▶ Your Answer : In the reading passage there is ample support for the author’s claim that there are several ways to reduce CO₂ in the atmosphere. However, the professor in the lecture gives several reasons as a rebuttal to the author’s point. First, the professor contends that adding iron to the sea does not increase the population of phytoplankton density. When iron was added to the oceans, nitrogen is depleted and this results in the decrease of number of phytoplankton. And the recent study demonstrated that only 3% of CO₂ was restored in the oceans. This casts doubt on the reading passages that increased number of phytoplankton would absorb CO₂ and they would go under the seabed with CO₂ when they die. Second, the professor argues that making artificial wetland has no effect on reducing CO₂. storage capacity of artificial wetlands are 23% less than the natural ones. Also, it takes a long time to make this man-made marsh. This counters the reading passage’s assertion that the oxygen could not enter into the wetland because of wet surface, and this led a slow procedures of decomposition and emission of CO₂ would be reduced as a result. Finally, the professor argues that using coal mine is not a good solution to the CO₂ sequestration. Methane is created when CO₂ combines with coal. Methane is used as fuel but the CO₂ is released when methane is burned. Moreover, not all CO₂ molecules are sticked to the coal mine and some of them leak though the atmosphere. This refutes the reading passage’s suggestion that by using elaborate filter, CO₂ molecules can be captured and adhere to the coal mine for a long time.
점수: 27 지적할 부분이 없는 통합형 에세이입니다. 통합형 에세이에서 가장 중요한 부분을 차지 하는 것 중에 하나는 한 주제에 대하여서 서로 다른 정보를 가지고 있는 리딩과 리스닝이 어떻게 비교하고 반박을 하는 것인지를 보는 것 입니다. 지금 이 에세이는 리딩이나 리스닝 둘 다 서로 필요한 정보들만 잘 보여주고 있는 에세이인거 같습니다. 각 주장들이 뚜렷하기 때문에 주제에 대하여서 어떻게 생각을 하고 있는 지를 잘 파악할 수 있었던 거 같습니다. 수고많으셧습니다. |