▶ Your Answer :
In the reading
passage, there is ample support for the author’s claim that the ashen light of
Venus has evidence which is possible sources. However, the professor in the
lecture gives several reasons as a rebuttal to the author’s point.
First of all,
the lecturer argues that a chemical process in Venus is not convincing. The
lecturer explains that light faint could be observed by using extreme
telescope. However, the ashen light could be seen by utilizing simple
telescope. This casts doubt on the reading passage’s claim that the ashen light
could be evidence of a chemical process in Venus’s atmosphere. This is because
the light is made by the chemical process.
In addition,
according to the lecture, the light occurs rarely. The speaker points out that
the light could be observed much more often if the sunlight was source. This
refutes the reading passage’s argument that sunlight could be source to be
reflected back by a dense layer of clouds of Venus.
The final point
made by the lecturer is that plasma only enters by magnetic field. Moreover,
the lecturer claims that aurorae cannot be a reason because Venus does not have
collisions with atom in the atmosphere. This counters the reading passage’s
assertion that plasma from the Sun goes into planet’s atmosphere. Also, the
writer mentions that there is natural light which could be produced by
collisions in Venus.
점수: 27 지적할 부분이 없는 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 에세이 같은 경우에 있어서는 전체적으로 각 단락들이 리딩이나 리스닝이 구체적으로 서술하였기 때문에. 본인들의 주장을 통하여서 각 페시지의 견해가 무엇인지를 잘 찾을 수 있었던 에세이였습니다. 수고많으셨습니다. |