▶ Your Answer :
The reading passage and the lecture are
both about the Anasazi’s migration. The author of the reading
claims that Anasazi people abandoned their homeland in respose to a severe
drought. On the other hand, the lecturer opposes the specific points made in
the reading.
Firstly, the author of reading states that bones
from Anasazi graves which show evidences of malnutrition are one of the
indications that drought caused the migration. He believes that the lack of
rainfall results in insufficient crops to feed the large population, and
finally forced them to leave their homes. However, the lecturer challenges this
point by saying that malnutrition issue was everyday issue to Anasazi
civilization. So it cannot be the indication of the migration caused by
drought.
Secondly, the author of the reading argues
that the condition of the abandoned settlements could be the signs. He points
out that vacating and reclaiming individual settlements is a strategy commonly
used by the Anasazi to cope with droughts. On the contrary, the lecturer cast
doubt on the idea in the reading passage by saying that there’s no possible
explanation of the reason that they didn’t come back. She explains that if they
left their hometown because of the drought and then they planned to reoccupy
them later, they would have come back when drought was over.
Finally, the author mentions the fact that
most of the Anasazi resettled in places with more abundant water demonstrates
that drought was the motivation for their migration. The lecturer rebuts this
argument by saying that there was no adequate water supply. She puts forth the
idea that resettled areas had even harsher condition for water than their
original hometown.
Good: 24~30 점수: 27 지적할 부분이 없는 통합형 에세이입니다. 통합형 에세이에서 가장 중요하게 보는 것 중에 하나는 한 주제에 대하여서 서로 다른 정보를 가진 리딩과 리스닝이 서로 어떻게 반박하고 비교하는 지를 알아보는 것 입니다. 지금 이 에세이는 이러한 부분에 있어서는 잘 서술한 거 같습니다. 각 단락 마다 리딩이나 리스닝 둘 다 비교를 잘하고 왜 이런 부분에서 서로 반박하는 지를 잘 알 수 있었던 거 같습니다. 잘 서술하셨습니다. 수고많으셧습니다.
|