| |
| |
In the reading passage, there are suggested ample supports about the author’s claim that there are several reasons of the red rain in Kerala. However, the professor in the lecture gives several sevreral reasons as a rebuttal to the author’s point.
First, the professor in the lecture contends contedns that bat blood does not cause the red rain. Experts said that almost 5 millions of bats should be killed at once to make occur the red rain. In addition, there were no remnants of the bats found on ground such as bones and wings. This casts doubt on the author’s suggestion that bat the blood of bats killed by thunderstorm makes the red rain. That bats were killed by thunderstorm and their blood was dispersed making the red rain.
Second, the professor in the lecture insists that there is no red rain in the Pphilippines. Also, none of the nations adjacent to the Philippines Philipines didn’t see the red rain. 필리핀과 필리핀 근처에서 없었다는 설명만으로는 반박 근거가 불충분합니다. volcanic eruption때문이라고 보는 입장에 대한 반박이 필요합니다. 지문 내용 다시 체크해보시면 좋을 것 같아요. This refutes the author’s claim that the volcanic eruption of the Philippines Philipines disperse acidic dusts and it causes the red rain.
Finally, the professor in the lecture says said that there are not many chemicals in the atmosphere since there are few factories near India. 이 부분도 detail이 빠진 부분은 없는지 지문 한 번 더 체크해보시면 좋을 것 같아요. This disagrees with the statement of the author that the local factories and industrial chemical cloud create the red rain in Kerala.
Comment :
두 지문이 서로 대립하고 있는 중심 point에 대해서 '어떤 근거로' 반박하는지 보여주는 핵심 detail이 더 필요할 것 같습니다. 오탈자와 문법 오류가 많은 편이니 이 부분도 꼼꼼하게 봐주시면 좋을 것 같아요. 실제 지문과 대조검토하면서 빠진 내용과 잘못 파악된 내용 등을 더 체크해주세요~ 수고 많으셨습니다~!
Integrated Writing Rubrics Score 3/5
A response at this level contains some important information from the lecture and conveys some relevant connection to the reading, but it is marked by one or more of the following :
- Although the overall response is definitely oriented to the task, it conveys only vague, global, unclear, or somewhat imprecise connection of the points made in the lecture to points made in the reading.
- The response may omit one major key point made in the lecture.
- Some key points made in the lecture or the reading, or connections between the two, may be incomplete, inaccurate, or imprecise.
- Errors of usage and/or grammar may be more frequent or may result in noticeably vague expressions or obscured meanings in conveying ideas and connections.