The lecturer contends that the three theories in the reading passage about the reason for the ashen light of Venus cannot explain the reason very well, so the reason of the light is still mysterious. This casts doubt on the reading passage’s claim that a lot of possible sources of the ashen light of Venus have been identified.
To begin with, the lecturer asserts that a chemical process in Venus’s atmosphere cannot be the reason for the ashen light. This is due to the fact that the light which is produced when carbon monoxide and oxygen recombine to form carbon dioxide is so faint that it cannot be watched by simple telescopes that astronomers use. It only can be observed by strong telescopes. This counters the argument made by the author that a chemical process in Venus’s atmosphere resulted in the ashen light of Venus.
On top of that, the lecturer maintains that the sunlight reflected off clouds cannot be the reason for the ashen light of Venus. If the light is made by sunlight reflection, the light has to be seen more often because of the stability of sunlight. However, the ashen light can be rarely watched. This contradicts the claim in the reading passage that the ashen light of Venus can be the result of sunlight reflection.
Lastly, the lecturer insists that the theory of ashen light as aurorae is not true. This is attributed to the fact that there is no magnetic field around the Venus. As far as the fact that collisions between plasma from the Sun and magnetic field around the planet causing aurorae is concerned, there cannot be aurorae on Venus. This refutes the argument of the author that the glow on Venus can be aurorae.
Writing 0–30 score scale: Limited (1-16) / Fair (17-23) / Good (24–30)
ADDRESSING TOPIC | ORGANIZATION | PROGRESSION AND COHERENCE | LANGUAGE USE | GRAMMAR |
GOOD | GOOD | FAIR | GOOD | FAIR |
각 카테고리별 SCORE: LIMITED / FAIR / GOOD |
- 일부 문장의 경우 길이가 지나치게 길어 의미가 명료하게 전달되지 않습니다. 때로는 간결하게 내용을 작성해주세요.