▶ Your Answer :
The lecturer objects to the points mentioned
in the reading passage made about Gastornis. The speaker states that the points made in
the passage have flaws.
First of all, the speaker argues that the claim
about appearance is wrong. It is true that Gastornis’s appearance is similar to
meat eater, ‘terror bird’, but it is hasty to conclude just by looking at it.
That is because some herbivores also have the same appearance such as upright
body position like Gastronis’s position. Therefore, this casts doubt on the
author’s claim that Gastornis was carnivorous birds due to the appearance.
Second, the lecturer points out that the
argument regarding with the larger bill is wrong. The more important thing to be
carnivorous birds is shape, rather than the size. Gastornis’s beak is straight
like herbivore’s one unlike to carnivore’s curved beak (이 부분은 무슨 뜻인가요?? 파악이 안됩니다 설명이 필요한 부분인거 같습니다). This goes against the
writer’s view that Gastornis’s bill shows the evidence that it was meat-eater.
Finally, the professor contends that the
opinion concerning with feet is flawed. Even though, Gastornis’s footprint fossil
shows that it’s its feet was big, it also shows that it’s claw was short, small and
point claw similar to plant-eater. This contradicts the idea presented in the
reading passage that Gastornis was carnivore because of its feet. Good: 24~30 점수: 27 리딩과 리스닝을 적절하게 비교한 거 같습니다. 다만 아쉬운 부분은 두 번째 바디입니다. 제가 빨간색으로 한 부분을 잘 이해 못하겠습니다. 작성자가 어떠한 의도를 가지고 문장을 쓰셨는지 설명이 필요할 거 같습니다. 이러한 부분 이외에는 문제되는 게 없는 에세이 입니다. 수고많으셨습니다. |