■ Direction You have 20 minutes to plan and write your response. Your response will be judged on the basis of The quality of writing and on how well your response presents the points in the lecture and the relationship to the reading passage. Typically, an effective response will be 150 to 225 words. ■ Question Summarize the points made in the lecture you just heard, explaining how they cast doubt on the points made in the reading
|
|
|
|
|
▶ Your Answer :
The reading passage and the lecture both discuss the issue of the extinction of
dodo on the island of Mauritius in the Indian Ocean. In the lecture, the
speaker suggests solutions to the common problems mentioned in the reading passage
that the settler from Dutch diminished the population of dodo in the island.
First of all, while the passage indicates that the settlers were
used to eat dodo because the dodos were an important and convenient source of meat,
the lecturer suggests that people who searched for to search food in the island didn’t usually
eat the bird for meals. The speaker states that the taste of dodos was very bad
and disgusting according to related the documents.
Secondly, in the article, it states that the habitat of dodo was
demolished by the settlers because they transformed (문맥상 완전히 적절하다고 보기에는 어렵고, 파괴 정도가 더 나을 것 같습니다.) the land, cutting down
trees to make room for them. In regard to this issue, the speaker recommends
that there were no crucial impacts on dodo’s lives after the Dutch had settled down settling the Dutch. The
professor describes that the arrival time of arrival of humans at the island is different
from that of the time of dodo’s extinction.
Lastly, the passage claims that foreign animals from Dutch ('같이 들어온' 정도의 표현을 넣어주시면 문맥상 더 적절할 것 같아요.) devastated
the ecological balance of the island. Whereas the lecturer points out that the
animals did not affect the ecological balance of the island. The professor
indicates that it is likely that natural disasters had a more important role in
the extinction of dodos than humans.
|
|
총평: 대비되는 두 입장일 잘 요약 및 비교해주셨고, 동의어의 활용 역시 좋았습니다. 전체적으로 잘 쓰인 글이라고 볼 수 있지만, 관사 문제 및 몇몇 어휘의 적절성과 관련해서는 다시 한번 참고를 해주실 필요가 있을 것 같아요. 수고하셨습니다 :)