▶ Your Answer : In the reading passage, there is ample support for the author's claim that Iron Age forts composed of vitrified stones in Scotland. However, the professor in the lecture gives several reasons as a rebuttal to the author's point. First, the professor contends that it is different with what we know about a fort. People usually place a signal fire in small size. So the fire site are scattered. However in deed, the entire surface of wall was vitrified. This cast doubt on the reading passage's claim that the vitrification was made by signal fires. Next, the professor insists that light is not a cause of vitrification. He says that to make enough vitrification, walls ought to exposed to light for a long time. But this would make wall be cracked and teared. This counters the reading passages assertion that light had made wall vitrified. Finally, the professor argue that it is unproven that forts were made of volcanic materials. Because there is no evidence of volcanic eruption in that area. This refutes the reading passage's suggestion that forts were built with lava. Fair: 17~23 점수: 23 일단 전체적으로 통합형 에세이와 맞지 않게 리딩과 리스닝의 정보가 너무 빈약합니다. 에세이가 전체적으로 짧기 때문에 원하는 정보들이 다 들어가 있지 않는 거 같습니다. 특히 리딩의 부분이 가장 빈약합니다. 한 문장으로 리딩의 정보를 끝내는 것이 아닌 리스닝을 좀 더 반박할 수 있는 부분들이 필요합니다. 전반적으로 리딩과 리스닝의 정보들이 더 필요해 보입니다. 이러한 부분들을 숙지하면서 에세이를 서술하시길 바랍니다. 수고많으셨습니다. |