed on them. The birds eat plant seeds also, and spread them thereby helping new plants to grow.
Lastly, the reading passage claims that one of benefits the program generates is that it creates new jobs. That is, the intervention positively affects not only forests but also economy. In contrast, the lecture counters this point by suggesting that this is only temporary effects on economy since most people hired to do job positions related to the program are mostly consist of labor workers, who are employed by construction companies. (건설회사에 고용되었다는 것이 temporary effects 하고 무슨 관련이 있나요? 건설회사가 일용직만 고용한다 등의 이유가 제시되었다면 그것까지 써주세요. 안그러면 understandable 하지 않습니다.)These companies usually have other works without the restoration program. Also, experts, not day workers, are needed to deal with severely damaged forest if the damage given on forest is severe, experts are required, not daily construction workers.
In conclusion, the reading passage presents three aspects with regard to the issue of the dead tree elimination program. However, the lecture's argument makes it clear that none of these points justifies the reading passage's claim.
전반적으로 양쪽의 입장을 잘 표현해주신 것 같습니다. 각각이 제시한 근거와 함께요~ 중간중간 코멘트 해드린 내용 참고하시어서 수정이 필요한 곳은 고쳐보시면 좋을 것 같습니다. 수고하셨습니다~ 좋은 결과 있길 바래요~ ^^ |