▶ Your Answer : In the given set of materials, there is some discrepancy between the view of the professor and the author over the issue of Diplotodon's extinction. The professor raises objections to the cause of death of Diplotodon presented in the passage. First and foremost, the professor debunks the author's first conjecture on offspring since low reproductive rate is not related to Diplotodon's population. For instance, in case of Polar bear, a female bear fertilizes their siblings just 5 five times. It which is much less than that of a Diplotodon. This view is in direct opposition to the author's point that Diplotodon's scarce production caused their extinction. On the top of that, the professor dissents over the author's idea on decrease of food due to the nutritious soil and possibility of other vegetables. Actually, as burning makes the soil more nutrient, vegetables grow healthier and become thicker are growing healthier and being thicker. Furthermore, there were enough substitution vegetables for Diplotodons to eat. However, this counters the author's assertion that lack of food lead to Diplotodon's the death of Diplotodons. Finally, the professor goes on to expound to the author's point on attack of large carnivores is flawed. In Australia, there were only a few giant predators. Besides, the Diplotodon is survived more than 100,000 years in this region. This refutes the author's claim that Diplotodons were an is easy prey of predators. In this regard, with these three convincing explanations the professor posits, the author's assumptions are all rendered invalid. (225자를 넘겨서 이 부분은 지웠습니다.) (231)
총평: 현재 문단의 구조가 대략 리딩-리스닝-리딩의 순서로 되어있는데, 이보다는 리스닝-리딩 혹은 리딩-리스닝의 구조를 가져가시는 게 상대적으로 더 편할 겁니다. 쓰는 입장에서도 그렇고, 읽는 입장에서도 마찬가지로요. 굳이 왔다가 다시 갈 필요는 없겠죠. 템플릿 등을 참고해서 이러한 구조를 취해주시면 더 좋을 것 같습니다. 수고하셨습니다 :)
|