▶ Your Answer :
The reading passage contends that the origin of the forts built with stones that are vitrified can be explained by three theories. On the other hand, the lecturer makes a counterargument with several points. First, the writer acclaims that vitrification was attributed to signal fires. The continual heat from fires would have melted the rock over time. In contrast, the professor contends that if forts had used to signal fires, only a few walls of the those would have been affected from fire. However, the entire area of the upper part of the forts are vitrified. Second, according to the reading, lightning might cause the stones vitrified. The intense heat by lightning strike is sufficient to make rock vitrified. However, the lecturer maintains that the forts are so large that the numerous individual lightning would have been required to be the cause of vitrifaction. Furthermore, it was nearly impossible for that many lightning to strike one place. Poor condition of the wall can be illuminated by the fact that the forts are so old that it is natural result. This counters the writer’s claim that lightning accounts for uneven appearance. Finally, the author said that some researchers have suggested that forts were built using volcanic rock. On the contrary, the lecturer contend that there were no path of the volcanic eruption near the forts. Because they could not transport heavy materials, they would have used ingredients that were close to them.
점수: 28 지적할 부분이 없는 통합형 에세이입니다. 통합형 에세이에서 가장 중요하게 보는 것 중에 하나는 한 주제에 대하여서 서로 다른 정보를 가진 리딩과 리스닝이 서로 어떻게 비교하고 반박하는 지를 보는 것 입니다. 지금 이 에세이 같은 경우는 리딩이나 리스닝 둘 다 정확하고 명확하게 주제에 대하여서 자신이 생각하는 의견이 무엇인지 잘 보여주는 거 같아서 흠이 없는 통합형 에세이인거 같습니다. 수고많으셨습니다. |