▶ Your Answer :
The
lecturer refutes that the points mentioned in the reading passage made about the
disappearance of the Anasazi civilization in response to a severe drought. The
speaker states that the points in the passage have flaws. First,
the lecturer says that the discovery of bones that show malnutrition does not
mean that a drought caused the disappearance of the Anasazi. We need to take a
look at the evidence more carefully because malnutrition was common in that
period. Some experts estimate about 45 percentage of children were
malnutrition, even during times of bountiful harvest. This is because the
Anasazi had to use grains for religious ceremony. This counters the view that
the Anasazi disappeared due to serious drought. Second,
the lecturer says that the claim about the condition of the abandoned
settlements does not mean they left their homeland because of a severe drought.
If the theory was true, they should have come back to their homeland when the
climate got better. However, they did not come back even after the severe drought
ended. This goes against the writer’s argument that the condition of the
abandoned settlement indicates that they left their homeland due to a serious
drought. Finally,
the lecturer claims that the opinion concerning the resettlement area is
flawed. Some Anasazi people resettled in area with little moisture around. The
arears were in harsher condition for agriculture than their original homeland.
This is in direct opposition to the author’s claim that the condition of
resettled area demonstrate that drought was the motivation for the journey.
점수: 22 리딩에 대한 정보가 많이 부족한 통합형 에세이입니다. 통합형 에세이에서 보는 것은 한 주제에 대하여서 서로 다른 정보를 가지고 있는 리딩과 리스닝이 어떻게 비교하고 반박을 하는 것인지를 보는 것 입니다. 지금 이 에세이 같은 경우는 리스닝에 대한 정보는 충분히 보여주는 거 같습니다. 하지만 리딩에 대한 부분은 한 문장만 하셨습니다 .한 문장으로 끝내는 것 보다는 리스닝을 좀 더 반박할 수 있는 부분들을 더 서술하시길 바랍니다. 수고많으셨습니다.
|