The reading passage presents several theories about the cause of Angkor’s demise.
However, the speaker strongly states that those reasons could not be the causes for Angkor’s
collapse with three reasons.
Firstly, the lecturer believes that epidemic disease could not be the reason of the sudden
collapse of the empire. Plague spread through trades in ship, which means that usually
coastal cities were affected by the disease. (Where did this assumption come from?)
However, not only was the Angkor located
in land, but also the disease was unlikely to be made in Asia at that time.
So, she debunks the author’s claim that the epidemic disease is one of reasons of
the empire demise.
Second, the speaker casts doubt on the fact that problem of water system made
the empire collapse. The author from the reading passage says that flaws of water system
affected crop yields, leading the city to collapse. (Why's that?)
However, even when the system operated
well, the amount of water that it could provide was limited. Accordingly, there must have
been other means to gain water regardless of water system’s condition and deflect in
the system might have not been responsible for the city’s collapse.
She finally concludes that the dominance of China in maritime trade did not extremely
influence the city’s loss. (Loss what?) Basically, the types of items that China, and Angkor sold were
different. While Angkor carried agricultural goods, China sold extravagant items, such as
pottery. So, they may have not affected each other’s business. Hence, the speaker rebuts
the author that the rise of Chinese in trade threatened Angkor’s economy, leading to its
demise.
채점기준표 | Grammar | Contents | Example | Coherence |
점수 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 3 |
Score | Fair 17-20 | - 논지는 어느정도 잡힌 듯 하지만, 문맥상
자연스럽지 않거나 갑작스럽게 특정상황들이 연출이 되는데, 예를 들면 plague나 water system등이 그러합니다. 이와 관련하여 정보가 어디서부터 논의되고 있고 어떤 점이 adverse effect를 주었는지 설명해주셔야 합니다.
|