▶ Your Answer :
According to the reading passage, wave farms have three benefits as an alternative source of (이렇게 바꾸는 게 필수는 아니지만 훨씬 깔끔한 편이기 때문에 추천드립니다.) energy source, while the lecturer argues that the reading passage is not correct.
First, wave-energy facilities are not predictable. To be specific, the facilities can cause malfunction, when there is disruption in marine environment. (이게 어떤 지문에서 주장하는 사항인지 적어주셔야 합니다. 여기의 경우 리스닝의 내용이라는 점이라고 적어주시면 되겠죠.) This contracts the reading passage that wave-farms are a constant energy source, as they are accurately predictable.
Second of all, wave farms are not eco-friendly, as the floating convertors are contain harmful chemicals. Even though they do not generate pollutants or other harmful gasses like the other fuels, the turbines of convertors can damage water due to toxic chemicals. For this reason, the professor insists that wave-energy facilities have risks of water pollution. (반대로 여기는 리딩에 관한 내용이 드러나야겠고요.)
Lastly, the speaker mentionsed that wave farms have an a visual impact on nature, visually. Generally, floating convertors are made of bright colors to make them visible. For example, they can be easily found by travelers, as they are too noticeable. This refutes the reading passage’s claim that wave-power convertors are not damage the landscape.
총평: 두 번째, 세 번째 문단은 각각 하나의 지문의 출처를 직접적으로 밝히지 않거나, 아예 하나의 지문에 관한 내용 자체가 빠져있으므로 구조상 수정이 필요합니다. 마지막 문단에는 두 사항이 모두 적절하게 반영되었으므로 이를 참고해서 작성해주시면 될 것 같아요. 수고하셨습니다 :) |