The lecturer claims that the reaction theory is a plausible theory which could explain living organisms in Madagascar. This contradicts the reading passage argument that the theory has several logical leaps: end up at the ocean, currents of the sea, and viability throughout the journey.
The first point made in the reading passage is that all mammals would end up at sea and, there are a tremendous amount of species are is a tremendous amount of species living in Madagascar; this demonstrates which demonstrates that a lot of pairs had to arrive in the island. In contrast, the lecturer contends that the species on the island share a few numbers of ancestors. To be specific, a recent research has proved there are only four ancestors.
Another point the article's argument is that the currents of the sea would disturb animals to move toward to Madagascar in the past. The lecturer, however, challenges this point since they migrated more than a million years before; the currents and a location of Madagascar were different. In effect, in that era, the currents was toward to eastward and this made them possible to went go to the island while it was located at the further south.
Finally, it is stated in the article that they could not be able to survive for a long period of traveling time; spending more than three weeks was indispensable. On the other hand, the lecturer believes in a different direction because some species can monitor their metabolism. He asserts that they have distinct ability to slow down not only their hearts rate but also a body temperature which make them possible to survive more than other normal organisms.
Good: 24~30
점수 :24
일단 이 에세이에서 아쉬운 점은 리딩에 대한 정보가 많이 부족합니다. 한 문장으로 리딩의 정보를 끝내는 것 보다는 리스닝을 좀 더 반박할 수 있는 문장들을 더 서술하시는 것이 좋을 거 같습니다. 이러한 이유는 통합형 에세이에서 원하는 것은 리딩과 리스닝을 얼마나 적절하게 잘 비교하였나 인데 리딩에 대한 정보가 빈약하면 적절하게 비교가 되어있지 않다라는 느낌이 들기 때문에 더 서술하시길 바랍니다. 수고많으셧습니다.