▶ Your Answer :
In the reading passage, there is ample support for the author's claim that carbon sequestration can solve the global warming. However, in the lecture, the professor gives several reasons as a rebuttal to the author's point.
First, the professor contends that supplying iron to the sea can't augment the number of phytoplankton cannot decrease the number of phytoplankton (통합형 에세이에서는 줄인말을 서술하면 안됩니다). If the plankton multiply multiplies (plankton은 단수 주어입니다) rapidly, they require it requires a lot of nitrogen to survive. Therefore, mass iron will not be able to increase population of the phytoplankton. This casts doubt on the reading passage's claim that replenishing iron to escalate the phytoplankton which can store CO2 by photosynthesis will reduce CO2.
Next, the professor maintains that the artificial wetland is not plausible. One study has shown that an artificial wetland stored CO2 23 percent less than a natural swamp. Moreover, It will take a lot of time to make one artificial wetland. This counters the reading passage's assertion that wetland can prohibit the bacteria in the ground from expelling CO2 to the air.
Finally, the professor argues that the it is unlikely that coal mines can solve the global warming. When CO2 contact with the coal mine, methane (메테인은 영어로 methane입니다 숙지하시길 바랍니다 이런 부분은 감점 요소가 됩니다) 메테인 is created. 메테인 also can release CO2 when it is burned. Also, Most of the CO2 in the coal mine will not cohere to the coal and just leak to the air. This refutes the reading passage's suggestion that because the coal can fix CO2 to its material, we should store carbon dioxide in the deserted coal mine.
점수: 22 통합형 에에시에서 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 리딩에 대한 부분이 많이 부족합니다. 각 단락에서 한 문장으로만 리딩을 설명하였는데. 이렇게 서술하는 것 보다는 리스닝을 좀 더 반박할 수 있는 부분들을 더 서술하시길 바랍니다. 수고많으셨습니다. |