▶ Your Answer :
Both the given reading passage and the
lecture are about agricultural subsidies which were offered by the US
government. The lecturer argues that it is not necessary for this policy to be
provided for farmers. This contradicts the reading passage’s claim that these
supports could bring about some benefits.
First of all, the speaker contends that
agricultural subsidies do not result overall increase in food production. He
says that corn which is primarily produced is used for bio-fuel. So, it is
not directly related with food supply. This casts doubt on the reading which
states that food supply can be stabilized due to this help.
On top of that, according to the speaker,
the price of some food increases rather than decreases. He explains that most
of the farmers tend to cultivate certain crops such as corn, rice, soy and so
on. So, small amount of vegetables would be gained and this leads to rise of their
price. This rebuffs the reading passage’s assertion that people sell their
groceries at a lower price after agricultural subsidies was introduced by
reducing the production cost.
The last point made by the lecturer is that
this support does not help economic health. The speaker says that benefits from these are not for the rural
community but for the owners of farm. This refutes the reading passage’s
argument that it could foster the regional economy by expanding the opportunity
to be employed.
Good: 24~30 점수: 27 통합형 에세이에서 가장 적합한 에세이인거 같습니다. 통합형 에세이에서 가장 중요한 부분을 차지하는 것 중에 하나는 한 주제에 대하여서 서로 다른 정보를 가진 리딩과 리스닝이 얼마나 적절하게 서로를 잘 비교하나 입니다. 지금 이 에세이 같은 경우에는 이러한 부분에 있어서 잘 서술된 거 같습니다. 둘 다 충분하게 서로 비교하고 반박 하는 거 같습니다. 수고많으셨습니다.
|