| |
| |
|
In the reading, there is ample support to the author's claim that prairie dogs should be excluded because they offer a lot of negative effect on people. However, the professor in the lecture gives several reasons as a rebuttal to the author's claim.
To begin with, the lecturer argues that the animals do not harm the lands. To explain specifically, they actually prevent the problems that are related to soil. Since, when they dig, the soil becomes looser so it allows the water can penetrate through the soil easily. Thus, soil erosion is less likely to occur. This opposes the reading passage's claim that the organisms give several hardships on the land with burrow
.
On top of that, the professor points out that it is unlikely that the prairie dogs disperse a deadly disease. For example, a statistic shows that other rotten such as rat actually deliver delivers (rotten은 단수 주어 입니다) the sickness. Also, they are not going to contact with humans because they are good at avoiding people. This casts doubt on the reading passage's claim that the animals spread out an illness such as subsonic disease.
Finally, the lecturer asserts that the organism does not negatively effect on the food available for livestock. To be specific, the grass or plant which is eaten by prairie dog indicates that it has plenty of nutrition. So, ranchers like the area that is inhabited by the prairie dog because of a high level of nutrition. This refutes the reading passage's claim that prairie dogs give a bad impact on the livestock's subsistence as they consume most graze.
점수: 23
리딩에 대한 정보가 많이 부족한 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 리딩에 대한 부분이 각 단락에서 한 문장으로만 서술하였는데. 한 문장으로 끝내는 것 보다는 리스닝을 좀 더 반박할 수 있는 부분들을 더 서술하시길 바랍니다. 수고많으셨습니다.