▶ Your Answer :
The reading passage contends that (that 이 오면 주어와 동사가 따라 나와야하는데 이번에는 없습니다.) three reasons to prove why Hohokam's extinction in X region. On the other hand, the lecturer brings up several points that contradict this argument.
First, the speaker argues that people living in the region maintained their soil fertile. (soil 을 fertile 하게 한 것과 extinction 이 무슨 상관이 있는걸까? 라는 질문을 던지게 됩니다. Reading 에 대한 내용 쓰실 때 그 관계성이 나와있는데 차라리 reading 의 내용을 먼저 써주시는 것이 낫겠습니다.) For example, when they had rich year, they did do not cultivate. This point refutes the reading passage's assertion that due to the excessive cultivation, they would have made soil alkaline to be alkalinity and eventually soil turned in to be sterile.
Second, according to the lecturer, those kind of tree (이건 뭐를 말하는 건가요? 그냥 trees 라고 하시는 것이 낫겠습니다) which was found in the region grow well. (마찬가지입니다. 이것과 extinction 과 뭐 어떤 관계가 있다는건가요? Lecture 을 들어보지 못한 사람이 이 글을 읽고 있다고 생각하시고 서술해주세요.) Moreover since they used tree only to build a house or as a fuel, at that time there were enough trees to use. This counters the writer's claim that due to the fact that people cut eliminated all trees, animals couldn't live in this region and then this made human to leave those area. (오히려 reading 의 내용을 서술하실 때에는 이러이러한 이유로 사람이 살 수 없게 되었다 라는 정확한 인과관계가 주어지는데 lecture 에는 그게 없습니다.)
Final point made by the lecturer is that existing fort can't be the evidence of war. One significant reason is that they could have built this as a precaution. Moreover, there are is no other remains to prove that there was is a war. This casts doubt on the reading which states that because of the war, they would have leaved this place.
코멘트 보시면서 내용 보충 충분하게 해주세요~ 수고하셨습니다~ |