Your Answer :In the reading passage, there is apple support for the author's claim that prairie dogs should actually be exterminated because they are harmful in several ways. However, the professor in the lecture gives several reasons as a rebuttal to the author's point.
First, the professor in the lecture contends that the prairie dogs and live in holes called burrows that does not damage the land. This is due to the fact that, they make soil soft then it allow water to easily penetrate gound. This casts doubt on the reading passage's claim that prairie dogs make a significant hardship for farmars in regions that have been infested by them.
Next, the professor in the lecture insists that the prairie dogs do not infect people with fatal disease due to they aviod people, On the other hand, there is no chance to prairie dogs meet people. As a consequence, there is no reasons to kill them. This counters the reading passage's assertion that a large number of prairie dogs carry the diease and infect people.
Finally, the professor in the lecture argues that the prairie dogs have not a negative effect on the food supply for livestock. Although they are not give negative effect, they make increase the nutrition of livestock. This refutes the reading passage's suggestion that praire dogs give negative impact on the food supply for livestock.
Fair: 17~23
점수: 22
정보가 너무 빠진 통합형 에세이입니다. 전반적으로 통합형 에세이에 있어서는 세 가지 이유에 대해서 리딩과 리스닝이 서로 상반되는 의견을 가지고 얘기하고 있습니다. 하지만 지금 이 엣이 같은 경우에는 리딩에 대한 정보가 많이 부족해 보입니다. 한 문장으로 리딩을 끝내는 것 보다는 좀 더 명확하게 리딩의 정보를 전달 하기 위해서는 리스닝을 좀 더 반박할 수 있는 문장들을 더 서술하시길 바랍니다. 수고많으셨습니다.