The lecturer asserts that the skeptics about the existence of bees
are convincing little. This counters the reading passage's claim that the
skeptics support their view.
To
begin with, the lecturer argues that bees could not be preserved. This is
because trees that could preserve fossil remains of the bees were rare. So, no
fossil of actual bees is not a sufficient evidence for existence of bees at
that time.
On
top of that, the lecturer points out that the bees which were independent with
flowering plants could exist. To be specific, there is a possibility that there
was a species of bee which usually took a kind of pine trees to feed on. This
casts doubt on the reading passage's claim that because of the absence of
flowering plants, bees would not have existed at that time.
Finally, the lecturer claims that the
fossilized structures have similar chemical material with modern bee nests. In
detail, the fossilized structure has a waterproofing material which is similar to
the modern bee nests' material. It could be an evidence which at that time bees
existed. This opposes the reading passage's claim that structures lack some of
the finer details of bees.
Good (24–30)
내용 정리 괜찮습니다. 문법/표현도 괜찮습니다.