Me:
The reading passage contends that the phenomenon known as "will-o-the ship" might be explained by three theories: chemical illumination, flying insects, barn owls. On the other hand, the speaker brings several points to contradict this argument.
First, the lecturer contends that the charateristics of glow produced during the chemical reaction between phosphine and other gases in the air are different from those of will-o-the-wisp. The former has cool and green color glow but the latter has warm and yellow color. It was discovered by an experiement. This casts doubt on reading passage's claim that the light might come from a form of chemical illumination.
Next, the lecturer points out that the scale of glow from Fireflies are larger than the one from this phenomenon. Also, It is found that unlike the one from Fireflies, the glow of will-o-the ship do not spread out. This contuers the reading passage's claim that Fireflies might be resonpsible for this eerie glowing lights.
Lastly, the lecturer maintains that barn owls' can not acoount for these glowing lights. This is because their characteristics of feathers doesn't match the conditions to be the source of will-o-the-wisp. For instance, Their feathers could not be reflective with white glow and the glow just floats in the air. This refutes the reading pasage's claim that barn owls may be the reason for this phenomenon.
GPT:
Your response to the TOEFL integrated writing task does a good job of summarizing the lecture and contrasting it with the reading passage. Based on the TOEFL writing rubric, I would estimate your score to be around 4 out of 5.
Here are a few points you might want to consider to improve your response:
Try to ensure grammatical accuracy. Some parts of your response contain minor grammar errors or awkward phrasing.
Clearly state the connection between the points made in the reading and the lecture.
Be more precise with your language to ensure clarity of ideas.
Here is a revised version of your response:
"The reading passage presents three theories to explain the phenomenon known as 'will-o-the-wisp': chemical illumination, flying insects, and barn owls. However, the speaker in the lecture presents points that challenge these theories.
Firstly, the lecturer contradicts the reading's claim about chemical illumination. He argues that the characteristics of the glow produced by a chemical reaction between phosphine and other gases do not match the descriptions of will-o-the-wisp. Experimental evidence shows that chemical illumination results in a cool green glow, while will-o-the-wisp is described as having a warm yellow light.
Secondly, the lecturer disputes the theory that fireflies might be responsible for the eerie glowing lights. According to him, the glow scale from fireflies is larger than that from the will-o-the-wisp, and unlike the glow from fireflies, will-o-the-wisp's light doesn't spread out.
Lastly, the lecturer refutes the idea that barn owls could account for these glowing lights. He maintains that the characteristics of the owls' feathers do not match the conditions required to produce will-o-the-wisp. For example, their feathers are not capable of reflecting a white glow that can float in the air, which contradicts the description of will-o-the-wisp provided in the reading passage."
Teacher:
First, the lecturer points out that the will-o'-the-wisp cannot be caused by phospine gas. Experiments demonstrated that the glow produced does not resemble the will-o'-the-wisp. It is a cool greenish light, which is unlike the yellow or white light of the will-o'-the-wisp. This casts doubt on the reading passage's claim that the will-o'-the-wisp is a form of chemical light.
* resemble~ = look like ~
Next, the lecturer asserts that fireflies are not a viable explanation either. The insects tend to spread across large areas, whereas a will-o'-the-wisp appears as a small ball of light. Also, they blink on and off, but a will-o'-the-wisp emits a steady glow. This counters the reading passage's claim that fireflies are the light source.
주어 동사, whereas(but, while, yet) 주어동사 주어 등사. However(on the other hand), 주어 등사.
Finally, the lecturer explains that the theory about barn owls doesn't make sense. These owls are not entirely white and, therefore, the reflected light would not be bright enough. Also, there is no consistent light source that would cause their feathers to shine steadily in the dark. This refutes the reading passage's claim that the owls create the illusion of the will-o'-the-wisp.
Tip
밀접한 두 개의 독립절 연결하기 위해 세미콜론(;) 사용
ex: students have opportunities to explore their talents; as a result, students can ~~
대문자는 항상 마침표는 뒤에만 쓰기!
; 앞에 So 등 접속사 안쓰기
~~, and: and 앞에 콤마는 있어도 되고 없어도 된다.
못 들었으면 One, the other로 해결하기!!
What's more ~~ / That is: 뒤에 집중
Voca
blink on and off: 깜빡이다.
look like, resemble
cause, lead to, result in, bring about, give rise to, be responsible for, be the cause of, be the reason for
be due to, be caused by, be triggered by, be attributed to, result from
A is different from B in C : A와 B는 다르다. C라는 면에서
in that C: C라는 면에서
A is similar to B in C: A와 B는 비슷하다. C라는 면에서
which is unlike / and this is different from / and this differs from
(ex: It is a green light, which is unlike the yellow light of the will-o-the-wisp.)
Q2
Me:
I understand why Minji and Terence mention digital magazines and brand reputation are good reference for buying goods. However, in my opinion, I believe that the recommendation from my family or friends will be the most trustful when I decide to buy something. This is because, as professor mentions, there are so many advertisement channels and It makes consumers hard to discern whether the reviews are authentic or not. However, I think other people's comments who especially are close to me are trustworthy.
For example, If I have to buy something expensive or related to health, I always ask for help to my close friends or those who are knowledgable for it. And It has been very effective to fail my purchase.
GPT:
Your response to the TOEFL writing task shows a good understanding of the topic and presents a personal viewpoint clearly. However, there are some minor grammar and vocabulary issues that could potentially affect your score. Based on the TOEFL writing rubric, I would estimate your score to be around 3.5 out of 5.
Here are some suggestions for improvement:
Try to avoid using informal language in your writing. The writing portion of the TOEFL is typically expected to be more formal.
Be clear and specific about the points made by the individuals you're responding to. Your current response doesn't give a clear picture of what Minji and Terence's points were.
Pay attention to grammar and phrasing to ensure your ideas are clearly and accurately conveyed.
Here's a revised version of your response:
"I understand why Minji and Terence believe that digital magazines and brand reputation are reliable sources of information for consumers looking to purchase goods. However, I hold a different viewpoint. I believe that recommendations from family or friends are the most trustworthy sources of advice when deciding to buy something. This is due to the fact that, as the professor highlighted, the multitude of advertisement channels can make it difficult for consumers to ascertain the authenticity of reviews. Nonetheless, I trust the comments from people I know personally and have a close relationship with. For instance, if I am considering buying something particularly expensive or a product related to health, I consistently seek advice from my close friends or from those who are knowledgeable in that area. This approach has proven to be effective in preventing unsatisfactory purchases."