The lecturer says that some archaeologists
believe that the coin is not a fake. This counters the reading passage's claim
that the coin suggested is fake in history.
To
begin with, the lecturer asserts that the Norse might have come to the site. To
be specific, they had traveled great distance. So, they could reach the site
and drop the coin. This opposes the reading passage's claim that because of the
great distance, from the Norse settlements to the site, the coin has no real
connection with the settlements.
On
top of that, the lecturer claims that they could pack up other coins. This is
because they went back to their country. So, they just took other coins back. This
is in opposition to the reading passage's claim that the coin is a fake since no other coins have been found.
Finally, the lecturer points out that they
could use it (what?) other ways. To be specific, because the coin has beauty, they
could have used it like a necklace or etc. This goes against the reading
passage's claim that Norse might think that the coin is useless.
Writing 0–30 score scale: Limited (1-16) / Fair (17-23) / Good (24–30)
ADDRESSING TOPIC
|
ORGANIZATION
|
PROGRESSION AND COHERENCE
|
LANGUAGE USE
|
GRAMMAR
|
FAIR
|
FAIR
|
LIMITED
|
FAIR
|
FAIR
|
각 카테고리별 SCORE: LIMITED / FAIR / GOOD
|
- Lecture / Reading argument가 부족합니다. 내용 보충해주세요.