▶ Your Answer :
The lecturer asserts that the reading’s claim is not persuasive. This casts doubt on the reading’s point that several ideas are plausible to explain reasons for Angkor’s demise.
First, the lecturer argues that the Black Death didn’t result in Angkor’s ruin did not cause the ruin of Angkor (독립형 에세이에서는 줄인말을 서술하면 안됩니다). Since Angkor was not located nearby coastal regions where the plague was spread spread out by ships, it is unlikely that people who lived in Angkor suffered from the illness. Also, the occurrence of the Black Death is based on speculation. This rebuffs the reading’s claim that the Black Death is a reason for the decline in the city’s population. The disease is known to spread quickly and kill people, and that’s why the city's inhabitants reduced dramatically.
Second, the speaker contends that the problems of its water system were not disastrous. It can’t be crucial evidence because people could gain water from other resources. This challenges the reading’s claim that several fallacies in the water system decreased water levels and the amount of water needed for crops. Consequently, it led to insufficient food harvested to live on in the society.
Finally, the lecturer claims that the rise of maritime trade didn’t have a severe did not create a severe impact on Angkor’s power. Since its economy was based on agriculture, the negative effect was not significant enough to weaken its power. This opposes the reading’s explanation that the city started to decline while other areas near coastal lines flourished by increasing Chinese maritime trade was flourished by the increase in maritime trade with China. Since the city heavily relied on trade, it was vulnerable to this shift of economic power.
점수: 26 통합형 에세이에서 가장 중요한 부분을 차지하는 것은 한 주제에 대하여서 서로 다른 정보를 가지고 있는 리딩과 리스닝이 어떻게 비교하고 반박을 하는 것인지를 보는 것 입니다. 지금 이 에세이 같은 경우에 있어서는 리딩이나 리스닝 둘 다 서로 구체적으로 자신의 주장을 잘전달하고 있습니다. 구체적인 설명을 통하여서 주제에 대한 견해가 무엇인지 알 수 있었습니다. 하지만 문법적 오류들이 있으니 숙지하시길 바랍니다. 수고많으셨습니다. |