▶ Your Answer :
Both the reading and the listening mainly talk about the cause of Anasazi migration. While the reading claims that Anasazi people they moved out because of the serious drought, the lecturer casts doubts on the given suggestions.
First of all, the reading insists that the nutritional status of the Anasazi turned out to be poor, showing the lack of precipitation during the migration period. On the contrary, the listening refutes this assertion by pointing out that malnutrition of the Anasazi was a common situation. Almost half of the children were was poorly nourished even during the time with abundant crop yield. yied. To explain further, this is due to the religious custom which used huge amount of crops.
Secondly, the article mentions that the status of the excavation site reveals that the Anasazi deliberately prepared for their later returns after the drought. The lecturer strongly rebuts this argument by stating that actually they did not show up even after the end of the dry period. If they had decided to leave because of the aridity of the region, rigion, they must have come came back when the problem was solved.
The final point made by the writer is that the Anasazi found their new inhabitance habitat in the place with plentiful sources of water. However, the professor disagrees with the sufficiency of the water supplies. Actually, their new settlement was made where the climate was rather arid, and not proper for agricultural activities. That is, they chose choose even harsher conditions. If the Anasazi immigrated because of the dryness driness, they would not have been stayed in that kind of environment.
Comment : 전반적으로 대립되는 내용을 간결하게 잘 정리해주셨습니다. 더 간단하게 정리할 수 있는 부분들 위주로 검토해보시면 좋을 것 같아요. 실제 지문과 대조하면서 충분히 다른 표현으로 paraphrasing되었는지, 지문과 같은 표현을 사용한 부분이 너무 많지는 않은지도 검토해주세요~ 수고 많으셨습니다~!
Integrated Writing Rubrics Score 4.5/5 A response at this level is generally good in selecting the important information from the lecture and in coherently and accurately presenting this information in relation to the relevant information in the reading, but it may have minor omission, inaccuracy, vagueness, or imprecision of some content from the lecture or in connection to points made in the reading. A response is also scored at this level if it has more frequent or noticeable minor language errors, as long as such usage and grammatical structures do not result in anything more than an occasional lapse of clarity or in the connection of ideas. |