According to the reading passage, the writer claims that living roofs are beneficial for people while the lecturer casts doubt about it.
To begin with, the author maintains that green roofs would solve the problem of the shortage of city parks-> provide solution to (이 표현이 자연스럽습니다 solve the problem은 시험문제 풀때 사용하는 표현에 가깝습니다.) the shortage of city parks. However, the professor argues that the expanded size of the parks-> increased number of parks don’t-> doesn't mean-> necessarily mean(mean 해도 맞긴합니다) that people have more opportunity to access to the park-> more opportunity to access the park. Moreover,-> +he states that green roofs aren’t truly alternatives for city parks since people can’t go on roofs.-> green roofs cannot be a proper alternative for city parks since only limited people have access to them.
In addition, the text asserts that living roofs would provide the spectacular view for many people because it’s able to improve the beauty of the city instead of the banal concrete roofs. -> enhance the beaty of the city by providing spectacular views instead of banal concrete roofs. On the other hand, the speak-> speaker challenges this point by rebutting that green roofs don’t offer a fantastic view for people since most pedestrians walk on the side-walk. Thus, they aren’t able to see the whole part of the roofs. -> Thus, they usually aren't able to see the view of the roofs.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------여기까지 첨삭.
Lastly, green roofs enable people to save money. As green roofs are able to control the temperature, people save energy because they don’t need to install additional heat-controlling systems. On the contrary, the lecture challenges that green roofs conversely make people to spend more money since they need additional costs. First, it is expensive to install and maintain the roofs. Moreover, it requires them to spend maintenance costs such as soils and fertilizer.
|