▶ Your Answer :
In the reading passage, there is ample
support of the author's claim that there are three way which carbon
sequestration reduce CO2 level in the atmosphere. However, the professor in the
lecture gives several reasons as a rebuttal to the author's point.
First, the professor contends that It is
not possible to increase permanently the amount of the phytoplankton by giving
iron to the ocean. When iron was added in the ocean, it happen simuteniously to
run out the nitrozen, which need them to survive them, so the number of the
phtoplankton is reduced. This casts doubt on the reading passage's claim that
considering that phytoplankton take out CO2 in the bottom of ocean when they
die, adding iron that they eat in the ocean is helpful to reduce Co2.
Next, the professor insists that despite
natural wetland being good to contain the Co2, it is not same to the artificial
wetland. Storage capacity that block to the oxygen of the artificial wetland is
less than the natural ones. Moreover, it takes long time to fully develop the
artificial ones, and it is too late to help this problem. This counters the
reading passage's assertion that artificial wetland have soil with slow
decomposition, resulting in less co2 diffusion.
Finally, the professor argues that it is
questionable to store co2 by using abandoned coal mines. This is because when
coal is burned, it can release the metheon, which contain Co2. Thus, it is
possible to leak out Co2 in the atmosphere. This refutes the reading passage’s
suggestion that Co2 molecules adhere to the surface of coal, so it can remain
in the coal for a long time. Eventually using the coal mine is a great idea.
Good: 24~30 점수: 24 리딩에 대한 정보가 조금 부족합니다. 지금 이 에세이 같은 경우에 있어서는 리스닝에 대한 부분은 군더더기 없이 필요한 정보들은 다 들어가 있는 거 같습니다. 하지만 이와 반대로 리딩에 대한 정보는 한 문장으로만 서술하였습니다. 통합형 에세이에서는 리딩과 리스닝을 비교하는 것 이기 때문에 한 문장으로 끝내는 것 보다는 리스닝을 좀 더 반박 할 수 있는 부분들을 더 서술하시길 바랍니다. 수고많으셨습니다.
|