▶ Your Answer :
The reading passage contends that the
Anasazi civilization abandoned their homeland due to a severe drought for
several reasons. On the other hand, the lecturer brings up several points which
contradict this argument.
First of all, according to the reading
passage, bones from Anasazi graves indicate that the people at that time suffered
from malnutrition. However, the speaker refutes this theory by pointing out
that health issues such as malnutrition were common regardless of annual
harvest. To be specific, children starved even when food was bountiful because
most of them were used for religious purpose.
Secondly, the author asserts that sealed up
granaries and blocked town entrances show that the Anasazi planned to reoccupy
them later after drought was over. On the other hand, the lecturer refutes this
claim by questioning why the Anasazi did not come back home after the drought
was ended. If it was their plan, they would have returned shortly after the drought.
The last point made by the writer is that
the Anasazi resettled in areas with reliable water supplies, meaning that they
moved to avoid drought. However, the speaker cast doubt on this argument because
some of them moved to Arizona, where there is little moisture. Therefore, this
theory cannot explain why these people would have chosen the region with even
harder conditions than their original homelands. Good: 24~30 점수: 24 아쉬움 이 있는 통합형 에세이 입니다. 통합형 에세이에있어서 가장 중요한 부분을 차지하는 것은 리딩과 리스닝이 얼마나 적절하게 잘 비교되었는 가 입니다. 지금 이 에세이를 보면 이러한 부분이 부족한거 같습니다. 리스닝과 비교하였을 때 리딩에 대한 정보가 비교적 적습니다. 한 문장으로 리딩에 대한 정보를 끝내는 것 보다는, 리스닝을 좀 더 반박할 수 있는 문장들을 더 넣는 것이 좋을 거 같습니다. 수고많으셨습니다.
|