▶ Your Answer : In the reading passage, there is ample support for the author’s claim that there is ashen light of Venus derived from many plausible evidences. However, the professor in the lecture gives several reasons as a rebuttal to the author’s point. First, the professor contends that the chemical process in Venus’s atmosphere is impossible to occur. Even if carbon monoxide is recombined with oxygen, it is so faint that astronaut has to utilize powerful telescope to find it. This casts doubt on the reading passage’s claim that chemical reaction in Venus’s aerial surface can produce visible light. Next, the professor insists that it is implausible for the sunlight to be reflected by the Venus’s cloud. If the light is actually reflected and shown, the number of being observed time should be higher that of now. This counters the reading passage’s assertion that sunlight is bounced off the Venus’s dense layer of cloud. Finally, the professor argues that presence of the aurorae is not true. This is because Venus doen not have any magnetic field for pulling the plasma of the Sun. Therefore it cannot be the clue of airorae. This refutes the reading passage’s suggestion that aurorae occurs due to the collision of the plasma from the Sun and particle in Venus’s atmosphere.
점수: 27 지적할 부분이 없는 통합형 에세이입니다. 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 설명하고 있습니다. 구체적이기 때문에 이 에세이를 통해서 각 페시지들이 무슨 견해를 가지고 있는 지를 잘 파악할 수 있었습니다. 수고많으셨습니다. |