The lecturer objects to the points mentioned
in the reading passage made about Madagascar. The speaker states that the
arguments in the reading passage have flaws.
First of all, the professor argues that the
argument related to accident is wrong. The results from a study related on
Madagascar animals prove otherwise. A recent reserch prove that the genetic
composition between ancestor mammals and Madagascar animals is eqivalent. In
addition, it is likely to only four mammals reproduces animals living
Madagascar. This casts doubt on the author's claim that it would be difficult
for animals to reach Madagascar by accident.
Second, the speaker contends that the claim
regarding currents is mistaken. It is hasty to conclude just by looking at
ocean currents. Madagascar was located in further south than now. In that
times, the currents from mainland to Madagascar had flowed towards east.
Moreover, Scientist has proved that animals could made it to the island by
running simulation considered past location, currents. This goes against the
writer's view that mammals could not have reached Madagascar because the
currents flow in the opposite direction.
Finally, the lecturer points out that the
opinion concerning nourishment is flawed. We need to take a look at food and
animals in Madagascar more closely. Animals in Madagascar has different
metabolism. They could make slow their metabolism through Torpor. In this
reason, they did not need much food and water to survive while such a long
floating. This contradicts the idea presented in reading passage that mammals
could not survive the journey.
Good: 24~30
점수: 24
리딩에 대한 정보가 너무 부족합니다. 한 문장으로 리딩에 대한 정보를 끝내는 것 보다는 리스닝을 좀 더 반박할 수 있게 서술하는 것이 좋을 거 같습니다. 통합형 에세이의 긍국적인 목적은 리딩과 리스닝을 얼마나 적절하게 비교하였는 가 이기 때문에. 한 문장만 리딩에 대한 정보를 서술하는 것은 적절치 않는 거 같습니다. 이 부분을 숙지하면서 에세이를 서술하시길 바랍니다. 수고많으셨습니다.
아무리 수정을 해도 줄 간격이 넓혀지지 않네요...