▶ Your Answer :
The lecturer argues that the hypotheses that explains about the existence of the will-o-the-wisp is not convincing. This contradicts the reading passage's claim that suggests three hypotheses of explaining the existence of the will-o-the-wisp from scientists.
First, the lecturer argues that the chemical illumination is not resemble to will-o-the-wisp. To specific, while the color of the chemical illusion is cool and green, the color of the will-o-the-wisp is warm and yellow. It casts doubt on the reading passage's claim that the lights are the illusion of the chemical reaction in the wetland.
Next, the lecturer contends that the hypothesis that flying insects are the cause of the mysterious light is not viable idea. This is because, while the flying insects are spread out widely, the light is compacted. It counters the reading passage's claim that the light is seen over the wetland and the flying insects are frequently found in marshy wetlands, so the light is the mistakenly identified as the will-o-the-wisp.
Finally, the lecturer points out that the opinion that barn owls is cause of the anomalous light does not make sense. To explain, the feather of barn owl is not white so it can not make any reflection so is can not explain the mysterious glow. It refutes to the reading passage's claim that the reason of the light is barn owl because their white plumage can reflect even in dim situations and can make mysterious lights.
점수: 22 리딩에 대한 정보가 많이 부족한 통합형 에세이입니다. 통합형 에세이에서 가장 중요한 부분을 차지하는 것은 한 주제에 대하여서 서로 다른 정보를 가지고 있는 리딩과 리스닝이 어떻게 비교하고 반박을 하는 것인지를 보는 것 입니다. 지금 이 에세이는 각 단락에서 리딩에 대한 부분이 한 문장으로만 나와있습니다. 한 문장으로 끝내는 것이 아니라 리스닝을 좀 더 반박할 수 있는 부분들을 더 서술하시길 바랍니다. 수고많으셨습니다. |