▶ Your Answer :
The reading passage contends that the
remains of forts built with stones that are vitrified can be explain explained by three
theories. On the other hand, the lecturer object objects to the points mentioned in the
reading passage about the origin of glass-like stones.
First of all, the speaker argues that the
claim made about signal fires is wrong. The lecturer says that this is because
while signal fires are only lit in a few specific spots, the entire upper
surface of wall are vitrified. If they became vitrified by signal fires, the
vitrification would have seen in only a few places. This casts doubt on the
author’s claim that the remains’ transformation caused by signal fires.
Second, the lecturer points out that the
argument regarding with lightning is mistaken. As speaker claims, to transform
the huge structure to glass-like stones, a number of lightning would have been
required. And in general it is hardly happened since lightning is natural
phenomenon which cannot be controlled by human being. This goes against the
writer’s view that lightning is one of plausible theories explaining the
vitrified remains.
Finally, the professor contends that the
opinion concerning that the stones formed by volcanic activity was flawed. The
professor says that there were no clues of volcanic activities. In addition, it
would have been too tough to bring lots of heavy volcanic stones from distant
places at that time due to low technology and poor-conditioned roads. This
contradicts the author’s opinion that volcanic activities made the remains into
vitrified stones. Good:24 ~3o 점수: 26 대채로 서로 다른 정보를 가진 리딩과 리스닝을 적절하게 잘 비교하엿습니다. 통합형 에세이에서 가장 중요한 부분은 리딩과 리스닝을 적절하게 잘 비교했냐 입니다. 이러한 면에 있어서는 지금 이 에세이는 잘 서술한 거 같습니다. 다만 아쉬운 부분은 리딩에 대한 정보가 너무 적습니다. 한 문장으로 끝내는 것이 아니라 리스닝을 반박할 수 있는 몇몇 문장이 더 서술되었으면 좋을 거 같습니다. 수고많으셨습니다.
수고스러우실텐데 항상 너무 감사드립니다. |