▶ Your Answer :
The reading passage and the lecture both talk about a
the cause of the Little Ice Age. The author
of the reading suggests three possible causes of the Little Ice Age. However,
the lecturer rebuffs the reading passage’s arguments by giving three convincing
evidences.
To start with, the lecturer asserts that diminished solar
radiation is not the cause of the Little Ice Age. To be specific, even though
observable sunspots were decreased, it was not responsible to for the decrease in the total amount of solar radiation.
Therefore, she says there is no prove proof (proof는 증거, prove는 증명하다) that
diminished solar radiation led to the Little Ice Age. (to를 붙여주셔야 solar radiation이 Little
Ice Age로 이어졌다, 라는 표현이 나옵니다. 생략을
하시면 Little Ice Age를 solar radiation이
이끌었다, 라는 뜻이 되는데 어색합니다.) However, this view is in direct opposition
to the reading that says diminished solar radiation caused the Little Ice Age.
On top of that, the lecturer mentions that the Little Ice
Age lasted more than five years. However, a volcanic eruption worked lasted only for a while. Therefore, she claims that the
volcanic eruption does should not be taken into consideration. On the other hand,
the author of the reading asserts that a massive volcanic eruption triggered
the Little Ice Age by reducing an the amount of solar radiation. (순서를 바꿔주시면 좋을 것 같아요. 먼저
author의 틀린 주장을 먼저 쓰신 후에, lecturer의
근거를 써주시면 더 자연스러울 겁니다)
Finally, the lecturer argues that an increase in the
Earth’s reflectivity is not the significant a reason of
the Little Ice Age. She supports her idea by suggesting that an the amount of cloud cover (cloud cover이 뭐죠?)
decreased in the
Little Ice Age because of declined water evaporation. This view is contrary to
the reading passage that asserts that the Little Ice Age was caused by the
increase in the Earth’s reflectivity.
Writing 0-30 Score Scale Score: 23 (Fair) Overall Comment: 잘 쓰셨습니다. 두 글의 주장을 잘 비교해 주셨고 근거도 잘 설명하셨어요. 다만 위에 말씀드린 것처럼 문법 오류가 있어서 감점을 드렸어요. 어색한 표현들도 더 적절한 표현들로 바꿔드렸습니다. 수고하셨어요. |