In the given set of information, both the reading passage and the lecture deal with the solutions of declined frug population. The lecturer casts doubt on the author’s assertion about the solution by presenting three compelling counterarguments.
First of all, according to the reading passage, regulation of pesticides would significantly prevent frog population from declining. However, the lecturer refutes this idea by stating that it is disputable. This is because, if the laws that stop farmers spreading pesticides to their crops, most farmers would have disadvantages. Therefore, it will cause more negative output than positive benefit.
Next, the author claims that recent antifungal medication and treatments are a good way to rise reduced frog population. To be specific, by applying these treatments, they would strengthen frogs’ skin so that they could survive the heat. The lecturer thinks that it is unconvincing. This is because those treatments must be applied each individual frogs. In other words, to apply them to a huge number of frogs it will take a lot of time and it is just waste of time and money.
Lastly, the lecturer contradicts the reading passage’s claim that changing some of the human activities would solve the frog population problem. To be specific, human activity is not the biggest threat to his certain type of animal. The real problem is global warming that causes a lot of change on the earth.
Good: 24~30
점수: 26
대채로 서로다른 리딩과 리스닝을 적절하게 잘 비교하였습니다. 독립형 에세이에서 가장 중요한 부분은 리딩과 리스닝을 얼마나 적절하게 비교했는 가 입니다. 이러한 부분에 있어서는 비록 리딩의 정보가 한 문장으로만 표현 되어있지만 적절하게 분배 되어있는 거 같습니다. 좀 더 구체적으로 설명하는 것이 더 좋을거 같습니다. 수고많으셨습니다.